Case Summary (G.R. No. 80179)
Factual Background
The victim left his house in the afternoon of 12 September 1981. He was wearing maong pants, a printed T-shirt, and Bally black leather shoes. On the morning of 13 September 1981, his son Remy Tan found him bloodied and lying on the pavement along Muelle de Binondo corner Lavezares Streets, in Binondo, Manila. He was rushed to a hospital where he died on 26 September 1981.
There were no eyewitnesses to the actual killing. The physical examination of the victim showed injuries on the head, eyes, and arm, including fracture of the lower teeth, which could have been caused by fistic blows or the use of a blunt instrument. The autopsy report attributed death to “acute cardiac failure due to massive epidural hemorrhage; peri-orbital hematoma, bilateral; contusion left arm, abrasion left forearm, fracture three lower front teeth contributory.”
Investigators traced the suspects through “underworld grapevine” in the Divisoria area. The suspects were identified as a certain “Boy Kulot” and his gang members, including the three accused: Cesar Murcia, Rey Manlapaz, and Renato Santos. On 27 or 28 November 1981, the police raided the house of Rey Manlapaz at 965 Sta. Elena Compound, a squatters’ area in Binondo, where the only occupants were the three accused. After being asked their names and informed they were suspects in a robbery with homicide case, they verbally admitted participation. When the police asked about the victim’s personal effects, Rey Manlapaz took the victim’s Bally shoes from under a bed and surrendered them to the police. Appellant also told Sgt. Crame that their intention was only to steal money and not to kill. The suspects were then turned over to the Homicide Section.
On 28 November 1981, Cpl. Fernando Jolongbayan investigated the three accused. He apprised them of their constitutional rights; they signed separate acknowledgments of those rights and answered affirmatively regarding willingness to give statements. Manlapaz and Murcia gave statements in question-and-answer form, while Santos gave a separate statement, all later subscribed and sworn before the Inquest Fiscal. Each statement admitted participation and described, in substantially similar tenor, the manner of assault and each person’s role. The excerpt from appellant’s narrated statement described how Boy Kulot attacked the victim, how appellant was called to strike, how the group assaulted and kicked the victim, and how they later divided money and took the victim’s shoes.
Trial Court’s Approach and Evidentiary Basis
When the case reached trial, appellant and his co-accused repudiated the extrajudicial confessions, alleging that the police had threatened them and physically maltreated them to force their signatures. Appellant testified that policemen brought him into a jeepney and mauled him; he pointed to injuries on his chest and abdomen, back, and head. He claimed that they told him to admit he was one of those who killed a Chinaman, and that he was mauled again at a place beside Tondo Church for about one hour. He further alleged repeated maltreatment on 29 November 1981, 30 November 1981, and that on 1 December 1981 he was finally forced to sign the confession after continuous abuse.
Despite these defenses, the Trial Court did not credit the torture allegations. It held that the evidence, particularly the testimonial and documentary evidence, established that the three accused acted with unity of purpose, intention, and execution. The Trial Court relied mainly on the extrajudicial confessions, finding them voluntarily executed. It reasoned that the accused did not complain of ill-treatment, and that if maltreatment had occurred as claimed and for the duration testified, they would have sustained severe injuries. It also observed that the confessions allegedly contained interlocking details that could not have been supplied by the police, because the essential particulars were the type only the accused could provide.
During trial, Alipio Cabalag testified that while tending milkfish baskets, he saw four persons pass by in a hurry, one of whom was Rey Manlapaz, and that Manlapaz was carrying the victim’s shoes. Cabalag testified the group came from the direction of Lavezares Street.
Appellant was convicted for Robbery with Homicide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
Issues Raised on Appeal
On appeal, appellant assigned multiple errors, including the Trial Court’s finding of conspiracy, its appreciation of the extrajudicial confessions (which appellant claimed were prepared by the police through coercion and without counsel), its acceptance of the testimony implicating him by his co-accused, and its overall evaluation of the prosecution evidence versus the defense evidence.
Appellate Court’s Evaluation of Extrajudicial Confessions
The Court rejected the Solicitor General’s submission that the confessions were inadmissible because of force and intimidation on the ground presented in the manifestations. The Court found that, considering the duration of the alleged repeated abuse, the accused “certainly would have sustained serious physical injuries,” yet they did not complain even to the Inquest Fiscal when they subscribed and swore to their respective statements, and they did not submit medical certificates proving injuries. The Court further noted that the confessions provided blow-by-blow accounts of the attack and the taking and division of the cash, and that the essential narrative details were similar among the three. It held that the interlocking details were of a nature that police could not have fabricated for the accused, since only the accused could have particularized those details.
Nevertheless, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the extrajudicial confessions of appellant and his co-accused were inadmissible on constitutional grounds. The Court stressed that the confessions were taken during in-custody investigation. Even though the accused were apprised of their constitutional rights and signed acknowledgments, the Court held that they were not assisted by counsel and did not waive the right to counsel. Citing the constitutional requirement under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, the Court reiterated the rule that no custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it is in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, appointed by the Court, or provided through any person on the detainee’s behalf. The Court emphasized that jurisprudence, including Morales vs. Enrile, People vs. Galit, and People vs. Albofera, et al., had consistently enforced the constitutional edict that uncounselled confessions are inadmissible.
Because appellant’s conviction had been anchored mainly on the confession treated as admissible by the Trial Court, the Court ruled that the constitutionally defective confessions could not support appellant’s conviction.
Treatment of Co-Accused Testimony and Remaining Evidence
The Court also addressed appellant’s implication by Rey Manlapaz in open court. The Court adopted the position attributed to the Solicitor General and counsel de oficio that the testimony could not be taken against appellant because appellant was not able to cross-examine his co-accused.
After excluding the extrajudicial confessions, the Court found no other evidence that established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court characterized Cabalag’s testimony as referring only to Manlapaz because Cabalag was unable to identify the other companions. It likewise noted that Sgt. Crame’s acc
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 80179)
- The case arose from an Information dated 3 December 1981 filed with the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXXIII, charging Rey Manlapaz y Mando, Cesar Murcia y Magpusao, and Renato Santos y Apilanes with Robbery with Homicide committed against Teodoro Tan y Sia on 13 September 1981.
- The trial court proceeded to conviction of all the accused and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, with accessory penalties, in a decision dated 21 February 1981.
- During the pendency of appeal, Rey Manlapaz escaped from the Ihawig Prison and Penal Farm on 2 February 1986, prompting this Court to dismiss his appeal in a resolution dated 15 June 1988 and remand his case for execution.
- Renato Santos likewise escaped on 2 February 1986, but was apprehended and recommitted on 6 February 1986.
- Santos then requested in a 21 August 1988 letter that his appeal be considered withdrawn and terminated, and this Court granted the request in a resolution dated 13 March 1989, remanding the case for immediate execution as against him.
- At the time of decision, only the appeal of accused-appellant Cesar Murcia remained for adjudication in this Court.
Key Factual Allegations
- The victim, Teodoro Tan, a Chinese businessman, left his house in the afternoon of 12 September 1981 wearing maong pants, a printed T-shirt, and Bally black leather shoes.
- Around 7:00 a.m. on 13 September 1981, Remy Tan found him bloodied and lying on the pavement along Muelle de Binondo corner Lavezares Streets, Binondo, Manila.
- The victim was rushed to a hospital and died on 26 September 1981.
- There were no eyewitnesses to the actual killing.
- The physical examination revealed injuries on the head, eyes, and arm, including fracture of the lower teeth, which could have been caused by fistic blows or by the use of a blunt instrument.
- The autopsy report attributed death to “acute cardiac failure due to massive epidural hemorrhage” with accompanying injuries, including peri-orbital hematoma and contusion left arm, and noted that the fracture of three lower front teeth was contributory.
- Police, guided by an “underworld grapevine” in the Divisoria area, were able to identify the suspects as “Boy Kulot” and members of his gang, including the three accused: Cesar Murcia, Rey Manlapaz, and Renato Santos.
- Police raided Rey Manlapaz’s house on 27 or 28 November 1981, where the only occupants were the three accused, and the accused verbally admitted participation after being asked about their names and told they were suspects in the robbery with homicide case.
- During the raid, Rey Manlapaz allegedly took from under a bed the victim’s Bally shoes and surrendered them to police.
- Manlapaz told Sgt. Reynaldo C. Crame that the intention was only to steal the money and not to kill the victim.
- The police were unable to trace “Boy Kulot.”
- The prober, Cpl. Fernando Jolongbayan, investigated the three accused on 28 November 1981 after apprising them of their constitutional rights, which they signed separate and apart from the body of the Statement, and after eliciting affirmative responses to willingness to give statements.
- Manlapaz and Murcia gave statements in question-and-answer form (Exhibits “B” and “C”), while Santos gave a statement (Exhibit “D”), and all three admitted participation in their respective Statements.
- The statements were subscribed and sworn before the Inquest Fiscal.
- In trial, the accused repudiated the extrajudicial confessions and claimed they were threatened and physically maltreated to force them to sign.
- Appellant Murcia testified to repeated maltreatment by policemen, including being mauled inside a jeepney and later again at places described in his testimony, and he claimed coercion to admit killing.
- In the open court testimony, Manlapaz pointed to Murcia as the killer while exculpating himself.
- The prosecution witness Alipio Cabalag testified that during the incident he saw four persons pass in a hurry and identified Rey Manlapaz as one of them, noting that Manlapaz carried a pair of shoes and that the group came from Lavezares St; the witness could not identify the other companions.
Procedural History and Appeals
- The trial court convicted all three accused and imposed reclusion perpetua, relying substantially on the extrajudicial confessions.
- On appeal, Murcia filed assignments of error challenging (a) the finding of conspiracy, (b) the admissibility and voluntariness of the extrajudicial confessions, (c) the trial court’s treatment of Manlapaz’s testimony implicating Murcia, and (d) the credibility of evidence.
- In lieu of an appellee’s brief, the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation seeking reversal and acquittal on the ground that the extrajudicial confessions were inadmissible because they were taken during in-custody interrogation without the presence or assistance of counsel and allegedly were procured by force and intimidation without evidence to rebut torture claims.
- The Solicitor General agreed that Manlapaz’s testimony implicating Murcia could not be taken against Murcia because Murcia had no opportunity to cross-examine Manlapaz.