369 Phil. 701
PER CURIAM:
"That on or about the 1st day of October 1994, in the Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court, accused Leonardo Aquino y Calot, with the indispensable cooperation of accused Eduardo Catap y Estrada and accused Jover Lofamia y Perlas, all accused with lewd designs and by means of force, threats and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one Angelita Anillo, six (6) years of age; that on the occasion of said rape, the above-named accused taking advantage of their superior strength, nocturnity and with intent to kill, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, strangle and inflict physical injuries upon said Angelita Anillo which directly caused her death.Upon arraignment on November 16, 1994, all of the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. Joint trial on the merits soon followed establishing the following material facts:
"Contrary to law."[3]Criminal Case No. 107066-H
"That on or about the 1st day of October 1994, in the Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Eduardo Catap y Estrada, with the indispensable cooperation of accused Leonardo Aquino y Calot and accused Jover Lofamia y Perlas, all accused with lewd designs and by means of force, threats and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one Angelita Anillo, six (6) years of age; that on the occasion of said rape, the above-named accused taking advantage of their superior strength, nocturnity and with intent to kill, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, strangle and inflict physical injuries upon said Angelita Anillo, which directly caused her death.
"Contrary to law."[4]Criminal Case No. 107067-H
"That on or about the 1st day of October 1994, in the Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Leonardo Aquino y Calot, with the indispensable cooperation of accused Eduardo Catap y Estrada and accused Jover Lofamia y Perlas (sic), all accused with lewd designs and by means of force, threats and intimidation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one Angelita Anillo, six (6) years of age; that on the occasion of said rape, the above-named accused taking advantage of their superior strength, nocturnity and with intent to kill, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, strangle and inflict physical injuries upon said Angelita Anillo, which directly caused her death.
"Contrary to law."[5]
"FINDINGS:To show that the victim was last seen in the company of the accused, the prosecution presented Junior Caloma, a 15-year old tricycle driver who testified that on October 5, 1994, he was accosted by a police officer who asked him if he had a driver's license. In the course of the inquiry, he was allegedly asked if he knew something about the disappearance of Angelita Anillo. He then related to the police officer that on the night in question, he saw the victim boarding a tricycle together with accused Eduardo Catap and two others whom he did not recognize.[11]
Fairly developed, fairly nourished female child cadaver in beginning state of decomposition. The 5th left toe is missing.
HEAD, NECK AND EXTREMETIES:
1. Lacerated wound, frontal region, measuring 1 x 0.7 cm., just right of anterior midline.
2. Lacerated wound, frontal region, measuring 1.5 x 0.6 cm., 4 cm left of anterior midline.
3. Contusion, neck, measuring 5 x 3 cm, bisected by the anterior midline.
4. Lacerated wound, dorsal aspect of the right hand, measuring 1.5 x 1 cm, 3 cm lateral to its posterior midline.
5. Lacerated wound, perineum, measuring 5 x 3 cm, bisected by its midline with extrusion of the small intestine.
6. Hematoma, middle third of the right thigh, measuring 19 x 6 cm, 10 cm medial to its anterior midline.
The brain is liquefied.
The tracheal luminae reveals hemorrhages.
The anterior aspect of the uterine wall is lacerated with herniation of the small intestine.
Stomach is empty and the rest of the visceral organs are autolyzed.
EXTRAGENITAL AND GENITAL:
The breasts are undeveloped. There is absence of pubic hair. The labia majora and minora are bloated. The anterior aspect of the vaginal wall as well as the cervix are lacerated.
Vaginal, peri-urethral and intrauterine smears are negative for gram-negative diplococci and for spermatozoa. xxx
CONCLUSION:
Cause of death is Asphyxia by strangulation.
Subject is in non-virgin state physically.
After the parties formally rested, the trial court rendered its decision[27] on December 1, 1995, convicting Leonardo Aquino and Eduardo Catap as charged and acquitting Jover Lofamia. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
"Q: Mr. Witness, you said you also requested Catap to sign this handwritten Extra Judicial Confession marked as exh. "O" and wherein he implicated Andeing Aquino as the one who raped the young Angelita and the fact that Aquino was the one who killed the child, before Eduardo Catap affixed his signature thereon, what steps did you undertake if any to safeguard the rights of the accused Catap?
A: Again, I apprised him of his constitutional rights.Q: Thereafter, what did Aquino (sic) do?A: He voluntarily signed and made those statements.Q: You identified exh. "O-1" which is the second extra judicial confession executed on Oct. 9, 1994 which was a clear reflection of exh. "O," the handwritten statement. After the preparation of this exh. "O-1," what steps if any did you undertake to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused?A: As I said, I apprised him of his constitutional rights, I asked him to read the statement and I explained to him in details the contents thereof and I asked him if he understood the same, thereafter he voluntarily signed this documents together with me, I also signed the document.Q: Were there people present when this was voluntarily signed by Catap?A: Yes, ma'am.Q: Could you recall who were present?A: There were lots of people present at that time but I really do not know whether they were policemen or media men, because there were many people at that time.Q: Mr. Witness, there was yet an allegation of the defense witness Aquino to the effect that it was upon your instruction that Catap implicated himself, Leonardo Aquino in this case When Catap was executing or giving the extra judicial confession, what can you say to that?A: When I arrived during the second time, Catap already told me that Aquino was his company and he changed his previous statement that there was another person, I cannot remember the name. I could not have induce Catap to implicate Aquino because Mr. Aquino was not known to me, so with Catap, and I don't think that is in accordance with my oath as a lawyer."[26]
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment finding accused LEONARDO AQUINO and EDAURDO CATAP GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Rape with Homicide each and imposes the penalty of:In convicting appellants, the trial court gave full faith and credit to the extra-judicial confession executed by Catap and circumstantial evidence pointing to them as the perpetrators of the crime. As explained by the trial court:"Accused JOVER LOFAMIA is hereby ACQUITTED as far as these cases are concerned for want of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court orders his immediate release from detention unless held for some other lawful cause or causes.
- DEATH to both accused, in Criminal Case No. 107065-H;
- DEATH to both accused in Criminal Case No. 107066-H;
- To jointly and solidarily indemnify the heirs of the victim Angelita Anillo the sum of P100,000.00 for each case; and
- Pay the cost of suit.
"Criminal Case No. 107067-H is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of evidence.
"Considering the penalties imposed, let the records of this case be elevated to the Supreme Court within the reglementary period.
"SO ORDERED."
"Admittedly, there is not one iota of evidence on record as to the manner by which the rape was committed or to acts done by the perpetrators which ultimately led to or caused the death of the victim. In cases such as this when the victim dies, and more importantly when rape was committed prior to said death, it is seldom if not ever that there is an eyewitness to the act itself. The Court thus, relies on mainly circumstantial evidence, which in the natural course of things would lead to the obvious conclusion and to the identity of the perpetrators. This is further strengthened if an extrajudicial confession is subsequently executed by one of the perpetrators. As the testimony of the confessant is usually the only direct evidence available, the Court is inclined to give credit to the veracity of said confession if the same fits with the corroborative testimonies of other prosecution witnesses."[28]With this case now on automatic review in light of the death sentence, appellants raise the following errors[29] of the trial court, to wit:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDUARDO CATAP.According to appellants, the extra-judicial confession upon which the trial court placed heavy emphasis to convict them was tainted with infirmity for non-compliance with the constitutional guidelines. To them, appellant Catap, who executed two confessions, the second one implicating appellant Aquino, acted under duress and without the benefit of a counsel of his choice. Appellants averred, thus:II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE.
"The circumstances attendant to its [the second confession] execution would readily show that it was taken in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused.These arguments fail to persuade us.
"As testified to by accused Catap he never retained the services of Atty. Campanilla to assist him in the execution of the said written confession. No less than prosecution witness Investigator Remigio Dugnot testified that he fetched Atty. Reynaldo Campanilla as the accused was allegedly ready to execute a written confession as regards his participation is (sic) the commission of the said crime. We submit that on this score alone, the constitutional right of the accused to be assisted by a counsel of his choice, as emphasized in RA-No. 7438, was already blatantly violated.
"Assuming arguendo that Atty. Campanilla was the accused' counsel of choice at the time he executed the said written confession, it is rather strange why he repeatedly remind (sic) the accused of his right to remain silent and right to counsel before the confession was reduced into writing and before the accused affixed his signature thereon (TSN, pp. 9-11, Oct. 6, 1995).
"Said lawyer's actuation only shows that he was not at the time acting as counsel for the accused but as an investigator helping in the conduct of the interrogation. Moreover, the presence of several policemen led by Capt. Balitao and Oscar Mansibang, at the time Catap executed his written confession clearly casts doubt whether the accused indeed voluntarily executed the same or under duress. Nonetheless, said doubt has been put to rest when Catap categorically claimed in court that he was forced and maltreated into executing his alleged confession. Catap's allegation of torture is not unfounded. Carlos Sabile, Jr., Special Investigator of the Commission on Human Rights, before whom the accused executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated October 17, 1994 (Exhibit "I") testified that he saw contusions on the body of Catap. The injuries sustained by the accused was also noticed by no less than Atty. Reynaldo Campanilla at the time he assisted the accused in his second confession for which reason he no longer required the accused to submit himself to a medical examination unlike what he did at the time the accused made his first confession. We therefore take exception to the court's finding that no external injuries were found on the person of the accused, as noted in the medical certificate dated October 11, 1994 issued by a certain Dr. Samuel Malinit. Clearly, said medical certificate states the fact that the accused (sic) physical examination was conducted on October 5, 1994, on the day the accused executed his first written confession, and not at the time he made his second confession on which the court premised its judgment of conviction. The aforesaid injuries sustained by the accused lend credence to his claim that his confession was secured through force and maltreatment. Further, if it was true that accused Catap signified his intention to confess his participation in the commission of the said crime after his arrest at the Pasig Police Headquarters, as what the prosecution is trying to impress upon the court a quo, then what could be the reason behind the execution of two written confessions. Certainly, there was a compelling reason why he execute (sic) a second written confession. Moreso, it was is (sic) the second extra-judicial confession that Catap narrated their alleged participation in the rape with homicide incident. Thus, accused Catap was indeed tortured into executing the said confessions."[30]
Aside from the above testimonies, a reading of the handwritten confession itself does not give the slightest suspicion that undue pressure attended its execution. The language used, the manner in which it was composed and written, as well as the fact that it was replete with details that could only be supplied by the accused and would not have been known to the investigating police officers were it not voluntarily made, convinces Us, appellant's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, that indeed the confession of Catap was made voluntarily. Appellant's claim that they have been tortured by the police officers investigating the case in order for Catap to confess is belied by the records. Mr. Carlos Sabile, Jr., the Special Investigator of the Commission on Human Rights, together with a certain Dr. Jessie Cruel, visited Catap in his cell on October 17, 1994,[34] eight days after he executed his second confession. While there was indeed a finding that Catap sustained injuries, the testimony did not show that these were sustained at the time the confession was made on October 9, 1994. Moreover, it was adequately explained by the testimonies on record that the mauling was actually done by inmates. The claim that policemen ordered the same is at best conjectural, Catap himself not having been able to identify who these policemen were. It is worth noting that Catap never even bothered to file criminal or administrative cases against the police officers when he had the chance to meet with the representative form the CHR who would have given him the help he needed in filing such cases.
"Q: When you finally decided to talk to Catap privately inside a room, what exactly did you tell Catap about this matter? A: I apprised him of his constitutional rights, the right to counsel, the right to remain silent and that anything he said might be used against him. Q: At that point in time, was Catap aware that you were a counsel or an attorney? A: Yes, I was introduced by the policemen to him as a lawyer.
Q: When Catap knew or learned that you were a lawyer, what was his initial reaction, if any? A: At first ma'am, as if he is (sic) in doubt whether to give his confession to me, but afterwards, for reasons I do not know, he changed his mind then finally started telling me what transpired. x x x x x x x x xQ: What did you do in order to safeguard the rights of the accused? A: As I have said, before I hear (sic) the confession of Catap, I apprise (sic) him of his constitutional rights, the right to remain silent, the right to have a counsel of his choice, and that whatever he is going to say might be use (sic) against him before any Court of Justice and likewise I told him that if he does not want my services, I can leave at anytime.Q: And what was the answer of Catap? A: The answer of Mr. Catap was that he is willing to give his confession before me. Q: And you previously stated that you are sure that no physical injuries had been inflicted upon the person of Catap, regarding this matter, what steps, if any did you take? A: First, I asked the policemen to have him medically examined, secondly, the confession he gave me, I asked him, in the presence of the policemen, to write it down, and thirdly, I asked for an identification card in order to be sure that the signature in the identification card and the signature he is going to affix will be one and the same to be sure that he is voluntarily making such confession. x x x x x x x x xQ: You said that you require accused Catap to write down the extra-judicial confession, was it first on Oct. 5, 1994 or Oct. 9, 1994? A: Twice ma'am. x x x x x x x x xQ: How many extra-judicial confessions were made actually in your presence and upon your legal advise (sic)? A: There were two (2). x x x x x x x x xQ: Initially, when you asked him to write down in his own handwriting the admission he wish (sic) to do, what was his reaction or actuation when you thus requested him? A: He voluntarily wrote down those statements appearing in the said document considering that at the time he already had his confidence on me. Q: When you said that he had already confidence on you what actually do you mean? A: Meaning he is willing to make those statements voluntarily having me as his counsel to assist him."[31] [Underscoring supplied]. SPO1 Ricardo de los Santos, on the other hand, testified in this wise:
"Q: How was this giving of extra-judicial confession made before the chief investigator? A: It was given orally before Chief Balitao ma'm. Q: When accused Catap gave his admission or confession before Chief Investigator Balitao what happened in particular during that particular moment? A: Accused Catap voluntarily wrote down his answers, ma'm. Q: And how did you come about [with] this? A: I heard Chief Investigator Balitao told Catap if he really want to admit the crime can you write it down. Q: And what was the answer of Catap? A: Yes, ma'm. Q: At the time Catap agreed to the said suggestion of Chief Investigator Balitao was Atty. Campanilla present? A: Yes, ma'm. Q: Did Catap actually write the same? A: The answers were written in every question, ma'm. x x x x x x x x xQ: After Catap signed this statement what happened next, if any? A: Capt. Balitao instructed me [to] reduce his confession into writing, ma'am. Q: Could you please tell the Honorable Court what was the medium did you use (sic) in reducing it into writing? A: Typewriting, ma'm. x x x x x x x x xQ: Before reducing into typewritten form the confession of accused Catap what step, if any, did you take as a police officer as a safeguard to the accused? A: I apprised him of his constitutional right and introduced myself as a police officer, ma'am.
Q: What are the constitutional right (sic) that you tell (sic) him? A: Right to remain silent to answer question and answer (sic); right to be assisted of (sic) counsel of his own choice; that if he cannot afford to get a counsel of his own choice, the government is ready or that he may avail the service of the government lawyer; and that anything that he would say may be used against him before any court, ma'm.Q: When you apprised him of his constitutional right particularly the right of (sic) counsel of his own choice, what was his answer? A: When I told him that he has the right to be assisted by his counsel he said he has his own, ma'm. Q: And who was that counsel? A: Atty. Campanilla, ma'm. Q: Was he present when you asked him of his counsel? A: When I asked his counsel he pointed to [a] man near him, ma'm. Q: When he answered that he has his counsel and even pointed to Atty. Campanilla as his lawyer, what other steps did you take?
A: I again repeatedly told him his rights and I asked him again why he was giving his statement, ma'm. Q: And what was his answer, if any? A: He said his conscience is bothering him because Helen Anillo was about to be interred. He wants justice, ma'm. x x x x x x x x xQ: So, after these answers of accused Catap what else transpired, if any? A: I told (sic) him why are you admitting it, don't you know that if you would admit it you would be imprisoned? Q: And what was his answer? A: He said he wanted that justice could be done before Helen Anillo could be interred, ma'm. Q: After this what happened, if any? A: I started to reduce his confession into writing, ma'm. Q: How did you reduce into writing the statement of Catap? A: In question and answer form, ma'm. x x x x x x x x xQ: You mean to say that these were the very answers from the questions propounded by you? A: Yes, ma'm. Q: And while conducting this question and answer, Atty. Campanilla was there all along? A: Yes, ma'm. Q: And Catap finished the confession? A: Yes, ma'm."[32] [Underscoring supplied.] Subsequent cross-examination of SPO1 de los Santos showed further how Catap's rights were adequately protected. 'Q And you said that when this statement marked as Exh. O-1 was being reduced into typewritten form of question and answer, Atty. Campanilla was present all the time? A: Yes, sir. Q: You mean to say Atty. Campanilla was teaching or coaching Catap what to answer? A: No, sir. What I mean is before giving answer to each question I asked [and] they talked and I just took down the answer given by Catap, sir. Q: So, do I get you right that everytime you asked question from Catap, Catap referred the matter to Atty. Campanilla? A: Yes, sir. x x x x x x x x xQ: Of course before you took down or reduced in writting this Exh. O-1 you managed to notice the physical condition of accused Catap? A: Yes, sir. Q: And is it not true that at the time he has still some questions in every part of his body? A: Yes, sir. x x x x x x x x xQ: And that was the physical injuries inflicted on him, is it not? A: According to him he was mauled, sir. COURT Q: Who mauled him according to him? A: According to him, he was mauled by the jail inmates, sir. ATTY. VERA Q: Did you inquire further from Catap why he was mauled by his inmates? A: Yes, sir. Q: What was his answer? A: He said his inmates were mad at them, sir. COURT Q: Did you verify why the inmates were mad at them so much so that they inflicted physical injuries? A: According to them the inmates were waiting for them as rape suspects, sir. ATTY. VERA Q: Is it not true that aside from these inmates who inflicted physical injuries he told you also that some police officers mauled him? A: There was no such information given to me, sir. Q: Are you sure of that? A: Yes, sir."[33]
"...At inontog sa pader ang bata at ako ang nauna sa bata at si Anding [Leonardo Aquino] naman ang nahuli... at pero si Anding ang pumatay sa bata..."[36] [Underscoring supplied.]It bears stressing that Catap's account of the events that transpired during the commission of the crime jibed with independent evidence presented during the trial which, apart from the confession, tend to show the commission of the crime.
"Thus, appellant Catap's admission that he, accused Jover Lofamia and appellant Aquino were in the company of the victim in the evening of October 1, 1994 on board the tricycle driven by appellant Catap himself is corroborated by "Onio's" testimony that he saw appellant Catap and two others with Angelita on board a tricycle driven by appellant Catap himself on the said date and time. Also, appellant Catap's admission that he and appellant Aquino raped Angelita, that appellant Aquino inserted syrup bottle into Angelita's vagina and that appellant Aquino banged Angelita's head against a wall are corroborated by Dr. Emmanuel Aranas' testimony that Angelita sustained lacerations in the head which could have been caused by a hard blunt object and that the laceration between Angelita's vagina and anus could have been caused by inserting a bottle with a diameter which could be accommodated by the same area or by sexual intercourse (TSN, January 19, 1995, 8:30 a.m., pp. 4-16). Appellant Catap's further admission that he borrowed a shovel from Jaime Benipayo in order to bury Angelita's cadaver is also corroborated by Jaime Benipayo's statement given to the police investigators (TSN, Feb. 9, 1995, 2 p.m., p. 9; Exhibit "P"; People vs. Bersamin, et al. supra)."Needless to say, a confession is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved[38] so that once the prosecution has shown that there was compliance with the constitutional requirement on pre-interrogation advisories, a confession is presumed to be voluntary and the declarant bears the burden of proving that his confession is involuntary and untrue.[39] We find that appellant Catap was unable to discharge that burden.
(1) Catap's confession itself implicating him;[41]As we have said, the foregoing circumstances, even if taken together, would not really establish that Aquino was a participant to the crime. If these would have any value at all, they would only place Aquino in a situation where he is a suspect and that he probably had something to do with the crime. But the realm of suspicion and probability are not synonymous with guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the saying: "The sea of suspicion has no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is without rudder or compass."[46]
(2) SPO4 Bugnot's testimony to the effect that Aquino admitted before the members of the media interviewing him that he was with Catap on October 1, 1994 but pointed to Catap as the one who actually killed the victim;[42]
(3) The autopsy report on the victim's injuries which coincided with Catap's description of how Aquino killed the victim;[43]
(4) Junior Caloma's testimony that he saw Catap boarding a tricycle together with two other unidentified companions and the victim herself;[44]
(5) Aquino's alleged flight to Dinalupihan, Bataan a few days after the crime was committed; and
(6) Rolando Laureano's testimony that Aquino twice sent the victim to look for him.[45]
(a) Accused-appellant Eduardo Catap y Estrada is found GUILTY of the complex crime of rape with homicide and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH. He is further ordered to indemnify the victim's heirs in the reduced amount of P75,000.00 as civil liability ex delicto and to pay the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.Considering the imposition of capital punishment upon appellant Edaurdo Catap y Estrada, upon finality of this decision, let a certified true copy thereof, as well as the records of this case, be forwarded without delay to the Office of the President for possible exercise of executive clemency pursuant to Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659.
(b) The trial court's finding of guilt on appellant Leonardo Aquino y Calot is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, he is hereby ACQUITTED of all charges against him. Let him then be immediately released from his place of confinement unless there is reason to detain him further for any other legal or valid cause.