Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 100920 June 17, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NOLI SALCEDO @ !A TON", GEMO I#A$E% @ !A TITING, #OLODO"
CALDERON, JUANITO SUAL, JR., EDISON #ANCULO, NONO" ES&UILONA, GIL
RAPSING, JOSE FERNANDE%, RE"NALDO CORTE%, NOE AL#AO, EL"
RAPSING, PACO MANLAPA%, DANILO LAURIO 'n( NORIE HUEL)A, '**u+e(,
NOLI SALCEDO, EDISON #ANCULO, JUAN SUAL, JR., 'n( DANILO LAURIO,
accused-appellants.

PANGANI#AN, J.:
The i!hts of a peson unde custodial investi!ation, paticulal" the i!ht to e#ain
silent and to counsel, have been e$plained, echoed and stessed no end b" this %out.
The" ae no less constitutionall" enshined.
1
Innu#eable cout decisions
2
have been
endeed, evincin! the !eat i#potance &ith &hich the state e!ads the#. ' la&
,
&as
ecentl" enacted definin! the i!hts of pesons aested, detained o unde custodial
investi!ation as &ell as the duties of the aestin!, detainin! and investi!atin! offices(
and penali)in! violations theeof. In spite of these clea constitutional, *uispudential
and statuto" !uidelines, one still finds pesistent infactions b" public investi!atos and
police authoities that have esulted in ac+uittals &hich oftenti#es ae not undestood
o appeciated b" the public at la!e.
In the pesent case, the issue confonts us once #oe. 's &e have held in si#ila
cases, a volunta" e$ta*udicial confession of an accused, even &hee it eflects the
tuth, if !iven &ithout the assistance of counsel and &ithout a valid &aive theeof, is
inad#issible in evidence a!ainst hi#.
-
Of couse, &hee the state#ents in the uncounselled confession ae eiteated in open
cout, o &hee othe conclusive evidence poves the !uilt of the accused be"ond
easonable doubt, the cout should not hesitate to convict and #ete the pope penalt".
.
In an Info#ation
/
dated Octobe ,-, ./--, 0ist 'ssistant Povincial 0iscal 'ndes 1.
1asa!a, 2., cha!ed 'ccused-appellants Noli Salcedo, 3dison 1anculo, 2uanito Sual,
2. and Danilo 4auio, to!ethe &ith Nono" 5Teodulo, 2.6 3s+uilona, Re"naldo %otes,
Paco 5Ro#aico6 Manlapa), 7e#o Iba8e), 1olodo" %aldeon, 7il Rapsin!, 2ose
0enande), Noe 'lbao, 3l" Rapsin! and Noie Huelva, &ith the ci#e of #ude
co##itted as follo&s9
That on o about 2une ,:, ./--, in the evenin! theeof, at 1aan!a" 7abi, Municipalit"
of 1aleno, Povince of Masbate, Philippines, &ithin the *uisdiction of this %out, the
said accused, conspiin! to!ethe and #utuall" helpin! one anothe, &ith intent to ;ill,
evident pe#editation5,6 teache" and supeioit" of sten!ht 5sic6 and ta;in!
advanta!e of ni!htti#e, did, then and thee &illfull", unla&full" and feloniousl" attac;,
assault and shot &ith a !un5,6 hac; &ith a bolo one Honoio 'pae*ado " 0ideles,
hittin! the latte on the diffeent pats of the bod", theeb" inflictin! &ounds &hich
diectl" caused his instantaneous death.
On Septe#be .,, ./-/, 'ccused Noli Salcedo, 2uanito Sual, 2., 3dison 1anculo,
Danilo 4auio, Re"naldo %otes and Nono" 3s+uilona, assisted b" 'tt"s. Ricado
Mede!ia and 2ose Medina, pleaded not !uilt" to the above cha!e, &hile 'ccused
Ro#aico Manlapa), assisted b" 'tt". Ruben Son!co, enteed the sa#e plea on
2anua" ,<, .//:.
7
The est of the accused e#ained at la!e. Tial ensued insofa as
those appehended and aai!ned &ee concened. On Ma" =, .//., the tial *ud!e
endeed *ud!#ent convictin! Salcedo as pincipal( and 1anculo, Sual, 2. and 4auio
as acco#plices in the ci#e of #ude. 3s+uilona, 2., %otes and Manlapa) &ee
ac+uitted.
0
The Facts
Evidence for the Prosecution
The pincipal &itness fo the posecution, 3d&in %otes, a <:-"ea old fa#e, esident
of 7abi, 1aleno, Masbate, and bothe-in-la& of the victi#, Honoio 'pae*ado,
identified and affi#ed his state#ent
9
!iven on 2une <:, ./-- elative to the incident
&hich he had subscibed to befoe Municipal %icuit Tial 2ud!e Vicente 4i# >u on 2ul"
.., ./--. The !ist of %otes? testi#on"
10
is as follo&s9
'bout -9:: o?cloc; in the evenin! of 2une ,:, ./--, he &as in his house to!ethe &ith
his &ife, thei fou childen and the victi# &hen seveal a#ed #en led b" 'ccused
Noli Salcedo aived. Salcedo shouted fo hi# and the victi# to co#e out of the house.
Once outside, %otes and 'pae*ado &ee odeed to lie on the !ound( then the" &ee
ho!tied. Theeafte, the" &ee told to !et up and &ee led to the othe side of a cee;,
about t&ent" 5,:6 #etes fo# the house, &hee the" &ee odeed to lie do&n a!ain.
@hile the &itness and the victi# &ee in such position about t&o o thee #etes apat,
Salcedo shot 'pae*ado t&ice, then hac;ed hi#. Salcedo?s co#panions li;e&ise
hac;ed the victi#. 'fte&ads, the" tuned 'pae*ado?s bod" aound, opened his
sto#ach and too; out his live. His ;neecap &as also e#oved. Then all the accused
left, bin!in! &ith the# the victi#?s live and ;neecap. %otes clai#ed to have
&itnessed all these since the accused had a flashli!ht and the #oon &as *ust isin!.
1
'fte the accused had left, %otes an to&ads a !ass" aea &hee he &as able to
untie his hands. The follo&in! #onin!, he info#ed the elatives of the victi# about
the incident and li;e&ise epoted the sa#e to police authoities at 1aleno, Masbate.
%otes futhe stated that he had ;no&n Salcedo fo about a "ea pio to the incident
and that he had no ;no&led!e of an" eason &h" the accused had ;illed 'pae*ado.
'lthou!h he ad#itted not ;no&in! the identities of Salcedo?s co#panions at the ti#e of
the #ude, he identified each of the accused befoe the tial cout and said that the"
&ee the ones &ho ;illed 'pae*ado.
Municipal Health Office %onchita Alanda" conducted the post#ote# e$a#ination on
the bod" of the victi#. He findin!s included9
Si!ns of violence9
5.6 Incised &ound &ith a )i!)a! appeaance ..B penetatin! e$posin! the sto#ach and
a potion of the intestines, located at the epi!astic aea 5Rt.6 up to the level of the
navel.
5,6 Incised &ound sli!htl" cuvin! in appeaance5,6 CB penetatin! e$posin! a potion of
the intestines cossin! the &ound D. at the level of the navel.
5<6 7unshot &ound point of ent" D,, . c#. cicula each .B apat pe-a$illa" line at the
level of the Eth and Fth 5ille!ible6 &ith the pesence of tattoin! 5sic6 5po&de buns6
aound the &ound5,6 bac;, left, &ith a do&n&ad-in&ad in 5sic6 diection.
5E6 7unshot &ound point of ent" . c#. cicula, scapula line, 5&ith6 tattoin! 5sic6
aound the &ound, lo&e bac;, left.
5F6 Hac; &ound at the level of the nape of the nec;, al#ost co#pletel" detachin! the
head fo# the bod".
5=6 ' e#ulsion 5sic6 ;nee catila!e, Rt.
Due to the above-#entioned post #ote# findin!s 5sic6 &as #ade that death &as
caused b" hac;, !unshot and incised &ounds.
11
D. Alanda" descibed the fist, second and last &ounds as seious but not fatal,
althou!h the" #i!ht have been Bseconda" to infection.B Ho&eve, the thee othe
&ounds &ee fatal since the" in*ued vital o!ans such as the lun!s, heat and live.
12
@itness 4"dia 'pae*ado, &ido& of the victi#, testified on ho& she leaned of the ;illin!
of he husband. 't that ti#e, she &as in 1aleno attendin! to the needs of thei childen
&ho &ee stud"in! thee. She futhe testified to the actual e$penses incued as a
conse+uence of the death of he husband, a#ountin! to PF,:::.::. She also
de#anded inde#nification fo the ph"sical and #ental an!uish she felt due to the
;illin! of he husband, in an a#ount she left to the discetion of the cout.
1,
PGS!t. 2ose 1a*a of the 'oo" Police Station testified that he had conducted the
investi!ation of 'ccused Danilo 4auio, 2uan
1-
Sual, 2. and 3dison 1anculo on 'u!ust
,,, ./--. The investi!ation &as in the fo# of +uestions and ans&es in the venacula
&hich &ee educed into &itin!.
1.
Duin! coss-e$a#ination, he ad#itted that the
thee &ee not assisted b" counsel &hen the" si!ned thei espective &aives-neithe
duin! the investi!ation no at the ti#e the" affi$ed thei si!natues to thei espective
state#ents.
1/
Pfc. @encell
17
3s+uilona, #e#be of the INP 5no& PNP6 1aleno Police Station, &as
pesented as a ebuttal &itness fo the posecution. He stated that he had effected the
aest of si$ of the accused, na#el"9 Manlapa), %otes, 3s+uillona, 2., 4auio, 1anculo
and Sual. 's to the latte thee, 3s+uilona ad#itted that he &as not a#ed &ith a
&aant fo thei aest but that he had onl" eceived a &ie fo# the head+uates that
the thee &ee suspects in the #ude of 'pae*ado. 't the ti#e of the aest, he
li;e&ise ecoveed one lantaka, an Ba#aliteB evolve and fati!ue unifo#s at the
house &hee the thee &ee aested. He stated futhe that he did not #alteat an" of
the# and &as not pesent duin! thei investi!ation conducted b" S!t. 2ose 1a*a.
10
Evidence for the Defense
'ccused 3dison 1anculo testified that he had been in 1alite, 'oo", Masbate, sleepin!
in the house of his adoptive paents, %elia
19
4a"do and 'n!el 3ntines,
20
on the ni!ht
the incident occued. His adoptive paents and co-accused Danilo 4auio &ee also in
the sa#e house at that ti#e. He declaed that he had si!ned 3$hibit B7B, pupotedl"
his confession of his paticipation in the ;illin! of 'pae*ado, onl" because he could not
bea the ph"sical #alteat#ent b" the police &ho had futhe theatened to ;ill hi#. He
confi#ed that he &as not assisted b" counsel o appised of his i!hts to e#ain silent
and to be assisted b" counsel of his o&n choice duin! his investi!ation.
21
'nothe accused, Teodulo 3s+uilona, 2., testified that he had been in Masbate,
Masbate, leanin! the at of &ood la#ination fo# a cetain 3duado Maabe, on the
da" the incident too; place. '#on! his co-accused, he ;ne& onl" Re"naldo %otes
&hile he #et the othes fo the fist ti#e in cout. He testified futhe that, conta" to
the assetion of Posecution @itness 3d&in %otes, he pesonall" ;ne& the latte &ho
had been his nei!hbo in the poblacion of 1aleno, Masbate fo# ./C- to ./-=.
1esides, his &ife &as the cousin of 3d&in.
22
'ccused Re"naldo %otes cooboated the alibi of Teodulo, 2., statin! that he slept in
the latte?s house on the ni!ht of 2une ,:, ./-- at 4a!ta, 1aleno, Masbate. The latte
had left eal" #onin! of that da" and ca#e bac; onl" the follo&in! da". He denied
havin! ;no&n the othe accused pevious to the filin! of the case e$cept fo Ro#aico
Manlapa) &ho &as a nei!hbo of Teodulo, 2. He clai#ed to be a cousin of the victi#?s
fathe but ;ne& no en#it" o ill feelin! bet&een the#. He li;e&ise clai#ed to have
been ph"sicall" #alteated b" the police duin! his investi!ation.
2,
The pincipal suspect, Noli Salcedo, li;e&ise denied co#plicit" in the #ude of
'pae*ado. He clai#ed to have been in Manila &o;in! as a constuction laboe fo#
./-C until 'u!ust ./--. @hen as;ed the na#e of his e#plo"e and of the fi# &hee
2
he &o;ed, he could not, ho&eve, na#e eithe. 't the latte date, he &ent bac; to
1anti!ue 5in Masbate6 to attend the fiesta. He &as late aested in his ho#eto&n of
Hina#ali!an. 't the ti#e of his aest, he had tied to escape, as a esult of &hich he
&as shot b" one of the police offices. He denied ;no&in! the 'pae*ados and his othe
co-accused.
2-
'nothe accused, Ro#aico Manlapa), also clai#ed that he had been in Manila fo#
Ma" .:, ./-- until 0ebua" ./-/ &hen he etuned to 4a!ta, 1aleno. He ad#itted
;no&in!, a#on! his co-accused, Teodulo 3s+uilona, 2. and Re"naldo %otes &ho
&ee his nei!hbos in 4a!ta. 's to the est, he onl" #et the# in *ail. He also denied
;no&in! the victi# o his &ido&.
2.
2uanito Sual, 2. stated that he &as in his house in 7abi, 1aleno, Masbate duin! the
ni!ht of the incident. He ad#itted affi$in! his si!natue to the state#ent #a;ed 3$hibit
B0B fo the posecution, but onl" because he could no lon!e bea the #alteat#ent of
Police#an @encell 3s+uilona. He confi#ed that he had not been assisted b" counsel
duin! his investi!ation, and denied that he had been info#ed of his i!hts to e#ain
silent and to be assisted b" counsel of his o&n choice. He also clai#ed that at the ti#e
he &as appehended, thee &as no &aant fo his aest. He denied havin! been in
the co#pan" of Noli Salcedo, &ho# he alle!edl" #et in *ail onl" in the evenin! of 2une
,:, ./--. He said that, a#on! the othe accused, he ;ne& onl" 3dison 1anculo,
Danilo 4auio and Re"naldo %otes pio to this case.
2/
Danilo 4auio stated that he &as sleepin! at the house of his adoptive paents in
1alite, 'oo", Masbate, on the ni!ht that Honoio 'pae*ado &as ;illed. 't that ti#e,
his co-accused 3dison 1anculo &as in the sa#e house. He contoveted the state#ent
of Posecution @itness 3d&in %otes that he &as one of those &ho had ;illed
'pae*ado. He futhe denied havin! ;no&n the victi# o the latte?s &ife pio to his
#ude. He also stated that at the ti#e of his aest, the aestin! office &as not a#ed
&ith a &aant. 'lthou!h he ad#itted havin! si!ned his alle!ed s&on state#ent
pesented b" the posecution, he clai#ed that he &as foced to do so afte havin!
been ph"sicall" abused b" Police#an @encell 3s+uilona.
27
The adoptive #othe of 'ccused 1anculo and 4auio, %elia 4a"do 3ntines, testified
that she and the t&o &ent !old-pannin! in he land at 1aliti 5o 1alite6, 'oo", Masbate
on 2une ,:, ./-- at da"ti#e. 'bout C9:: o?cloc; in the evenin!, the" all &ent to sleep
and &o;e up about F9:: o?cloc; the follo&in! #onin!. To he ;no&led!e, he t&o
adopted sons did not leave the house that ni!ht.
20
T&o othe &itnesses &ee pesented, cooboatin! the alibi of %otes and 3s+uilona,
2., and also attestin! to thei !ood chaacte.
Ruling of the Trial Court
In disceditin! 'ccused-appellant Noli Salcedo?s sole defense of alibi, the cout a quo
easonable thus9
'ccused Noli Salcedo has been cleal" and positivel" identified b" lone &itness 3d&in
%otes. His alibi theefoe, that he &as in Manila at the ti#e the heinous ci#e &as
pepetated, cannot be sustained. Moeove, afte e$a#inin! the evidence in suppot of
his defense, the %out finds that his alibi has the aspect of fabication.
$$$ $$$ $$$
@hen as;ed b" the posecution the fi# o the na#e of his e#plo"e &hee he &as
&o;in! in Manila, he could not e#e#be the constuction fi# neithe the na#e of his
e#plo"e. This is hi!hl" i#possible, considein! the fact that he epots to &o; dail".
@hile he #a" in the e#ote pobabilit" fo!et one, he could not fo!et both.
29
@ith espect to the othe accused, the tial cout e$plained thei co#plicit" this &ise9
It is to be e#e#beed that 3d&in %otes, &itness fo the posecution ;ne& onl" Noli
Salcedo and 1olodo" %aldeon of the ei!ht 5-6 &ho ca#e to his house. . . .
The othe accused &ee #eel" efeed to b" the &itness as companions of Noli
Salcedo and 1olodo" %aldeon. That he &as able to pinpoint the othe accused in
%out is undestandable considein! that &hen the above-na#ed accused &ee unde
custodial inteo!ation, he &as pesent. Ande such cicu#stances, he could &ell
e#e#be the faces of the si$ 5=6 accused fo puposes of i#plicatin! the#.
Thei paticipation in the ci#inal act appeas to be li#ited to bein! pesent in the
pe#ises &hee the acts of co-defendants &ho, othe than bein! pesent, !ivin! #oal
suppot to the pincipal accused, cannot be said to constitute diect paticipation in the
acts of e$ecution and thei pesence and co#pan" &ee not necessa" and essential
to the pepetation of the #ude in +uestion. Such co-defendants #a" onl" be
consideed !uilt" as acco#plices. . . .
,0
Ho&eve, the tial cout noted that the inclusion of 'ccused Ro#aico 5Paco6
Manlapa), Re"naldo %otes and Teodulo 3s+uilona, 2. in the cha!e &as based solel"
on the e$ta*udicial confessions of 3dison 1anculo, 2uan Sual, 2. and Danilo 4auio
&hich, absent independent poof of conspiac", &ee not ad#issible evidence a!ainst
alle!ed co-conspiatos
,1
unde Section ,C, Rule .<: of the Rules of %out. Thus, a
*ud!#ent of ac+uittal &as endeed in favo of Manlapa), %otes and 3s+uilona, 2.
The full dispositive potion of the +uestioned Decision eads as follo&s9
@H3R30OR3, the %out finds accused NO4I S'4%3DO 7AI4T> be"ond easonable
doubt of the ci#e of Mude and is sentenced to suffe the penalt" of RECLU!"#
PERPETU$ and to pa" the heis of the victi# in the a#ount of 0I0T> THOAS'ND
5PF:,:::.::6 P3SOS.
'ccused 3dison 1anculo, 2uan Sual 2. and Danilo 4auio as 'cco#plice 5sic6 in the
ci#e of Mude, the" ae heeb" sentenced to suffe Indete#inate Penalt" of 3I7HT
3
5-6 >3'RS and ON3 5.6 D'> of Prision %a&or, as #ini#u#, to 0OART33N 5.E6
>3'RS and 3I7HT 5-6 MONTHS of Reclusion Temporal, as #a$i#u#, in the absence
of an" #iti!atin! cicu#stance.
'll instu#ents sei)ed fo# the accused ae heeb" confiscated in favo of the
!oven#ent, to &it9
3$h. BIB I lanta;a 5ho#e#ade !un6 lon! bael(
3$h. B4B I a#alite evolve, S#ith and @esson, AS #ade(
3$h. B4-., 4-,, 4-<, 4-EB I live a##os( and
3$h. B4-F and 4-=B I e#pt" shells.
In the sevice of thei sentence, accused 3dison 1anculo, 2uan Sual 2. and Danilo
4auio shall be !iven the full cedit of thei detention.
'ccused Teodulo 3s+uilona, 2., Re"naldo %otes and Paco Manlapa) ae heeb"
'%JAITT3D.
4et an alias &aant of aest be issued fo the appehension of the othe accused &ho
e#ain at la!e up to the pesent, na#el"9 7e#o Iba8e), 1olodo" %aldeon, 7il
Rapsin!, 2ose 0enande), Noe 'lbao, 3l" Rapsin! and Noie Huelva.
,2
!ssues
In thei appeal befoe us, accused-appellants ave that the tial cout eed in not
ac+uittin! the# on the !ound of easonable doubt and in not !ivin! due cedit to thei
defense of denial and alibi.
,,
The" clai# that the posecution failed to pesent clea
and conclusive poof of conspiac" and of the pesence of all ele#ents of the ci#e
5&ithout, ho&eve, specif"in! &hich ele#ents &as not poved6. Thus, althou!h alibi is
an inheentl" &ea; defense, faced &ith the Bi#pobabilities and uncetainties of the
posecution?s evidence, it suffices to aise easonable doubt as to the accused?s
esponsibilit".B
The Solicito 7eneal vie&s 'ppellant Salcedo?s alibi as futile because he failed to
pove that it &as ph"sicall" i#possible fo hi# to have been at the scene of the ci#e
at the ti#e of its co##ission. 0uthe, the posecution e"e&itness? positive
identification of hi# as one of the culpits pulvei)es his alead" &ea; defense. The
state counsel eco##ends, ho&eve, the ac+uittal of 'ppellants 1anculo, Sual, 2. and
4auio on the !ound that thei e$ta*udicial confessions &ee e$ecuted &ithout the
assistance of counsel and ae, hence, inad#issible in evidence. He futhe states that
since the onl" evidence i#plicatin! the# in the ci#e ae these uncounselled
confessions, the constitutional pesu#ption of innocence #ust be esolved in thei
favo.
,-
The Court's Ruling
'fte a caeful scutin" of the ecods, &e find the eco##endation of the Solicito
7eneal *ustified. Thus, &e patiall" !ant this appeal insofa as the conviction of
'ppellants 2uanito Sual, 2., 3dison 1anculo and Danilo 4auio is concened. Ho&eve,
&ith e!ad to 'ppellant Noli Salcedo, in the face of the clea and cate!oical testi#on"
of Posecution @itness 3d&in %otes &ho elated in #inutiae the e$tent of Salcedo?s
paticipation in the vicious slau!htein! of the hapless victi#, his conviction #ust
stand.
First !ssue9 ufficienc& of Prosecution Evidence
$gainst $ppellant (anculo)
ual) *r. and Laurio
'ppellants 1anculo, Sual, 2. and 4auio den" co#plicit" in the #ude of 'pae*ado
and efute the voluntainess of the e$ecution of thei pupoted confessions. The thee
clai# to have been ph"sicall" #alteated b" the appehendin! office and foced to
si!n the state#ents pepaed b" the police investi!ato. The tial *ud!e, ho&eve, !ave
no cedit to thei alle!ations of #alteat#ent, and futhe uled a!ainst the ob*ections of
the defense counsel to the ad#issibilit" of appellants? state#ents on the !ound that
the" had been ta;en &ithout the assistance of counsel.
Si!nificantl", the absence of counsel at the ti#e of the investi!ation of the thee above-
na#ed appellants &as confi#ed b" the police investi!ato hi#self, thus9
J 5@hen6 Danilo 4auio si!ned the &aive, &as he assisted b" counselK
' No, si.
J Ho& about 2uanito Sual, &hen he si!ned 3$hibit 0, his &aive, &hen he si!ned the
&aive on 3$hibit 0, &as he assisted b" his counselK
' No, si.
J @hen he si!ned the entie bod" of "ou investi!ation &as he also assisted b"
counselK
' No, si.
J Ho& about 3dison 1anculo &hen he si!ned the &aive, &as he assisted b" counselK
' He &as not assisted.
J @hen he si!ned the entie investi!ation that "ou #adeK
4
' >es, si.
,.
Ande these cicu#stances, this %out is left &ith no choice but to e$clude the s&on
state#ents of 4auio, Sual, 2., and 1anculo fo# the evidence a!ainst the#. @e
ecentl" had occasion to discouse on the inviolabilit" of the constitutional i!hts of a
peson unde custodial investi!ation and &e find ou ponounce#ent in People vs.
Parel once #oe &oth epeatin!9
Ande Sec. ., pa. ., 't. III, of the ./-C %onstitution, an" peson unde custodial
investi!ation fo the co##ission of an offense shall have the i!ht to be info#ed of his
i!ht to e#ain silent and to have co#petent and independent counsel pefeabl" of his
o&n choice. If the peson cannot affod the sevices of counsel, he #ust be povided
&ith one. These i!hts cannot be &aived e$cept in &itin! and in the pesence of
counsel. The i!ht to be info#ed caies &ith it the coelative obli!ation on the pat of
the investi!ato to e$plain, and conte#plates effective co##unication &hich esults in
the sub*ect undestandin! &hat is bein! conve"ed. Since &hat is sou!ht to be attained
is co#pehension, the de!ee of e$planation e+uied &ill va" and depend on
education, intelli!ence and othe elevant pesonal cicu#stances of the peson bein!
investi!ated. !n further ensuring the right to counsel of the person being investigated) it
is not enough that the sub+ect be informed of the right( he should also be asked
,hether he ,ants to avail himself of the same and should be told that he can hire a
counsel of his o,n choice if he so desires or that one ,ill be provided him at his
request. !f he decides not to retrain a counsel of his choice or avail himself of one to be
provided him and) therefore) chooses to ,aive his right to counsel) such ,aiver) to be
valid and effective) must be made ,ith the assistance of counsel. That counsel #ust
be a la&"e.
3ven assu#in! that in the instant case the e$ta*udicial confession #ade b" appellant
spo;e the tuth and &as not e$tacted thou!h violence o inti#idation, still the failure
of the police investigators to inform appellant of his right to remain silent) coupled ,ith
the denial of his right to a competent and independent counsel or the absence of
effective legal assistance ,hen he ,aived his constitutional rights) rendered the
confession inadmissible under ec. -.) par. /) $rt. !!!) of the -012 Constitution.
,/

53#phasis supplied.6
In People vs. *anuario,
,7
&e ee#phasi)ed ou un&avein! co##it#ent to safe!uad
ou people?s i!hts, paticulal" the i!ht to counsel of pesons unde custodial
investi!ation, as follo&s9
The ./-C %onstitution &as cafted and odained at a histoic ti#e &hen ou nation &as
eelin! fo# !hastl" #e#oies of atocities, e$cesses and outi!ht violations of ou
people?s i!hts to life, libet" and popet". Hence, ou bill of i!hts &as &oded to
e#phasi)e the sanctit" of hu#an libet" and specificall" to potect pesons unde!oin!
custodial investi!ations fo# i!noant, ove)ealous andGo inco#petent peace offices.
The %onstitution so deal" values feedo# and voluntainess that, inter alia, it
une+uivocall" !uaantees a peson unde!oin! investi!ation fo the co##ission of an
offense not onl" the sevices of counsel, but a la&"e &ho is not #eel" 5a6
Bco#petentB but also 5b6 BindependentB and 5c6 Bpefeabl" of his o&n choiceB as &ell.
$$$ $$$ $$$
The %out undestands the difficulties faced b" la& enfoce#ent a!encies in
appehendin! violatos of the la& . . . . It s"#pathi)es &ith the public cla#o fo the
bin!in! of ci#inals befoe the alta of *ustice. Ho&eve, +uic; solution of ci#es and
the conse+uent appehension of #alefactos ae not the end-all and be-all of la&
enfoce#ent. 3nfoces of the la& #ust follo& the pocedue #andated b" the
%onstitution and the la&. Othe&ise, thei effots &ould be #eanin!less. 'nd thei
e$penses in t"in! to solve ci#es &ould constitute needless e$penditues of
ta$pa"es? #one".
This %out values libet" and &ill al&a"s insist on the obsevance of basic
constitutional i!hts as a condition sine qua non a!ainst the a&eso#e investi!ative and
posecuto" po&es of !oven#ent.
The constitutionall" infi# confessions of appellants, theefoe, cannot be !iven an"
iota of consideation. 'nd &ithout such state#ents, the e#ainin! posecution
evidence is soel" inade+uate to pove the paticipation of 1anculo, Sual, 2. and
4auio in the ci#e. The lone posecution e"e&itness, 3d&in %otes, tied to i#plicate
all the accused b" descibin! the ;ind of &eapon each had been a#ed &ith duin! the
ni!ht of the incident.
,0
His state#ents elative theeto ae, ho&eve, suspect. In the
est of his testi#on", he efeed to the accused, othe than Salcedo, #eel" as
Salcedo?s Bco#panions.B On a specific +uestion poffeed b" the public posecuto,
%otes ad#itted not ;no&in! the identities of the othe accused, thus9
J Do "ou &ant to i#pess to this Honoable %out that "ou do not ;no& the est of the
accused at the ti#e &hen this victi# &as ;illedK
' >es, si.
,9
3ven duin! his ealie investi!ation b" the police, he had alead" clai#ed not to have
eco!ni)ed the othe assailants. The elevant pat of his s&on state#ent is as follo&s9
J Ho& #an" pesons all in all did "ou seeK
' 3i!ht.
J Of these ei!ht pesons &ee "ou able to eco!ni)e an" one of the#K
' >es, si.
J @ho ae the"K
' Noli Salcedo and 1olodo" %aldeon.
5
J Ho& about the si$, do "ou ;no& the#K
' I do not ;no& the#.
-0
@ithout ;no&in! the othe accused at the ti#e of the incident, it is +uite unbelievable
that the &itness could ecall e$actl" &hat ;ind of &eapon each caied that ni!ht. No
sufficient and cedible evidence is in the ecods to ovetun anothe constitutional i!ht
of the accused9 the i!ht to be pesu#ed innocent of an" offense until the conta" is
poved be"ond easonable doubt. 3ve" cicu#stance favoin! thei innocence #ust
be ta;en into account and poof a!ainst the# #ust suvive the test of eason.
-1
Ande
the above cicu#stances, the posecution failed to adduce that +uantu# of evidence
e+uied to &aant a conviction. Hence, the thee appellants deseve an ac+uittal.
-2
$gainst $ppellant alcedo
@e cannot hold the sa#e fo 'ppellant Salcedo. He &as positivel" and consistentl"
identified b" @itness 3d&in %otes as the pincipal culpit. Apon the !oup?s aival at
the &itness? house, it &as Salcedo &ho shouted fo %otes and 'pae*ado to !et do&n
fo# the house. He &as the one &ho !ave odes fo the# to lie do&n on the !ound,
to be ho!tied and to poceed to the othe side of the cee;.
-,
The &itness &as
cate!oical in declain! that it &as Salcedo &ho shot 'pae*ado t&ice and hac;ed hi#
afte that. He testified9
J @hen "ou &ee alead" l"in! flat on the !ound nea that cee; &hat happenedK
' Noli Salcedo shot Honoio 'pae*ado.
J @as Honoio 'pae*ado hitK
' >es, si.
J Ho& fa &ee "ou &hen "ou sa& Honoio 'pae*ado . . . Noli Salcedo &hen he shot
Honoio 'pae*adoK
' 2ust nea, about t&o #etes.
J Ho& &ee "ou able to see that it &as Noli Salcedo &ho shot Honoio 'pae*ado
&hen it &as ni!htti#eK
' I could eco!ni)e his voice and his ph"sical built.
J @as thee a li!ht at that ti#eK
' >es, si.
$$$ $$$ $$$
J Ho& #an" ti#es did Noli Salcedo shoot Honoio 'pae*adoK
' T&o ti#es.
J Then afte shootin! Honoio 'pae*ado, &hat else tanspiedK
' He &as hac;ed.
J Do "ou &ant to tell us that Honoio 'pae*ado &as a!ain hac;edK
' >es, si.
J 1" &ho#K
' The co#panions of Noli Salcedo.
J Ho& about Noli Salcedo, did he hac; Honoio 'pae*adoK
' >es, si.
J Ho& #an" ti#esK
' Onl" once.
--
His testi#on" essentiall" affi#ed his state#ents duin! the police investi!ation, thus9
JA3STION 4ast 2une ,:, ./-- at about -9:: o?cloc; in the evenin! &hee &ee "ouK
'NS@3R I &as in #" house at 7abi, 1aleno, Masbate.
$$$ $$$ $$$
J @hile "ou &ee in "ou house on that date and ti#e, do "ou e#e#be of 5sic6 an"
unusual incident that happenedK
' >es si.
J Tell us &hat happened.
' Duin! that date and ti#e seveal pesons aived and told us to !o do&n.
6
J Ho& #an" pesons all in all did "ou seeK
' 3i!ht.
J Of these ei!ht pesons &ee "ou able to eco!ni)e an" one of the#K
' >es si.
J @ho ae the"K
' Noli Salcedo and 1olodo" %aldeon.
$$$ $$$ $$$
J @hat happened afte "ou &ee told to la" flat faced do&nK
' @hile &e &ee l"in! do&n, Noli Salcedo shot Noie 'pae*ado.
J @as Noie 'pae*ado hitK
' >es, si.
-.
'ppellant Salcedo, instead of intoducin! evidence to sho& that the &itness had evil
#otive in i#putin! the ci#e to hi#, even ad#itted that he ;ne& of no eason &h"
3d&in %otes &ould testif" falsel" a!ainst hi#.
-/
%onse+uentl", %otes? positive and
clea identification of Salcedo is sufficient to convict hi#. It has been epeatedl" held
that the testi#on" of a sin!le &itness, if cedible and positive and satisfies the cout as
to the !uilt of the accused be"ond easonable doubt, is sufficient to convict.
-7
econd !ssue9 $libi
In the li!ht of the pio discussion e$culpatin! 'ppellants 1anculo, Sual, 2. and 4auio
fo# the #ude of 'pae*ado, &e shall no lon!e discuss the sufficienc" and
&othiness of thei alibi.
@ith espect to 'ppellant Salcedo, his defense of alibi, *u$taposed &ith the positive
identification #ade b" @itness %otes, pales in pobative value and is totall"
inade+uate to *ustif" an e$oneation. Salcedo tied to establish that it &as ph"sicall"
i#possible fo hi# to have been at the scene of the ci#e since he &as supposedl"
&o;in! in Manila at that ti#e. 1ut &hen as;ed b" the public posecuto the na#e of
his e#plo"e in Manila, he si#pl" eplied that he could not e#e#be an"#oe.
-0
's
aptl" obseved b" the tial cout, it is hi!hl" i#possible fo one not to e#e#be eithe
the na#e of his e#plo"e o the fi# &hee he had &o;ed.
-9
Salcedo did not even
atte#pt to t" to ecall eithe na#e. This lends !ave doubt as to the tuthfulness of his
defense. The inheent &ea;ness of alibi as a defense &as not oveco#e. Indubitabl", it
cannot pevail ove the positive identification #ade b" the posecution &itness.
.0
Treacher&
'lthou!h the tial cout stated that the ;illin! &as +ualified b" teache", it did not
e$plain &hat cicu#stances of teache" &ee pesent. Nonetheless, the facts
established duin! tial un#ista;abl" point to the pesence of #eans, #ethod o fo#
e#plo"ed b" the accused &hich tended diectl" and speciall" to ensue the e$ecution
of the offense &ithout is; to hi#self aisin! fo# the defense that the offended pat"
#i!ht #a;e. The %out is satisfied that these essential e+uie#ents of teache" &ee
poven b" clea and convincin! evidence as conclusivel" as the ;illin! itself.
.1
In the case befoe us, thee &ee ei!ht assailants, at least one of &ho# &as a#ed
&ith a !un and a bolo. It &as sufficientl" established b" the posecution that the victi#
had fist been ho!tied and then #ade to lie do&n facin! the !ound. 'nd it &as in such
position that Salcedo fatall" shot and hac;ed hi#. Obviousl", the ;illin! &as attended
b" alevosia. 'pae*ado
&as endeed defenseless and absolutel" &ith no #eans to epel o evade the attac;.
.2
This +ualifies the ;illin! to #ude.
Damages
This %out obseves that the tial cout did not ule on the da#a!es sou!ht to be
ecoveed b" the &ido& of the victi#. 4"dia 'pae*ado testified that she incued
e$penses fo the e#bal##ent, the coffin and funeal lot in the esti#ated a#ount of
PF,:::.::. Of such e$penses, the %out can onl" !ive cedence to those suppoted b"
eceipts and &hich appea to have been !enuinel" incued in connection &ith the
death, &a;e and buial of the victi#.
.,
@e scoued the ecods fo an" eceipt in
suppot of he clai# but found none. 'ctual da#a!es cannot, theefoe, be !anted to
the victi#?s heis. Ho&eve, &e affi# the civil inde#nit" in the a#ount of PF:,:::.::
!iven b" the tial cout. This is auto#aticall" a&aded &ithout need of futhe evidence
othe than the fact of the victi#s?s death.
'nent #oal da#a!es, the victi#?s &ido& did state that she suffeed headaches due to
the death of he husband( &ith hi# !one, she &oied about ho& to suppot he
childen. Moal da#a!es, &hich include ph"sical suffein! and #ental an!uish, #a" be
ecoveed in ci#inal offenses esultin! in ph"sical in*uies
.-
o the victi#?s death, as in
this case. The a#ount of #oal da#a!es is left to the discetion of the cout. Since the
cout a quo did not e$ecise such discetion, this %out #a" do so because an appeal
in a ci#inal case opens the &hole case fo evie&. This %out no& dee#s *ustified the
a&ad of #oal da#a!es in the a#ount of PF:,:::.:: to 4"dia, the &ife of Honoio
'pae*ado.
@H3R30OR3, pe#ises consideed, the appeal is patiall" 7R'NT3D. 'ppellants
3dison 1anculo, 2uanito Sual, 2. and Danilo 4auio ae heeb" '%JAITT3D on
easonable doubt and ae odeed R343'S3D i##ediatel" unless the" ae bein!
7
detained fo so#e othe le!al cause. The assailed Decision findin! Noli Salcedo
7AI4T> be"ond easonable doubt of #ude and i#posin! on hi# the penalt" of
reclusion perpetua as &ell as the pa"#ent of the su# of PF:,:::.:: as inde#nit" to
the heis of the victi#, Honoio 'pae*ado " 0ideles, is '00IRM3D. 0uthe#oe,
accused-appellant is also odeed to pa" #oal da#a!es in the a#ount of PF:,:::.::
to the victi#?s &ife, 4"dia 'pae*ado. The othe pats of the said Decision, insofa as
the" ae not inconsistent &ith the foe!oin!, ae heeb" also '00IRM3D.
SO ORD3R3D.
8