Case Summary (G.R. No. 127473)
Key Dates and Procedural History
June 29, 1994: Incident alleged to have occurred.
July 12, 1994: AAA’s mutilated body discovered.
September 6, 1994: Information for rape with homicide filed in RTC, Puerto Princesa (Criminal Case No. 11984).
October 18–20, 1994: Prosecution moved to discharge Locil as state witness; trial court granted discharge.
March 7, 1996: RTC convicted Sunga and Lansang of rape with homicide (death sentences) and Pascua of rape (reclusion perpetua); Octac acquitted.
Automatic review by the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 47, RPC; Decision of the Supreme Court (Davide, Jr., C.J.) reviewed the issues and reversed and acquitted appellants.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework
Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post‑1990). Key constitutional protections invoked: right to remain silent; right to competent and independent counsel; right to be informed of these rights (Art. III, Sec. 12(1)). Procedural rules: Section 9, Rule 119, Revised Rules of Court (discharge and testimony of accused as state witness). Evidentiary standards: requirement of corroboration for testimony of accomplice/co‑accused turned state witness; standards for admissibility of extrajudicial confessions and waivers.
Allegations and Charges
Information alleged that on or about June 29, 1994, appellants conspired to have carnal knowledge of AAA by force and violence (rape) and, to conceal the crime, with accomplice Locil, attacked and killed AAA by repeatedly stabbing and smashing a stone on her head, causing mortal wounds and skull fractures — charged as rape with homicide.
Facts as Established by the Prosecution
State witness Locil (14 years old at trial) gave an eyewitness account describing that she boarded a tricycle in Mendoza Park with a lesbian woman and AAA, proceeded to Barangay Irawan where Sunga and Lansang confronted and pinned AAA, after which Lansang and others raped AAA sequentially; Sunga stabbed the victim’s abdomen and Lansang smashed her head with a stone, causing death; all then left the body and later transported/dumped it at Jacana, Barangay Bancao‑Bancao. Autopsy by Dr. Vigonte showed depressed skull fractures and intracranial hemorrhage consistent with blunt force trauma and opined multiple attackers. Other prosecution witnesses supplied post‑event circumstances (sighting of Lansang near the scene on June 30, inquiries at a sari‑sari store, statements to the victim’s father about knowing someone who could finger the perpetrators, and funeral expenses).
Defense Case and Alibi Evidence
All accused proffered alibi defenses with corroborating witnesses and documentary evidence. Lansang presented detailed alibi testimony corroborated by bank records (encashment of checks on June 29, 1994), receipts, jeepney/boat travel witnesses, and other witnesses placing him elsewhere at relevant times. Pascua and Octac also produced alibi witnesses and records; Octac had an employer’s log entry. Defense also attacked the credibility of Locil’s testimony and raised constitutional and procedural infirmities regarding Sunga’s extrajudicial statements.
Discharge of Locil as State Witness: Procedural Sufficiency
The Supreme Court examined the trial court’s grant of discharge under Section 9, Rule 119. It found that discharge may be moved for and granted at various stages (from filing of information up to defense opening), and that the trial court had already received evidence and Locil’s sworn statement during hearings on the bail petition, with opportunity for defense to oppose. The Court concluded the trial court’s procedure satisfied the purpose of a hearing in substance even though the formal motion hearing occurred contemporaneously with bail hearings. The Court also observed that the statutory conditions for discharge (consent of accused‑to‑be witness, testimony being absolutely necessary, lack of other direct evidence, susceptibility to corroboration, witness not the most guilty, and no prior conviction for moral turpitude) were met at the time of discharge, or that any procedural defects were not reversible insofar as they did not affect the competency and quality of the discharged witness’ testimony.
Legal Standard for Accomplice Testimony and Corroboration Requirement
The Court reiterated the established rule: the testimony of an accomplice or self‑confessed co‑accused who becomes a state witness cannot, by itself, sustain conviction and must be substantially corroborated in its material points by unimpeachable testimony or strong circumstances such that the accomplice’s trustworthiness becomes manifest. An exception exists where the co‑accused’s testimony is so straightforward, unhesitating, and detailed that it could not have been a result of contrivance; otherwise corroboration is required.
Admissibility of Sunga’s Extrajudicial Statements (Exhibits A and I)
The Supreme Court found Sunga’s two extrajudicial statements inadmissible against him and his co‑accused. Key reasons:
- Custodial interrogation protections under the 1987 Constitution required the accused to be informed of rights and to have competent, independent counsel; these protections attach once interrogation focuses on a particular suspect and custody circumstances exist.
- At the time Sunga gave the first statement (July 18, 1994, Exhibit A), he was effectively under custodial interrogation and his choice of counsel—Atty. Agustin Rocamora, the City Legal Officer—posed a conflict because that official’s role is akin to a public legal officer whose interests are adverse to an accused. The Court relied on precedent (People v. Bandula) disallowing such representation as independent counsel in custodial investigations.
- Testimony showed Atty. Rocamora did little more than facilitate answering questions and did not adequately advise or safeguard Sunga’s rights; the record lacked any testimony from Rocamora explaining meaningful legal assistance.
- The initial questioning by other police officers before formal investigation, and alleged maltreatment, reinforced the custodial nature preceding Exhibit A.
- The second statement (Exhibit I) before the NBI on August 3, 1994, executed while Sunga remained in custody and without counsel effectively present, likewise occurred in a custodial setting. The purported waiver of counsel in Exhibit I was invalid because it was not executed in the presence of counsel as constitutionally required.
- For these reasons, both statements were excluded as involuntary/tainted and inadmissible.
Impact of Excluding Sunga’s Statements on Corroboration of Locil
Because Sunga’s extrajudicial admissions were inadmissible, they could not be used to corroborate Locil’s account. The prosecution’s remaining evidence—autopsy findings and witnesses relating to events after the crime, plus some sightings and statements—did not substantially corroborate the essential material portions of Locil’s testimony (who identified specific overt acts and the roles of particular accused). The Court stressed that post‑event circumstances and the autopsy do not, by themselves, establish that the appellants committed the fatal acts or the rape.
Assessment of Locil’s Credibility and Sufficiency of Her Testimony
The Court carefully scrutinized Locil’s testimony and found multiple indicators undermining its reliability:
- The manner of testimony showed tentativeness, uncertainty, low voice and difficulty communicating that impeded credence; the record contained repeated admonitions to speak louder and instances where her identification and descriptive capacity were in doubt.
- Implausibility and improbability in material respects: it was unlikely that perpetrators would take a spectator to a remote locus to witness their commission of a violent crime and then later threaten that spectator into silence; such conduct is inconsistent with normal criminal behavior.
- Specific misdescription: Locil’s description of one rapist as having “singkit” (narrow) eyes did not match Pascua’s actual features; when corrected, this inconsistency damaged the reliability of her identifications.
- Background of the witness (teen pregnancy, use of an alias, living away from family) was noted as diminishing her trustworthiness in the Court’s view. Given these credibility concerns and absence of independent, substantial corroboration, Locil’s uncorroborated testimony failed the jurisprudential test permitting conviction on an accomplice’s stand‑alone testimony.
Circumstantial Evidence and Standards Applied
The Court reiterated the rule for circumstantial evidence: there must be at least two proven circumstances which, in complete sequence, lead to no other reasonable conclusion than the accused’s guilt. The prosecution’s circumstantial or ancillary evidence (sightings, inquiries at store, statements to father, autopsy) were individually weak and collectively insufficient to close the evidentiary gap left by the exclusion
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 127473)
Court and Citation
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc, G.R. No. 126029, March 27, 2003; reported at 447 Phil. 776.
- Decision penned by Justice Carpio Morales.
Parties
- Appellee: People of the Philippines.
- Accused / Appellants: Rey Sunga, Ramil Lansang, Inocencio Pascua, Lito Octac, and Locil Cui alias Ginalyn Cuyos (the latter discharged as state witness at trial).
- Appellants who filed appeals with the Supreme Court: Rey Sunga, Ramil Lansang, Inocencio Pascua.
Underlying Offense and Information Filed
- Crime charged: Rape with Homicide (against AAA, a minor, 15 years old, student of Palawan Integrated National School).
- Accusatory portion of the information (dated September 6, 1994) alleged:
- On or about June 29, 1994 in Barangay Irawan, Puerto Princesa City, accused conspired and, by force/violence/intimidation, had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will.
- In furtherance of the conspiracy and to conceal the offense, accused, with Locil Cui (a minor acting with discernment and cooperating as accomplice), took advantage of superior number and strength, intending to kill, and treacherously attacked and repeatedly stabbed and smashed a stone on AAA’s head, inflicting mortal wounds and multiple skull fractures, causing death.
- Case docketed as Criminal Case No. 11984.
Factual Background — Discovery of Victim and Initial Proceedings
- On July 12, 1994 the mutilated body of AAA was found at a coffee plantation in Jacana, Barangay Bancao-Bancao, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan.
- Rapid arrests followed within days; preliminary investigation conducted by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Puerto Princesa City culminated in filing of information with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 48, Puerto Princesa City.
- Upon arraignment, all accused pleaded not guilty.
- On September 26, 1994 defense filed bail petitions emphasizing weakness of the People’s evidence and absence of direct evidence at that stage.
Motion to Discharge Locil Cui as State Witness and Pretrial Events
- October 18, 1994: Prosecution filed a motion to discharge Locil Cui (then 14, elementary dropout, using alias Ginalyn Cuyosa) to be a state witness, submitting her sworn statement detailing the incident.
- Defense counsels opposed the motion arguing it could be filed only during trial on the merits and that Locil’s testimony was not absolutely necessary.
- October 20, 1994: Trial court deferred resolution of bail petition until after prosecution rested, but granted the motion to discharge Locil as a state witness.
- A petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed before the Court of Appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order enjoining trial; the TRO lapsed and the trial resumed.
State Witness Locil Cui — Background and Testimony (Prosecution’s Pivotal Evidence)
- Background details:
- Locil was 14 years old, an elementary school dropout, living away from parents, used alias Ginalyn Cuyosa to evade her mother and aunt after becoming pregnant (the pregnancy later aborted).
- Locil’s sworn statement and trial testimony (account in detail):
- At about 2:00 p.m. on June 29, 1994, Locil boarded a tricycle with a lesbian who had a birthmark on right face; driver identified later as Rey Sunga; they went to Mendoza Park.
- Lesbian left, spoke to AAA (in PINS uniform), and AAA boarded the tricycle with Locil; Sunga later left and Inocencio Pascua drove; the group proceeded to Barangay Irawan; in a forested area AAA was met by Sunga and Ramil Lansang who dragged her to bushes.
- Lansang raised AAA’s skirt, removed undergarments; Sunga and Pascua held AAA’s hands; Lansang first had intercourse (described as inserting his penis into her vagina and “pumping”); Sunga then had intercourse while Lansang and Pascua kept her pinned; Pascua also allegedly had carnal knowledge.
- After Pascua, Sunga stabbed AAA in the abdomen with a sharp weapon; Lansang smashed AAA’s head with an irregularly shaped stone, causing death; Locil witnessed all, was pulled back into the tricycle by the lesbian, and they left the corpse behind.
- On return to Mendoza Park, someone in the tricycle warned Locil to keep silent or something would happen to her.
- Locil did not report the incident until arrested after discovery of the corpse on July 12, 1994.
- Locil described subsequent conduct: on return four days later they went to take the corpse, Locil allegedly inserted a cigarette into the corpse’s mouth to conceal identity, and they left the body in Jacana, Barangay Bancao-Bancao.
Corroborative and Other Prosecution Witnesses and Evidence
- Oscar Devilleres (garbage truck driver): June 30, 1994 at about 12:30 a.m., saw Lansang near the coffee plantation in Jacana (where body later found), walking restlessly under illumination from an electric post (about 30 meters distance).
- Igleceria Gabinete (resident): Saw mutilated body on morning of July 12, 1994; that afternoon a tricycle arrived with three men, one (Lito Octac) alighted, two hid faces; one asked if the corpse was from Barangay Caroray; she later reported the three men to police and identified Lansang at police station as one of the men.
- Galahad Tan (AAA’s father): During daughter’s wake at Sampaton Funeral Parlor, at about 1:30 a.m. of July 14, 1994 Lansang arrived and told him: “Total tayo ay magkaisang barangay lang ay ayosin natin itong kaso at magtulungan na lang, mayroon na akong alam na makakapagturo kung sino and may kagagawan sa krimen. Huwag na lang nating sabihin sa mga polis.” Lansang said he would return but did not; Tan relayed this to law enforcers.
- Dr. Ma. Carla Gallego‑Vigonte (autopsy): Post-mortem findings — advanced decomposition; depressed fracture at frontal bone with rounded hole; multiple linear skull fractures; probable cause of death: intracranial hemorrhage secondary to multiple skull fractures. Opined fatal wound likely caused by blunt object (hard wood or rock); assailant positions relative to wounds; multiple perpetrators probable. Unable to determine whether rape occurred.
- Documentary evidence: Two sworn/extrajudicial statements attributed to Rey Sunga (Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “I/A” or “Ia”) describing involvement and sequence of events, including details about transporting and disposing of the body and Locil inserting cigarette into the corpse’s mouth (Exhibit “A”).
- SPO2 Jose P. Janoras: Investigative testimony recounting how Sunga was brought for investigation and executed Exhibit “A” with the assistance of Atty. Agustin Rocamora.
Contents and Variations of Rey Sunga’s Extrajudicial Statements
- Exhibit “A” (Sworn Statement dated July 18, 1994 before SPO2 Janoras): Described fetching AAA, transferring to jeep, proceeding to Irawan around 10:30 a.m., Lansang forcibly undressed and raped AAA; Lansang struck AAA with a 2" x 2" piece of wood and later Locil also struck the body after death; returned four days later to take the body to Bancao-Bancao; Locil inserted a cigarette into corpse’s mouth; named participants and indicated roles.
- Exhibit “I/A” (Sworn Statement dated August 3, 1994 before NBI Special Investigator Abordo): Differed in several particulars; asserted earlier agreement to fetch AAA; described different accompaniment and rapes by Lansang and Jun; claimed he did not take part in rape or killing and only joined due to promise of P500; contained a waiver of right to counsel.
- Sunga later made conflicting statements: initially affirmed Exhibit “A” during preliminary investigation but later alleged torture and coercion and claimed he only signed under duress; recanted or disavowed Exhibit “Ia” subsequently.
Defense Case and Alibi Evidence
- General posture: All accused proffered alibi defenses and denied involvement; several witnesses corroborated alibis.
- Rey Sunga: Denied involvement; previously convicted for robbery with homicide; alleged Locil is prostitute/pimp; claimed he was arrested and subjected to violence, coerced to “pinpoint” others; claimed involuntary execution of Exhibit “A” under threats and without counsel’s meaningful assistance.
- Inocencio Pascua:
- Claimed he returned the tricycle (marked Ryan‑Ryana) to its owner on June 27, 1994 due to engine trouble and thus did not drive it on June 29, 1994.
- Alibi: At San Pedro on June 29, 1994 from about 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. helping recover materials from a demolished house with uncle Victor de Felipe and a carpenter (Felix Mayor corroborated).
- Arrested July 23, 1994 without warrant at Narra; alleged police offered reward and wanted to use him as witness against Lansang; alleged intimidation and attempts to force statements; claimed he refused.
- Corroboration: Victor De Felipe, Felix Mayor, Filomena Pascua‑Tesorio (aunt), Espiridion Labotoy testimonial corroboration (testimony dispensed with when prosecution admitted corroboration), Cesar Batin (instructor) school attendance certification.
- Lito Octac:
- Presented employment logbook entry (Exhibit “9