324 Phil. 784
REGALADO, J.:
That on or about the 1st day of June, 1992, in the Municipality of Marikina, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with John "Tol", whose true nam(e), identity and present whereabouts (are) still unknown and all of them mutually helping and assisting one another, by means of force, violence and intimidation employed upon the person of Evangeline Gargantos, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away complainant’s personal belongings and valuables all amounting to P6,500.00, to the damage and prejudice of the offended party in the aforementioned amount of P6,500.00; that on the occasion of the said robbery, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with John Doe @ "Tol", whose true name, identity and present whereabout(s) (are) still unknown and they all mutually helping and assisting one another, with evident premeditation and treachery, with the use of superior strength and during nighttime, while armed with bladed weapon, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack assault, strangle with a cord of an electric stove, and stab said Evangeline Gargantos, thereby inflicting upon her fatal injuries which caused her death.[1]They were both found guilty as charged in the decision of said court, dated October 21, 1993, which adjudged as follows:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this Court finds both accused, Rhodesa Silan and Virgilio Garcia guilty as principal(s) of the crime of Robbery with homicide defined in Article 293 and penalized under Article 294. And, considering the aggravating circumstance of the crime having been committed in the dwelling of the offended party and there being no mitigating circumstance on record this Court sentences them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with its accessories provided for by law, to restitute to the heirs of Evangeline Gargantos the value of the article stolen from her house in the amount of P6,500.00; to indemnify said heirs (in) the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay the cost.We have carefully and thoroughly reviewed the records of this case, especially the transcripts of the stenographic notes taken at the trial, the documentary evidence, and the respective presentations of the parties, and we find that these findings of the court below which were adopted in the People’s brief provide us sufficient and accurate bases for this appellate review:
If accused has signed a written conformity to abide with the rules on convicted prisoner, their detention service if any should be deducted from this sentence computed as provided for by law.[2]
Investigation conducted by police investigator Ricardo Domingo revealed that Rhodesa Silan was seen by Carol Concepcion about 2:00 P.M. on either 31 May or 1 June 1992. Silan inquired from Carol as to whether or not there was anyone in the house of her auntie. Carol told her that there is nobody there because they are (o)n vacation. Silan told Carol that she would like to get something inside the house. About 7:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day Carol while fetching water, again saw Silan with a male companion going to the house of Evangeline Gargantos at the back. Carol did not recognize the male companion of Silan (TSN page 4, dated 23 Sept. 1992).It is appellant Silan’s position, as articulated in her lone assignment of error, that the lower court erred in convicting her of the crime of robbery with homicide without proof of conspiracy between her and appellant Garcia having been sufficiently established by the prosecution.[4] Parenthetically, appellant Silan also presented herself as the sole witness in her defense.
Investigator Domingo took the statement of Rhodesa Silan who at the time was assisted by Atty. Salvador Navarro. (p. 5, November 4, 1992, TSN). In her extra-judicial statement (Exh. "H") Silan stated that she went to the house of her auntie Vangie in the late afternoon of 1 June 1992. (p.4. July 1, 1993, TSN). Her companions in going to Vangie’s house were Virgilio ‘Billy’ Garcia and a certain Tol. (p. 4, ibid.) They went to Vangie’s house to get her things so they can sell them as Billy needed money. (p. 4, ibid.) Upon reaching the house of Vangie they found it closed. They went to the back portion where Billy used a screw driver in destroying the padlock of the kitchen door. (p. 5, ibid.) Once the kitchen door was opened, they entered the house, Silan going to her room while Billy and Tol went upstair(s). (p. 5, ibid.) While Silan was arranging her things she heard a loud sound of objects falling. She went up the house and found that an electric fan fell on the floor. She saw Billy and Tol searching something. (p. 5, ibid.) She also notice (sic) that the room was in disarray. It was at this juncture that Billy told her to get things that she wants. She then got two jackets, coleman, colored blue dress of Remia, perfume, make-up kit, t-shirt, girdle of Remia and plate with saucer. When they went down from the second floor of the house Billy talked with her and forced her to go to her former room where he forced her to have sex with him. It was at that instance when her auntie Vangie arrived and knocked at the door. (p. 6, ibid.) Billy then ordered her to stand up in one corner and told her he will take care of things. He then put off the light and opened the door and allowed her auntie to come in. (p. 6, ibid.) After her auntie entered the house there was a commotion. (p. 6, ibid.) She heard her auntie shouting ‘Who are you, why did you enter the house’ followed by shouts for help ‘Aling Lina, Aling Lina, tulungan ninyo ako, may gustong pumatay sa akin.’ (p. 6, ibid.) Soon thereafter silence followed. Then Billy returned for her and pulled her out the house. (p. 7, ibid.)
Some of the articles taken by Silan from the house of Evangeline Gargantos were recovered from the house were she is now living with her live-in partner. Said articles were identified in Court by SPO 1 Celso Cruz, the evidence custodian to whom the recovered articles were turned over after the same were recovered. (p. 3, October 22, 1992, TSN.) Remia Gargantos Gillo, a niece of the victim who also lived with Vangie in #29 Sable St., SSS Village, identified the blouse, the t-shirt, a bottle of perfume and powder case as that belongin(g) to the family of the deceased. (p. 6, October 22, 1992, TSN)
Atty. Salvador Navarro affirmed before the Court the fact that he assisted Rhodesa Silan when she gave her extra-judicial statement before police investigator Ricardo Domingo. (pp. 5-7, ibid) (pp. 2-3, Decision)[3]
Give or take a few passages, the aforequoted testimony of appellant Silan is a repetition of what she declared in her sworn statement aforementioned. The same, however, is further challenged by appellant Garcia as being inadmissible in evidence as an extrajudicial statement which did not have all the requisites for its admission as an exception to the rule of res inter alios acta. Although we do not agree with his strained dissertation thereon, it would be pointless to further dwell on that objection since the contents of the same have been reproduced as judicial admissions by appellant Silan’s testimony in court. Her admissions having been laid open for cross-examination, as in fact she was cross-examined thereon, the initial objections of appellant Garcia have been rendered academic.
Q Ms. witness, on June 1, 1992 at about 5:30 P.M., you remember where you were? A Yes, ma’m. Q Where were you? A At Caloocan, Quezon City in Bonifacio. Q What were you doing in Bonifacio? A I was with "Billy" Garcia and his friend (whom) he used to call Tol. xxx xxx xxx Q What happened? A He (was) asking for (a) sum of money. Q Did you give him money? A No, ma’m. Q Why? A Because I (did) not have money. Q So, when you did not give him money, what did you do? A I remembered that when I left Sable Street, and I have few belongings left behind and then he asked me if we can go there? Q What is that place? A Sable St., SSS Village, Marikina, Metro Manila. Q Who owns that house at SSS Village? A My auntie. xxx xxx xxx Q Were you able to go to that house? A Yes, ma’m. Q You said you went to that SSS Village, who were your companion(s)? A Billy Garcia. Q Only? A And a certain friend of hi(s) which I don’t know the name. He just called him "Tol." xxx xxx xxx Q Were you able to reach that house of Mrs. Gargantos? A Yes, ma’m. Q What time did you arrive? A At around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, ma’m. Q Upon reaching the house, what did you do, the three of you? A When we reached the house the door was close(d) and I told them, we just leave the house. Q Did you leave the house? A No, ma’m, because he was insisting to enter the house. Q Who (was) insisting? A Billy Garcia. Q What did he tell you? A He told us, we just enter so that we can get my belongings. Q So, did you enter the house? A Not immediately, ma’m. Q Why? A Because the door (was) locked. Q (How) were you able to unlock the door? A He brought out a screw driver and unscrew(ed) the lock. Q The door was destroyed, (wasn’t) it? A The padlock only was destroyed. Q Did you enter the house? A When we entered the house, I went to my room. Q How about the other 2, where did they go? A They also entered the house, and went upstair(s). Q How did you know? A Because when I (was) in my room downstair(s), I heard a noise upstair(s), as if something fell, so I went upstair(s) and saw that the door was also opened and unlocked. Q What did you notice? A Bill(y) Garcia and his friend (were) already upstair(s) and the room was in disarray. Q What did these two person do? A As if they are searching for something. Q What did you do, when you saw them as if they are searching for something? A I tried to stop them. Q And what was their reply? A Billy Garcia said, "Don’t make any noise. Huwag kang makialam dito, kami na ang bahala dito." Q What did they do? A They kept on searching and I went downstair(s), I continued arranging my belongings. Q After you were through in arranging your belongings, can you please tell us what happened next? A Billy Garcia handed me a white bag and we were about to leave. Q You were about to leave, what happened? A When we were about to leave, my auntie came. Q How did you know? A She was knocking at the door. Q Who open(ed) the door? A Before she enter(ed), Billy Garcia turned off the light in the house. Q After it was turned off, what happened next? A He told me not to panic because we can get out of the house. Q (Was) your auntie able to enter the house? A Yes, ma’m. Q What happened, if you know? A When I was in my room I heard there was a commotion, something happening. Q What is the commotion all about? A There was something happening in the house. Q What did you hear? A My auntie shouting. Q Shouting of what, what was her statement? A She was shouting, "Aling Lina, Aling Lina, please help me." Q What did you do, whe(n) she was asking for help? A None, ma’m. Q Why? A Because I ha(d) a mixed emotion at that time. I (was) afraid and nervous. xxxxxxxxx Q You said there was a commotion and your auntie shouting for help, what happened after that? A She (was) also shouting that somebody was trying to kill her and then after a few moments, there was silence. And Billy Garcia went to my room and told me we were leaving. Q So, after Billy Garcia entered your room, you left the house? A Yes, ma’m. Q Where did you pass? A The back door. Q Do you know what happened to your auntie before leaving the house? A No, ma’m. Q You said a while ago that your auntie (was) dead, when for the first time did you learn that she was dead? A Few days before my arrest.[13] (Corrections in parentheses supplied)
As to the accused Virgilio Garcia, the extra-judicial confession of her co-accused Rhodesa Silan, implicating him, in the commission of the crime charged is admissible against him if such extra-judicial confession is used only as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of his participation (People vs. Victor, 181 SCRA 818). But in the case at bar, in addition to the extra-judicial confession of Rhodesa Silan, she also testified in open court pointing to her co-accused Virgilio Garcia as her companion in entering the house of the victim by opening its back door with the use of screw driver. She also pointed to Garcia as the person who ransacked the bedroom of the house of the victim. She likewise pointed to Garcia as the person who ordered her to stand by in her former room while he opens the door of the kitchen and allowed the victim to enter the house. She further stated that after the victim entered the kitchen door, there was a commotion and she heard the victim shouting for help and that when the victim became silent Garcia returned to where she was, pulled her and together they left the place.[15]Finally, appellant Garcia bewails and assigns as reversible error the failure of the trial court to take into account his supposed illegal arrest which later culminated in the filing of the charges against him. We note, however, that he never objected thereto nor placed that matter in issue when, instead, he entered his plea on arraignment and went to trial. As the Solicitor General points out, even assuming that he was illegally arrested, this will not affect his culpability since an allegation of a warrantless arrest cannot deprive the State of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to his culpability.[16]
Immediately after their arrest, appellants x x x could have objected to the legality thereof due to the failure of the police officer to secure first a warrant for their arrest. Not only that, without having questioned the legality of their arrest, they even pleaded, on arraignment, to the information filed against them. Appellants’ acts constitute a clear waiver of their right against unlawful restraint of liberty. Besides, it would be impractical, if not ridiculous, to order the court a quo to set the appellants free then issue a warrant for their arrest, and try them all over again when appellants themselves have waived their right to object to such irregularity and when their objection is truly based on overwhelming evidence.ON THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against accused-appellants Rhodesa Silan y Roque and Virgilio Garcia.