Case Summary (G.R. No. 147201)
Factual Background
On December 2, 1994, at the Rooftop Disco and Lodging House in Barangay Quezon, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, the victim, Joseph Galam, was shot and later died of gunshot wounds. Testimony established that a man later identified as Benjamin Sayaboc arrived at the establishment in the afternoon, remained on the premises from mid-afternoon to early evening, and was observed by employees just prior to Galam’s arrival. Witnesses heard four gunshots after Galam’s vehicle arrived and then saw Sayaboc firing at Galam and fleeing. Another eyewitness saw Sayaboc run to and board a tricycle driven by Marlon Buenviaje, with Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso also aboard, after which the tricycle sped away. An autopsy showed four gunshot wounds, two frontal and two on the right side of the back.
Procedural History in the Trial Court
An information charging murder was filed against the four accused. At arraignment, all pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony identifying Sayaboc as the shooter and offered an extrajudicial confession attributed to Sayaboc, which implicated Marlon, Miguel, and Patricio and alleged a payment of P100,000. After the prosecution rested, counsel for Marlon, Miguel, and Patricio indicated a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence but filed a demurrer before securing leave. The trial court denied the demurrer, ruled that the unauthorized filing constituted submission of their case under Section 15, Rule 119, and disallowed their presentation of evidence. The trial court found Sayaboc guilty of murder with treachery and imposed the death penalty, found Marlon guilty of homicide as principal and Miguel and Patricio guilty as accomplices, and ordered indemnities and damages.
Evidence Presented by the Prosecution
The prosecution relied on the testimony of the lodging-house caretaker and waitresses who identified Sayaboc and described his presence and conduct earlier on the day of the killing, eyewitness testimony of the tricycle driver and a barangay tanod who saw Sayaboc flee to the tricycle and ride with the Buenviajes and Escorpiso, and the autopsy report of Dr. Antonio R. Labasan. The prosecution also introduced an extrajudicial confession in which Sayaboc purportedly admitted the killing and implicated the other accused, and newspaper reports referencing Sayaboc’s statements; receipts and testimony supported claimed wake and burial expenses.
Defense Contentions
Appellants argued that the killing, if attributable to Sayaboc, amounted to homicide only because treachery and evident premeditation were not proved or specifically alleged in the information. They contended that the extrajudicial confession was inadmissible because Sayaboc was not effectively represented by a competent, independent, and vigilant counsel during custodial interrogation, and that the trial court erred in refusing the Buenviajes and Escorpiso an opportunity to present evidence after the premature filing of their demurrer. The defense also challenged the appreciation of aggravating circumstances not specified in the information and sought relaxation of procedural rules to protect their right to be heard.
Trial Court Ruling
The trial court found Sayaboc guilty of murder, citing treachery as a qualifying circumstance and craft and price or reward as aggravating circumstances, and imposed the death penalty. The court found Marlon guilty as principal of homicide and Miguel and Patricio as accomplices, imposed indeterminate penalties for them, and awarded actual and moral damages to the heirs of the victim. The trial court disallowed presentation of defense evidence by Marlon, Miguel, and Patricio on the ground that their demurrer to evidence had been filed without prior leave.
Issues on Appeal
The principal issues the appellants advanced before the Supreme Court were (1) whether Sayaboc’s conviction for murder and imposition of the death penalty were supported by proof of qualifying and aggravating circumstances; (2) whether the extrajudicial confession was admissible in light of constitutional guarantees under Art. III, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution; and (3) whether the premature filing of a demurrer to evidence without leave had unjustly deprived Marlon, Miguel, and Patricio of their constitutional right to be heard.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on the Extrajudicial Confession
The Court held that Sayaboc’s extrajudicial confession was inadmissible. It applied Art. III, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution, noting that the right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel must be meaningful and not merely a perfunctory recital. The Court observed that the confession did not contain an explicit written waiver and reflected a stereotyped advisory that failed to transmit meaningful information to a suspect of low education who had been under police control for days. The Court further found that counsel, Atty. Rodolfo Cornejo, remained silent during the custodial questioning and therefore did not discharge the duty of a competent and vigilant counsel to explain the consequences of answering questions and to interpose where necessary. The Court relied on precedents including People v. Jara, People v. Deniega, and other authorities that require a faithful demonstration that constitutional safeguards were observed before an extrajudicial confession may be deemed voluntary and admissible.
Supreme Court’s Findings on Guilt and Circumstances
Excluding the extrajudicial confession, the Court found that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that Sayaboc shot and killed Galam. Identification testimony from employees and other eyewitnesses, the sequence of events placing Sayaboc at the scene before and at the time of the shooting, and his flight to a tricycle in which Marlon was the driver sufficed to convict. The Court declined to sustain treachery and evident premeditation as qualifying circumstances because the witnesses did not observe the inception of the attack and there was no proof of the time when a plan to kill was formed absent the confession. The Court also held that aggravating circumstances of craft and price or reward could not be considered because they were not specified in the information as required by Section 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a provision deemed beneficial to the accused and applied retroactively. Consequently, the Court reduced Sayaboc’s conviction from murder to homicide.
Supreme Court on Conspiracy and Liability of the Other Accused
The Court examined whether Marlon, Miguel, and Patricio were conspirators. It disallowed reliance on the extrajudicial confession and newspaper reports as proof of price or reward. The Court found, however, that circumstantial evidence established a conspiracy between Marlon and Sayaboc: the prior threat and altercation between Marlon and Galam, the lack of an evident motive for Sayaboc, the post-shooting association of Sayaboc with Marlon in the tricycle that fled the scene, Marlon’s flight from justice, and attempts by relatives to influence a key eyewitness. The Court concluded that circumstantial evidence, taken together, satisfied the three requisites for conviction by circumstantial proof and warranted treating Marlon as equally guilty of homicide. The Court found insuffi
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 147201)
Parties and Posture
- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES prosecuted the case below and is the appellee in this appeal to the Supreme Court en banc.
- Benjamin Sayaboc y Seguba, Patricio Escorpiso y Valdez, Marlon Buenviaje y Pineda, and Miguel Buenviaje y Flores were the appellants convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Branch 27, in Criminal Case No. 2912.
- The trial court rendered its decision on 9 November 2000 convicting Benjamin Sayaboc of murder and sentencing him to death while convicting Marlon Buenviaje of homicide and finding Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso guilty as accomplices in homicide.
- The appellants appealed the decision to the Supreme Court raising four principal assignments of error challenging guilt, qualification of the offense, admissibility of an extrajudicial confession, and denial of the right to present evidence.
Key Facts
- On 13 August 1994 Marlon Buenviaje had a public fistfight with victim Joseph Galam, threatened him, and uttered an explicit death threat according to eyewitness testimony.
- On 2 December 1994 Galam was shot at his Rooftop Disco and Lodging House in Barangay Quezon, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, and died of multiple gunshot wounds.
- Eyewitnesses Diana Grace Sanchez Jaramillo and Tessie Pilar testified that a man later identified as Benjamin Sayaboc had been at the Rooftop earlier, asked questions about a woman, ordered a beer, and was seen firing four shots that struck Galam.
- Barangay tanod Joselito Parungao testified that he saw Marlon Buenviaje, Miguel Buenviaje, and Patricio Escorpiso in a tricycle near the crime scene and observed Sayaboc board the tricycle and the vehicle speed away after the shooting.
- Autopsy by Dr. Antonio R. Labasan showed four gunshot wounds, two frontal and two to the back, and established cause of death as gunshot wounds.
- While in custody, Sayaboc executed an extrajudicial confession in Ilocano, implicating Marlon, Miguel, and Patricio, and stating a payment of P100,000; the confession was signed by Atty. Rodolfo Cornejo and attested by a fiscal.
Procedural History
- An information for murder was filed on 17 April 1995 charging the four accused with murder under the facts stated in the information.
- At arraignment all accused pleaded not guilty, and Marlon Buenviaje was arrested only on 10 July 1997.
- After the prosecution rested, defense counsel for the Buenviajes and Escorpiso sought leave to file a demurrer to evidence but filed the demurrer without prior leave on 12 July 1999.
- The trial court denied the demurrer and ruled that the filing without leave constituted submission under Section 15, Rule 119, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, thereby precluding those accused from presenting evidence.
- The trial court rendered judgment on 9 November 2000 convicting Sayaboc of murder and finding Marlon, Miguel, and Patricio guilty to varying degrees; the present appeal followed and the Supreme Court rendered its decision.
Issues Presented
- Whether the conviction of Benjamin Sayaboc for murder and imposition of death penalty were supported by evidence and by proper allegation of qualifying circumstances.
- Whether, at most, Sayaboc was guilty only of homicide for lack of proof of treachery and evident premeditation and for failure to allege aggravating circumstances in the information.
- Whether Sayaboc's extrajudicial confession was admissible given his right under Section 12, Article III, 1987 Constitution to be informed of rights and to have competent and independent counsel.
- Whether the filing of a demurrer to evidence without prior leave and the trial court's consequent refusal to allow presentation of evidence violated the rights of Marlon, Miguel, and Patricio.
Parties' Contentions
- The appellants contended that treachery and evident premeditation were not proved and were not specifically designated in the information, and that craft and price or reward as aggravating circumstances could not be considered since they were not alleged under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- The appellants further contended that Sayaboc's extrajudicial confession was inadmissible because his PAO counsel, Atty. Cornejo, was not competent, independent, vigilant, or effective during the custodial interrogation.
- Marlon, Miguel, and Patricio argued that they were denied due process when the trial court disallowed them from presenting evidence after they filed a demurrer to evidence without leave.
- The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the extrajudicial confession was admissible, that treachery was shown and properly alleged, that aggravating circumstances not alleged could not be appreciated, and that no exceptional circumstance warranted relaxation of the demurrer rule.
Identification Evidence
- The trial court and the Supreme Court noted that eyewitnesses Pilar and Jaramillo identified Sayaboc at the PNP Provincial Headquarters and in open court, and that a cartographic sketch was prepared.
- The testimony that Sayaboc was seen waiting at the Rooftop from mid-afternoon until the time of the shooting and then was seen firing and fleeing to a tricycle constituted direct positive identification.
- Th