368 Phil. 451
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"That on April 30, 1993, between the hours of 12:05 past midnight to 2:00 in the morning, at a house in Malolos, Bulacan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused DOMINGO MULETA y ROCERO willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of a woman in the person of Charito M. Delgado without her consent, by using force and intimidation and while the latter was unconscious; and thereafter accused Domingo Muleta y Rocero by reason or on occasion of the said rape incident, taking advantage of his superior strength, stab[bed] Charito M. Delgado in the neck and at the back causing the instantaneous death of the latter."[1]Upon arraignment on December 10, 1993, the appellant[2] pleaded not guilty to the charge.[3]
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds accused Domingo R. Muleta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of [r]ape with [h]omicide and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.Hence, this appeal.[6]
"The accused is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased victim Charito Delgado death indemnity of P50,000.00, actual damages of P44,000.00, exemplary damages of P20,000.00 and moral damages of P20,000.00.
"No pronouncement as to costs." [5]
"On April 15, 1993, nineteen-year-old Charito Delgado, a native of Oriental Mindoro, went to Manila to find work. Once in Manila, Charito proceeded to 1347 Banaba Street, Moriones, Tondo, Manila, where her uncle, Ruben Delgado lived. There, she stayed with her sister Marissa. Shortly thereafter, Charito landed a job as a saleslady at the Ali Mall, in Cubao, Quezon City.
"In the afternoon of April 29, 1993, Charito left Tondo, Manila and moved to Valenzuela, Metro Manila, bringing with her some of her sister's baggage. She, however, returned to Tondo, Manila to pick up their remaining baggage. It was the last time she was seen alive by her relatives.
"On April 30, 1993, Charito's lifeless body was found naked in Mojon, Malolos, Bulacan, tied to a post with the use of a pair of pants and both her hands were tied with a bra. Charito's body bore five (5) stab wounds, three (3) in the left side of her neck and two (2) at her back.
"The initial investigation on Charito's death was conducted by the police in Malolos, Bulacan but the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Manila, later took over and the case was assigned to NBI Agent Ely Tolentino on May 19, 1993.
"Based on Tolentino's investigation, appellant is Charito's uncle, [appellant] being the brother of Charito's mother, Milagros Delgado; that on April 29 and 30, 1993, appellant was working at the Loadstar Shipping Lines located at Pier 16, North Harbor, Tondo, Manila; that on April 29, 1993, appellant left his work at 9:30 in the evening; that appellant reported for work on April 30, 1993 at 8:00 in the evening; that according to appellant's wife, he left for work on April 29,1993 but returned only in the morning of April 30, 1993.
"On September 19, 1993, Tolentino went to appellant's house in Oriental Mindoro and requested appellant to go with him to the NBI, Manila for investigation. Appellant readily obliged. Danilo Delgado, Charito's paternal uncle, accompanied Tolentino and appellant to Manila.
"During his custodial investigation on September 19, 1993, appellant was assisted by counsel, Atty. Deborah [D]aquis[8], with address at Room 401, D & D Building, Pedro Gil and San Marcelino Street, Manila. There, he admitted having raped and later killed Charito Delgado.
"Another prosecution witness, Danilo Delgado, testified that during the wake of Charito Delgado on May 13, 1993 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, appellant became hysterical, crying, shaking his head and muttering: `Patawarin mo ako Charito, ikaw kasi lumaban pa, nakakahiya, mabuti pang mamatay na'.
"Delgado saw appellant drink a bottle of `chlorux', after which he fell to the ground. Appellant was brought to the Fatima Hospital."[9] (citations omitted)
"xxx [T]he defense presented the accused himself [Domingo Muleta] who testified that he was not the one who committed the crime [he was] being charged [with]; that he was just unscrupulously picked up by the NBI and forced to admit the crime in question; that on April 30, 1993, he was in their rented house at Camias St., Magsaysay, Tondo, Manila; that on that day, he left the house at 5:30 in the afternoon and went to the house where Charito Delgado was then residing; that he learned from his sister Milagros Delgado that the latter's daughter Charito transferred to another house and she was then missing; that he reported the matter to the police authorities; first, to the PNP Headquarters in Tondo; second, to the PNP Headquarters at U.N. Avenue; and third, to the PNP Headquarters situated at Caloocan; that on May 8, 1993, he found the body of Charito Delgado already lying in state at Valenzuela, Metro, Manila; that he learned from his sister Milagros that her body was found somewhere in Malolos; that he was working in the Load Star shipping as a welder on a contractual basis; that from April to May, 1993, he was applying to another company because Load Star Shipping closed shop; that on September 19, 1993, he was picked up by the NBI at Banos Gloria, Oriental Mindoro; that he was brought at Taft Avenue; that he was tortured; that aside from boxing and kicking him, [they] brought [him] to a secluded place; that he was blindfolded; that he was told to lie down on his back, his feet were tied and water was poured on his nose; that he was forced to sign a document which he was not able to read, that he was forced to sign the document because he [could] no longer bear the torture; that he did not have a lawyer at that time; that the NBI agent's name is Ely Tolentino who testified earlier in this case; that he knows that the reason why he was accused of raping his niece is that he gave an information about a woman he saw in the room of his brother-in-law Rolando Delgado.
"xxx [T]hat the last time he [accused] visited his niece in her residence in Moriones was April 26, 1993; that Marissa was present when he visited Charito Delgado; that he used to work at Lawang Bato, Bagbaguin, Valenzuela, Bulacan; that he did not work in Malolos; that when he saw the cadaver of Charito, he was so sad about her condition, that he [could] no longer recall what he did because of his anger.
"xxx Emelinda Muleta testified that her husband, the accused-appellant, never left the house in Tondo, Manila in the evening of April 29, 1993."[10]
"First, the accused is familiar with the place VOP Compound, Bo. Mojon, Malolos, Bulacan, where the crime was committed and where the body of the victim was found;In upholding the validity of the extrajudicial confession, the lower court further ruled:
"Second, the accused left his place of work at around 9:30 in the evening of April 29, 1993;
"Third, the accused did not go home in the evening of April 29, 1993 but went home only in the morning of April 30, 1993;
"Fourth, that during the wake of Charito, the accused went wild and hysterical and uttered these words: `Patawarin mo ako Charito, ikaw kasi lumaban pa, nakakahiya ako, mabuti pang mamatay na.';
"Fifth, the accused admitted in his sworn statement, that he uttered these words;
"Sixth, the accused admitted that he drank chlorox and was brought to the Fatima Hospital for treatment; and
"Seventh, the sworn statement executed by the accused contains details of the manner in which the crime was committed which only he could have known."[11]
"The contention of the accused that his extra-judicial confession [was] inadmissible because it was obtained through force and without the assistance of counsel is untenable. Well-settled is the rule that a confession is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved. In th[is] case, the presumption has not been overcome. The narration contained in the sworn statement bespeaks spontan[ei]ty and truth. Not only is the [confession of the accused] replete with details only he could have supplied, but the circumstances surrounding its execution belie his claim. Indubitably established is the fact that accused was assisted by Atty. Deborah Daquis who even signed the statement; that before accused made his extrajudicial confession he was first asked if he was amenable to the services of Atty. Daquis to which query he answered affirmatively. Finally, while accused recited a litany of alleged acts of maltreatment, no medical certificate had been shown to prove that he did suffer inhuman treatment. Nor was there any proof that he even initiated the filing of an administrative or criminal complaint against his alleged tormentors. Neither did accused present any eyewitness to the alleged torture. In short, his allegation, obviously self-serving, hardly deserves consideration. Noteworthy too, is the fact that he did not repudiate said confession at the earliest opportunity and did so only during trial, thus indicating that his repudiation [was] only a last-ditch effort to avoid the consequences of the crime.
"The court upholds the admissibility of accused's extrajudicial confession which, by itself, is sufficient basis for his conviction.
"The rule is, a confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience.
"Finally, accused's defense of denial and alibi cannot negate his culpability because these are not supported by any credible evidence other than his bare assertion. Additionally, there was no evidence of any ulterior or evil motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses that might have led them to give fabricated testimony against the accused."[12] (citations omitted)
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION AND IN THE PROCESS DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT."[13]A reading of the Appellant's Brief, however, yields the following issues to be resolved: (1) the validity and admissibility of the extrajudicial confession of the appellant, (2) the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and (3) alibi as a defense.
"A confession is not admissible unless the prosecution satisfactorily shows that it was obtained within the limits imposed by the 1987 Constitution. Section 12, Article III thereof, provides:Flagrantly violated in the present case were the appellant's right to be informed of his rights under custodial investigation, his right to counsel, as well as this right to have said counsel present during the waiver of his rights under custodial investigation.`(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel."If the extrajudicial confession satisfies these constitutional standards, it is subsequently tested for voluntariness, i.e., if it was given freely -- without coercion, intimidation, inducement, or false promises; and credibility, i.e., if it was consistent with the normal experience of mankind.xxx xxx xxx
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.'
"A confession that meets all the foregoing requisites constitutes evidence of a high order because no person of normal mind will knowingly and deliberately confess to be the perpetrator of a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience.[17] Otherwise, it is disregarded in accordance with the cold objectivity of the exclusionary rule."[18] (citations omitted)
"SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY NI DOMINGO MULETA y ROCERO NA IBINIGAY KAY NBI AGENT ELY T. TOLENTINO DITO SA TANGGAPAN NG NBI, ANTI-ORGANIZED CRIME DIVISION NGAYONG IKA-19 NG SETYEMBRE, 1993 SA HARAP NG ILANG SAKSI.The questions propounded to the appellant did not satisfy the strict requirements mandated by the Constitution.[21] Such "terse and perfunctory statements"[22] implied a superficial reading of the rights of the accused, without the slightest consideration of whether he understood what was read to him. This Court will not subscribe to such manner of "informing" the accused of his constitutional rights. We have stated this then,[23] and we reiterate it now:
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
01. TANONG: Bago kita tanungin hinggil sa pagkamatay ni CHARITO DELGADO y MULETA ay nais ipabatid sa iyo ang iyong mga karapatan na itinatadhana ng ating saligang batas, at ito ay ang mga sumusunod:
01. Ikaw ay may karapatang manahimik at huwag sumagot sa mga katanungan sa iyo sa imbestigasyong ito[.] Nauunawaan mo ba ito? (Sgd. Domingo Muleta)
02. Ikaw ay may karapatan na kumuha ng abogado na sarili mong pili, pero kung wala kang ikakaya ay bibigyan ka namin ng abogado para matulungan ka sa imbestigasyong ito[.] Nauunawaan mo ba ang karapatan mong ito? (Sgd. Domingo Muleta)
03. Ang lahat ng bagay na sasabihin mo sa imbestigasyong ito ay maaaring gamitin laban sa iyo sa alinmang hukuman[.] Nauunawaan mo ba ito? (Sgd. Domingo Muleta)
Matapos na malaman mo ang iyong mga karapatan ikaw ay nakahanda pa ring magbigay ng pahayag?
SAGOT: Nakahanda po akong sabihin lahat ng totoo.
02. Ikaw ba ay may abogado na matatawagan ngayon na sarili mong pili?
S: Wala po.
03. T: Nais mo bang bigyan ka namin ng abogado?
S: Opo.
04. T: Gusto naming ipakilala sa iyo si Atty. Deborah Z. Daquiz isang abogada na pribado na handang asistihan at tulungan ka sa imbestigasyong ito. Gusto mo bang tawagin natin siya bago natin ituloy ang pagbibigay mo ng pahayag?
S: Opo. (At this juncture, Atty. Daquiz was called first and the statement taking was temporarily stopped until after her arrival).
05. T: Ngayong naririto na si Atty. DEBORAH DAQUIZ, ikaw ba ay nais pa ring magbigay ng salaysay na bukal sa iyong kalooban?
S: Opo.
06. T: Atty. Daquiz: Gusto mo bang talikdan ang iyong mga karapatan na ibinibigay sa iyo ng ating Konstitusyon?
S: Tinatalikdan ko na po iyon dahil gusto ko nang ipagtapat ang pangyayari kay CHARITO DELGADO na pamangkin ko. (Sgd. Domingo Muleta)
xxx xxx xxx
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 19th day of September, 1993 at the Office of the NBI Anti-Organized Crime Division, NBI Building, Taft Avenue, Manila and I hereby certify that I have personally examined the herein Affiant and found him to have fully read and understood the contents of his statement containing three (3) pages and that he executed the same out of his own volition.
(Sgd.) Atty. ARTEMIO M. SACAGUING
Chief AOCD
(By Authority of Rep. Act 157)
xxx xxx xxx"[20] (emphasis ours)
"[The] stereotyped `advice' appearing in practically all extrajudicial confessions which are later repudiated has assumed the nature of `legal form' or model. Police investigators either automatically type it together with the curt `Opo' as the answer or ask the accused to sign it or even copy it in their handwriting. Its tired, punctilious, fixed and artificially stately style does not create an impression of voluntariness or even understanding on the part of the accused. The showing of a spontaneous, free and unconstrained giving up of a right is missing." (emphasis supplied)The Right to Counsel
04. T: Gusto naming ipakilala sa iyo si Atty. Deborah Z. Daquiz, isang abogada na pribado na handang asistihan at tulungan ka sa imbestigasyong ito. Gusto mo bang tawagin natin siya bago natin ituloy ang pagbibigay mo ng pahayag?
S: Opo. (At this juncture, Atty. Daquiz was called first and the statement taking was temporarily stopped until after her arrival).
Q Did you inform her [Atty. Deborah Daquiz] x x x thr[ough] the phone x x x why you were soliciting her assistance?
A Yes [,] sir. We told her that we have a subject to confess what he [did,] will you kindly assist him in this investigation[?] Q What was the response of Atty. Daquis?
A She [asked] me [if it] could xxx be made the following day. Q What was you[r] answer? A It is up to you, I said. Q If the request of Atty. Daquis was the following day[,] meaning September 20, are you saying that the statement of Muleta was given the following day[,] on September 20?A September 19, I started taking the statement. I think I just finished the question the following day I continued. [sic] xxx xxx xxx"[25] [Emphasis ours]Atty. Quintana amplified this point on cross-examination:
"xxx xxx xxxQ In the direct examination, you claimed that the accused Domingo Muleta gave his statement and made a confession? A Yes, madam. Q You also claimed that you started taking the statement of Domingo Muleta, the accused, without the presence of counsel? A No, madam. I took his statement in the presence of Atty. Daquis. Q In the direct examination on May 27, 1994, page 81, last paragraph and I quote: `A. September 19, I started taking the statement. I think I just finished the question the following day I continued.' Now, do you want to change now your answer that you took the accused' [sic] statement with the presence of counsel?A No, madam. Although I started to take his statement on the night of September 19, I continued it when Atty. Daquiz arrived xxx the following morning wherein the accused conferred with the accused, madam. [sic]Q But, [is it] not true that on the night of September 19, 1993 you started taking the statement of the accused without the presence of Atty. Daquiz and only continued the same on the early morning of September 20, 1993 when Atty. Daquiz arrived?A Yes, madam. Q Don't you know that as a police officer NBI a[t] that, that before a suspected person can give his statement, a counsel must be present at all times? A Yes, madam.
"At this point, it must be noted that Exhibit 2-A, the statement which Padrones claimed above to have been admittedly taken by Viloria on October 5, 1972 but, supposedly signed by him later and not on the same day before Judge Vicencio as he had previously stated, bears the following heading:We note that the heading of the sworn statement refers to the same date: September 19, 1993. It is thus daylight clear that the purported sworn statement of the appellant was prepared prior to the arrival of his NBI-procured counsel.[29] In other words, the sworn statement was executed and completed on September 19, 1993, while Atty. Daquiz arrived only the following day, September 20, 1993. Thus, when the appellant executed and completed his purported extrajudicial confession on September 19, 1993, he was not assisted by counsel.
`SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY NI MIGUEL PADRONES y ESPEJO SA PAGTATANONG NI P/CPL J. S. VILORIA DITO SA HIMPILAN NG PULISYA NG KABANATUAN NGAYONG IKA-19 NG OKTUBRE 1972 SA GANAP NA IKA 5:15 NG HAPON ...'
and ends with the following jurat:
`NILAGDAAN AT PINANUMPAAN sa aking harap ngayong ika 20 ng Oktubre 1972, dito sa Lunsod ng Kabanatuan.'
With the dates October 19 and 20 thus appearing in this statements, how could there be any proximity to the truth in the assertion of Padrones that his statement was first taken by Viloria on October 5, 1972 and that it was signed by him before Fiscal del Rosario on October 9, 1972 and that it was the very statement he had been referring to earlier as having been signed by him before Judge Vicencio?" (emphasis in the original)
We do not agree. At the outset, we stress that a careful review of the records of this case reveals that these pieces of circumstantial evidence were controverted by the defense and, even more important, they were not sufficiently established.[42]
- The appellant was familiar with the place where the crime was perpetrated.
- The appellant left work around 9:30 on the evening of April 29, 1993 and did not return home until the morning of April 30, 1993.
- The appellant, during the victim's wake, became hysterical and allegedly uttered: "Patawarin mo ako Charito, ikaw kasi lumaban pa, nakakahiya ako, mabuti pang mamatay na," after which he drank "chlorox."
"True, alibi is a weak defense. But then, so also is the prosecution's evidence in this case. x x x Indeed, it is when the evidence is purely circumstantial that the prosecution is much more obligated to rely on the strength of its own case and not on the weakness of the defense, and that conviction must rest on nothing less than moral certainty."[58] (emphasis supplied)Presumption of Innocence
"If a confession be free and voluntary -- the deliberate act of the accused with full comprehension of its significance, there is no impediment to its admission as evidence, and it then becomes evidence of a high order; since it is supported by the presumption -- a very strong one -- that no person of normal mind will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime, especially if it be a serious crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience." (emphasis ours)[18] Ibid., pp.453-454 (citations omitted).
See also Magtoto v. Manguera, 63 SCRA 4, 15, March 3, 1975; People v. Castañeda, 93 SCRA 56, 64, August 31, 1979; People v. Salvador, 163 SCRA 574, 582, July 26, 1988; People v. Pamon, 217 SCRA 501, 511-512, January 25, 1993; People v. Jerez, 285 SCRA 393, 399, January 29, 1998.
"01. TANONG: Bb. MERCY SANTOS y ENTIENZA, ikaw ay iimbestigahan namin sa pagkakasangkot mo sa kasong `kidnapping', bago kami magpatuloy sa pagsisiyasat na ito ay nais naming ipaalam sa iyo ang iyong mga karapatan sa ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas. Ikaw ay may karapatang manahimik at di magpahayag ng anumang salaysay kung nais mo, naiintindihan mo ba ito?[22] People v. Santos, supra, p. 455.
SAGOT: Opo sir.
02. T: Ikaw ay mayroong ding karapatan na kumuha at tulungan ng isang abogado na pili mo upang umasiste sa iyo sa pagsisiyasat na ito. Kung hindi mo naman kayang bumayad ng serbisyo ng isang abogado ay ikaw ay bibigyan namin ng isa na siyang tutulong sa iyo sa pagsisiyasat na ito ng walang bayad, naiintindihan mo ba ito?
S: Opo sir.
03. T: Ngayon, ikaw ba ay mayroong abogado na sarili mong pili para tumulong sa iyo sa pagsisiyasat na ito?
S: Opo sir, Nandito ang aking abogado, si ATTY. GORDON UY na siyang tutulong sa akin sa pagsisiyasat na ito."