Title
People vs. Sunga
Case
G.R. No. 126029
Decision Date
Mar 27, 2003
A 15-year-old was raped and killed in Palawan; accused were acquitted due to unreliable testimony, inadmissible confessions, and insufficient evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 126029)

Key Dates

June 29, 1994 – Alleged rape and homicide of AAA in Barangay Irawan, Puerto Princesa City
July 12, 1994 – Discovery of AAA’s mutilated body in Barangay Bancao-Bancao
September 6, 1994 – Information for rape with homicide filed against the accused
October 20, 1994 – Trial court grants discharge of Locil Cui as state witness
March 7, 1996 – RTC conviction of Sunga, Lansang, and Pascua; acquittal of Octac
March 27, 2003 – Supreme Court decision reversing convictions

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution – Right to counsel (Art. III, Sec. 12), privilege against self-incrimination
Revised Rules of Court, Rule 119, Sec. 9 – Discharge and use of a co-accused as state witness
Revised Penal Code – Rape with homicide; Article 47 automatic review

Factual Background

AAA, a 15-year-old student, was found raped and fatally injured by blunt force. Police investigations led to the arrest of five suspects, including Sunga, Lansang, Pascua, Octac, and Locil Cui. Locil was discharged as an accomplice and testified to the sequence of events: she claimed that appellants conspired to seize, rape, and murder AAA in a secluded area, after which they transported her body. Other witnesses described post-crime movements of the accused and the autopsy confirmed multiple skull fractures causing intracranial hemorrhage.

Procedural History

• Preliminary Investigation: Petition for bail by the accused; motion by the prosecution to discharge Locil as state witness granted during bail hearings.
• Trial Court (Branch 48 RTC, Puerto Princesa City): Relied heavily on Locil’s uncorroborated testimony and two extrajudicial “confessions” of Sunga; convicted Sunga and Lansang of rape with homicide (death penalty) and Pascua of rape (reclusion perpetua); acquitted Octac.
• Automatic Supreme Court Review: Issues posed—legality of Locil’s discharge and sufficiency of evidence to satisfy guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Discharge of State Witness

The Supreme Court found no reversible error in discharging Locil under Rule 119, Sec. 9:
• Consent of the accused obtained;
• Testimony deemed essential in absence of other direct evidence;
• Locil not the most culpable and free from prior conviction for moral turpitude;
• Potential for corroboration existed.
A mixed hearing on bail and discharge sufficed to satisfy due process in her release as state witness.

Admissibility of Extrajudicial Statements

Two statements by Sunga were challenged:
• First “admission” (July 18, 1994) before police investigator, with Atty. Rocamora (City Legal Officer) purportedly assisting;
• Second statement (August 3, 1994) before NBI without counsel.
The Court held both inadmissible under the 1987 Constitution’s guarantee of counsel in custodial investigations:
• A city legal officer is akin to a prosecutor and cannot serve as independent counsel;
• No valid waiver of right to counsel;
• Statements made in custody under interrogation without proper legal assistance must be excluded.

Corroboration and Reliability of State Witness

Jurisdictional rule requires that testimony of an accomplice-turned-state witness be corroborated by independent evidence. The Court assessed:
• Extrajudicial statements excluded, thus unavailable for corroboration;
• Other testimonial and circumstantial evidence (post-crime sightings, autopsy findings, inquiries at a sari-sari store) did not directly prove participation in the rape or homicide;
• Locil’s in-court testimon



...continue reading

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