Title
People vs. Senarosa
Case
G.R. No. 239480
Decision Date
Sep 28, 2022
Ambush in Aklan led to murder charges; Gideon SeAarosa acquitted as extrajudicial confession deemed inadmissible, insufficient evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 239480)

Petitioner

People of the Philippines

Respondent

Gideon SeAarosa (accused-appellant)

Key Dates

  • May 3, 1995: Attack on Feliciano’s vehicle
  • April 26, 2004: RTC conviction for Murder and Frustrated Murder
  • November 9, 2017: CA decision affirming Murder, downgrading to Attempted Murder
  • September 28, 2022: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2 (unreasonable searches and seizures)
  • 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 12 (rights of persons under custodial investigation)
  • Republic Act No. 7438 (rights of arrested/detained persons)
  • Revised Penal Code, Articles 248 (Murder) and 6 (Attempted crimes)
  • Exclusionary Rule (fruit of the poisonous tree)

Factual Background

In the evening of May 3, 1995, Phil Feliciano, his wife Melbeth, Ex Feliciano, and Codesta were delivering prawns in a pick-up truck. As the vehicle ascended a road in Barangay Fulgencio, assailants opened fire, killing Phil and wounding Codesta. Witnesses identified Esperidion and Nadura among two attackers who emerged from concealment.

Procedural History

Branch 9, RTC of Kalibo, Aklan, convicted Esperidion, Nadura, SeAarosa, and Relimbo for Murder (Phil’s death) and Frustrated Murder (Codesta’s injuries). On post-judgment motions, charges against Relimbo and the deceased Nadura were dismissed. The CA affirmed the Murder conviction for Esperidion and SeAarosa, imposed reclusion perpetua, and modified Frustrated Murder to Attempted Murder.

Issue on Appeal

Whether SeAarosa’s conviction for Murder and Attempted Murder should stand given: (1) an allegedly unconstitutional warrantless search and seizure of his belongings at a fixed checkpoint, and (2) the admissibility of his extrajudicial confession.

Analysis of Warrantless Search

Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution requires warrants for searches except in narrow, justified circumstances. Checkpoint inspections are limited to visual examination. Here, police at a fixed checkpoint ordered SeAarosa’s baggage—alone among many others—to be brought down, opened, and searched based on his pale demeanor and wet pants. The Court found no objectively reasonable or probable cause for an extensive search, only a preconceived suspicion by an officer who “knew” SeAarosa. Under controlling jurisprudence, such targeted, non-visual searches violate the exclusionary rule.

Analysis of Extrajudicial Confession

Article III, Section 12 and R.A. 7438 mandate that any person under custodial investigation be informed of the right to remain silent and to have competent, independent counsel of choice, with any waiver in writing and in counsel’s presence. SeAarosa, a first-grade finish, received a cursory advisement in English then translation by a lawyer provided by the police. There was no demonstration of meaningful communication, voluntary waiver, or independent advice. The lawyer’s role was limited to translation and witnessing, without verifying comprehension. The confession was therefore involuntary and inadmissible.

Application of the Exclusio

...continue reading

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