Title
People vs. Obedoza
Case
G.R. No. L-30577
Decision Date
Jul 24, 1981
Armed robbery led to a farmer’s death; confessions deemed inadmissible due to coercion, alibis credible, and insufficient evidence acquitted two accused.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30577)

Focus of the Crime and Investigation

The crime involved the unlawful taking of four carabaos and one cow from Maximiniano Cabangcala, who was shot by one of the robbers, Ben Bocasas. The police investigation culminated in October 1967 when Lauro Alcantara reportedly confessed to his involvement and named his accomplices, including Ricarte Obedoza. Alcantara’s confession indicated that he was present during the commission of the crime and identified Ambrocio Sumalbag as the mastermind behind the robbery.

Legal Proceedings and Charges

Following the investigation, a complaint for "Robbery in Band with Homicide" was filed on November 22, 1967, against the accused. By March 18, 1968, formal information was presented to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, detailing the roles of each accused in both the robbery and the homicide of Maximiniano Cabangcala.

Trial and Conviction

The trial proceeded with only a few of the accused being present, specifically Londring Martinez, Ambrocio Sumalbag, and Lauro Alcantara; the remaining accused were at large. On March 26, 1969, the trial court convicted these three individuals, sentencing them to life imprisonment, ordering them to indemnify the heirs of Cabangcala, and to cover the costs of the trial.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution relied heavily on the confessions of Alcantara and Obedoza, which outlined the events of the robbery and identified the gunman. However, these confessions faced scrutiny regarding their admissibility and reliability, as they appeared to have been obtained under questionable circumstances, including alleged coercion.

Defense Claims

The defense presented alibis for the accused, suggesting they were elsewhere during the commission of the crime, and highlighted claims of coercion regarding the confessions. Alcantara argued he was tortured into confessing, and he contended he had no knowledge of the charges prior to his detention. Martinez and Sumalbag also maintained their innocence by providing their whereabouts on the night of the offense.

Critical Examination of Confessions

A significant point of contention arose around the confessions of Alcantara and Obedoza, as the trial court's reliance on these statements was challenged. The accused argued that the confessions were extracted under duress and that the police exerted forceful methods to secure admissions of guilt, undermining their voluntariness and validity as evidence.

Con

...continue reading

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