People v. Gallardo Jan. 25, 2000 Pardo, J.

Recit Ready: How it got to the SC: Appeal from a decision of the trial court finding Gallardo, Columna and Micate guilty of murder for the treacherous killing of Edmundo Orizal. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. However, they filed a demurrer to evidence, on the ground that they did not actually make their sworn statements, and were forced to sign them through force and intimidation. The demurrer was denied. The case was thus raised to the SC on appeal. Procedural Issue: WON the extra-judicial confessions were admissible in evidence. Yes. They were well informed of their rights by Atty. Velasco Facts: On the basis of sworn confessions of the accused, the Provincial Prosecutor of Cagayan filed an information charging Gallardo et. al. with murder, committed: on or about July 28, 1991, in the municipality of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court Armando Gallardo y Gander, Alfredo Columna y Correa and Jessie Micate, armed with guns with evident premeditation and with treachery, did then and there attack, assault and shoot one Edmundo Orizal, inflicting upon him several gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his death. All of them pled not guilty. The body of Edmundo Orizal was found in the resthouse of Ronnie Balao in Tuguegarao, Cagayan. It was found that there were 7 gunshots all over his body. The suspects were found to be detained at the Camalaniugan Olice Stateion for other charges. However, upon investigation by the Tuguegarao police department, only Gallardo and Columna were found there. The 2 suspects were then brought to the Tuguegarao PD. They gave statements that admitted they, along with Micate, killed Edmundo Orizal. In these confessions, the suspects revealed that Orizal, a strong campaigner and bodyguard of Gen. Olivas, was ordered to be killed by Congressman Domingo Tuzon because Orizal was planning to ambush Orizal and grab his land. The suspects accepted the job , and set out to accomplish their mission with a .38 cal, .45 cal, and folded carbines. They boarded a tricycle and proceeded to Orizals boarding hosue . However, he was not there; rather, he was in the house of Aping, where the three suspects joined him for a drinking session. Thereafter, the group moved to Ronnie Balaos rest house in Balzain, Tuguegarao. After getting Balao to leave the rest house, Orizal was killed. The morning after, the three suspects rode a bus to Camalaniugan and reported the killing to Cong. Tuzon.

On Aug. 18, 1993, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence, claiming that the prosecution failed to establish that the signed documents were procured in violation of Art. III, Sec. 12, Consti. They alleged that they did not in fact make their sworn statements; instead, they claimed that they were merely taken to the police station, where Investigator Isidro Marco only allowed them to sign the typewritten statements, after eing harmed by Marcos, or threatened to be harmed by him. The demurrer was denied. Thus, this appeal. Issue: WON the trial court erred in admitting their extra-judicial confessions in evidence against them. (No) Ratio The extra-judicial confessions of the accused were given after they had been completely and clearly apprised of their Constitutional rights. A lawyer assisted them and a judge administered their oath. This was proven through Atty. Velascos testimony, where he stated that he asked Gallardo whether he was going to voluntarily give his statement to the police, if he was aware that his statement could be used against him in court, and if he wanted Velasco to assist him. He answered affirmatively to all these questions. This was corroborated by Columnas testimony, where he said he voluntarily signed the statement to the effect that there was no force or intimidation made on the persons of the subjects. While the initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused really has the final choice, as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. The lawyer is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection against his appointment during the course of the investigation, and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. Here, Gallardo et.al. did not raise any objection, and were given ample opportunity to decide whether to accept Velasco as counsel. Besides, Velasco assisted the accused, and made sure that the statements they gave were voluntary on their part. The judge in the case also asked the suspects whether their statements were made without force by the police. The suspects said that they were not. The statements are admissible. Judgment affirmed. Other unrelated issues/ratios: 1. The ff. are the requirements for a confession to be admissible under the constitution: a. The confession must be voluntary b. It must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel c. It must be express, and d. It must be in writing. All of these requirements were here complied with. 2. Also, the court ordered Congressman Tuzon and Patrolman Molina to be investigated upon. They had been dropped from the case because the confessions of Gallardo and Columna were supposedly inadmissible.