G.R. No. 104663 - People vs. Salvatierra y Eguia

Case Summary (G.R. No. 104663)

Facts of the Case

At around 4:30 PM on August 17, 1990, Charlie Fernandez was attacked by three persons, including the appellant David Salvatierra, along M. de la Fuente Street, near the Trabajo Market in Sampaloc, Manila. Salvatierra stabbed Fernandez twice—once at the left breast and twice in total, with additional wounds on the left forearm and wrist. Fernandez managed to get home but suddenly collapsed and was hospitalized. The attack was witnessed by Milagros Martinez, an ambulant vendor who initially refrained from reporting due to fear. Fernandez’s father, Marciano Fernandez, reported the incident to the police. Charlie Fernandez died the following day of hemorrhage caused by the stab wounds.

Arrest and Investigation

On November 15, 1990, police apprehended Salvatierra following a complaint of commotion and subsequently transferred him to the Western Police District (WPD) where he was identified by witness Milagros Martinez in a police line-up held on November 17, 1990. Martinez then executed a sworn statement implicating Salvatierra.

Charges and Plea

On November 19, 1990, Salvatierra was charged with murder, specifically qualified by treachery. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty, and he later asserted an alibi that at the time of the attack, he was at home with his family.

Appellant’s Defense and Claims

Salvatierra raised several defenses and claims on appeal:

Illegal arrest and violation of constitutional rights due to the absence of a warrant and the arrest occurring three months after the offense.
Questioning the presence of treachery in the attack.
Challenging the credibility of the sole eyewitness, Milagros Martinez, citing inconsistencies and ambiguity in her testimony.

Legal Analysis on Arrest and Constitutional Rights

The court acknowledged that the appellant's arrest was made without a warrant and three months post-crime, which violated the rule requiring immediacy between the offense and arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the Rules of Court. Despite this, the court held that Salvatierra waived the right to question the legality of the arrest because he failed to raise the issue before pleading, thereby submitting voluntarily to the court's jurisdiction. The doctrine that objections to warrantless arrest must be raised before plea was applied. The court further declared that illegal arrest does not in itself invalidate a valid judgment if the trial was fair and based on sufficient evidence.

Right to Counsel during Custodial Investigation and Police Line-up

Salvatierra argued deprivation of his right to counsel during the investigatory stages, specifically during the police line-up and signing of the booking and information sheets. The court distinguished this case from People v. Campos and People v. Vasquez, arguing that there were other incriminating evidence beyond extrajudicial confessions. It also applied the ruling in People v. Lamsing, clarifying that the right to counsel does not extend to the police lineup stage as it precedes the accusatory phase. The court upheld the admissibility of the lineup identification and discounted the claim about signing the booking sheet under duress due to the sufficiency of other evidence.

Eyewitness Testimony and Credibility

Milagros Martinez’s testimony was found credible despite allegations of inconsistencies such as the delay in reporting the incident, inability to vividly describe companions, and some discrepancies about the sequence of events. The court recognized that minor inconsistencies are often indicators of truthful, unrehearsed testimony, especially from an uneducated witness. Martinez was positioned eight meters away from the incident during broad daylight, ensuring proper opportunity for identification. Her initial reluctance to report was attributed to fear given the appellant's reputation as a known tough individual and member of a notorious group. The fact that she was persuaded later to testify was explained by the natural reluctance of witnesses in violent crimes to expose themselves due to safety concerns.

Rejection of Allegations of Collusion and Hostility

The defense’s insinuations of collusion between Marciano Fernandez and Martinez were considered baseless and unsupported by factual evidence. Martinez was even declared a hostile witness by the defense, but her consistent identification of Salvatierra as the perpetrator was sustained and accepted by the court.

Treachery as an Element of Murder

The appellant contended that treachery was not present because the other two assailants allegedly did nothing and the attack was a spontaneous act. The court held that treachery was sufficiently proved as Salvatierra and his companions suddenly surrounded an unarmed victim and stabbed him without the possibility of defense. The frontal attack did not negate treachery since it was sudden and unexpected. The presence of a defensive wound on the victim w

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 104663)

Case Background and Chronology of Events

On August 17, 1990, at around 4:30 PM, Charlie Fernandez, a vendor of apalamiga, was walking along M. de la Fuente Street, Manila, heading toward Quiapo on the opposite side of the street.
Three persons approached Charlie; one was the accused, David Salvatierra y Eguia, who lunged at Charlie with a pointed instrument.
Charlie managed to parry the first thrust but was subsequently stabbed in the left breast.
The assailants immediately fled the scene.
Despite the wound, Charlie walked home to inform his father, Marciano Fernandez, about the attack but suddenly collapsed and was taken to the hospital where he underwent surgery.
Charlie succumbed to his wounds on August 18, 1990, specifically due to hemorrhage secondary to the stab wound on the chest.
Besides the chest wound, medical examination revealed a stab wound on the left forearm and an incised wound on the left wrist.
Marciano Fernandez reported the incident to Police Station No. 4 at around 5:40 PM on the day of the attack.
Initial police investigation was inconclusive as witnesses were reluctant to identify the attackers.
A relative of the victim identified David Salvatierra as a suspect.
On November 15, 1990, police arrested the accused for creating a commotion and later discovered he was a suspect in the Fernandez stabbing.
The accused was transferred to the Western Police District (WPD), where the eyewitness, Milagros Martinez, was persuaded by the victim's father to testify.
Martinez identified David as the attacker during a police lineup conducted on November 17, 1990.

Charges and Trial Proceedings

On November 19, 1990, an information charging David Salvatierra with murder was filed.
The charge detailed wounding the victim with treachery and evident premeditation on August 17, 1990, resulting in Charlie Fernandez’s death.
David pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
His defense was centered on an alibi, claiming he was at home with family during the attack.
He also testified about his arrest on November 15, 1990, for a minor offense and his subsequent detention and interrogation for the stabbing case.
David alleged coercion in signing the booking and information sheets while in police custody.

Appellant’s Assignments of Error

First Assignment: The trial court erred in not finding that the arrest, investigation, and detention of the accused violated constitutional rights, especially addressing lack of a warrant.
Second Assignment: The court incorrectly found that treachery attended the killing.
Third Assignment: The court erroneously accepted the questionable and ambiguous testimony of eyewitness Milagros Martinez as sufficient basis for conviction.

Issues Concerning Arrest and Custodial Rights

The accused's arrest was conducted without a warrant nearly three months after the crime, contrary to the law’s requirement for immediacy.
Despite this, the court ruled that failure to file a motion to quash for illegal arrest before pleading guilty constituted waiver of the right to raise it later.
The accused voluntarily submitted to court jur