People v Reyes J.

Chico-Nazario
This case involves a special complex crime of kidnap for ransom with homicide
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Domingo Reyes, Alvin Arnaldo, and Joselito Flores
Facts
Prosecution’s version (based on testimonies and witnesses of Jona, Robert, Yao San, PO3
Alberto, PO3 Jabien, Atty. Rous, and Atty. Uminga)
- The Yao family (Yao San (father), Chua Ong Ping Sim (mother), Robert and Raymond
(children), Lenny (wife of Robert), Matthew and Charlene (g-children), Jona Abagatnan
and Josephine Ortea (maid)) owns a poultry farm in Bulacan. On July 16, 1999, they
arrived at their farm. When Yao San went out of the van, he was met by Domingo Reyes
and Juanito Pataray and was threatened with a gun. Reyes and Pataray boarded the van,
Arnaldo and Flores and 2 others followed. Flores drove the van while the others
blindfolded the family.
- After 30 mins, Chua Ong, Robert, Raymond, and Jona went out of the van with Reyes
and Arnaldo, Pataray and one of the others. After a while, the van stopped again, Flores
and the other companion told Yao to produce P5M as exchange for the release of the
members of his family. When the kidnappers left, Yao San drove the van to the farm to
seek help from relatives. The other members of the family (those who were taken from
the van) were taken to a safe-house in the mountains of Bulacan.
- The kidnappers tried to contact Yao San the next morning but Yao could not be reached.
They tried to find him but failed. They released Jona and Robert to help them find Yao.
When they found him, Yao was reminded of the demand. The kidnappers called again,
they threatened to kill the two remaining family members because of radio and
newspaper reports about the incident, which Yao denied having reported such. Yao was
then instructed to bring the ransom money to Fairview at 3pm, the kidnappers did not
show. Thereafter, Raymond and Chua Ong were found dead via strangulation.
- Arnaldo surrendered to the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, wherein he,
assisted by Atty. Uminga, executed an extrajudicial confession about his involvement. He
identified Reyes, Flores, Pataray and Tata and Akey and their physical features.
Thereafter, they were able to arrest Flores, who also executed an extrajudicial confession
identifying Reyes, Arnlado, Tata and Akey.
Version of the defense (also based on testimonies of people)
- They denied the version of the prosecution and presented alibis and the defense of a
frame-up.
- Arnlado testified that he was an “asset” of the task force. He was met by Yao San who
was willing to pay him P500k if he will identify the kidnappers, to which he agreed upon
under the condition that he would identify a different set of suspects (di ko ‘to gets). He
was also paid P30k by Col. Mancao.
 - Arnaldo then identified Reyes and Flores as the kidnappers allegedly because of their
previous altercation at the cockpit. He denied the participation of Atty. Uminga when he
made the extrajudicial confession. He also stated that he was used by the task force as a
drug pusher.
- Reyes testified that he was sleeping in his house with his family from 6pm of July 16
until the morning. That in the morning of July 26, 5 policemen barged into his house and
arrested him for being a suspect in the kidnapping of the Yao family. He alleges that he
was mauled and tortured. He denied being involved and alleged that he was only
implicated by Arnaldo because of their fight at the cockpit.
- Flores testified that he was in Antipolo from July 12 to 30 for the birthday of his sister’s
child, and worked as a construction worker thereafter. He was then arrested in Batangas
and was beaten for refusing to confess about his involvement in the kidnapping of the
Yao family. After 3 days of beating, he was forced to sign a document which turned out
to be the extrajudicial confession. He attested that he never met with Atty. Rous.
- Reyes and Flores assail the use of their extrajudicial confession against them on the
ground that it was obtained in violation of their constitutional right to counsel of their
own choice.
RTC Decision
- The RTC rendered a decision convicting the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide and sentenced them
to death.
- It was then forwarded to the SC because of the sentencing of the penalty of death but was
remanded to the CA pursuant to the ruling in People v Mateo.
CA Decision
- CA affirmed the decision of the RTC but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
Issue
- Can the extrajudicial confessions be used against the appellants? YES
Fallo

WHEREFORE, the Decision, dated 14 August 2006, and Resolution, dated 18 October
2006, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02301 is hereby AFFIRMED with the
following MODIFICATIONS: (1) the total amount of civil indemnity is P150,000.00; (2) the
total amount of exemplary damages is P700,000.00; (3) the total amount of moral damages
is P700,000.00; and (4) the appropriate denomination of the crime committed by appellants is the
special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide.

SO ORDERED.
Held
- Yes.
- An extrajudicial confession is a declaration made by a person under custodial
investigation voluntarily and without compulsion stating that he committed or
participated in the commission of a crime. Art III Sec 12 of the Constitution mandates
these safeguards to be observed for these confessions be admissible.
Section 12. (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.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means

which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17

shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
- Requisites for admissibility of extrajudicial confessions
o Must be voluntary
o Must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel
o Must be express
o Must be in writing
- The right of an accused to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel
contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial
and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. The right to counsel is a
fundamental right and is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the
accused to admit something false.
- The lawyer called to be present during such investigation should be, as far as reasonably
possible, the choice of the accused. If the lawyer is one furnished in behalf of accused, he
should be competent and independent; that is, he must be willing to fully safeguard the
constitutional rights of the accused. A competent and independent counsel is logically
required to be present and able to advise and assist his client from the time the latter
answers the first question asked by the investigator until the signing of the
confession. Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain that the confession was made
voluntarily, and that the person under investigation fully understood the nature and the
consequence of his extra-judicial confession vis-a-vis his constitutional rights.
- The court has gone over the records and found that the task force duly apprised the
appellants of their constitutional rights to remain silent and their right to counsel before
the interrogation started. They were also informed that anything they say can and will be
used against them in a court of law. It was found that Reyes picked Atty. Uminga as his
 counsel, and that Flores agreed to be represented by Atty. Rous. The Attys. were present
during the time of the interrogation, and they were given space and privacy to converse
with their clients. The Attys. attested that the interrogation was conducted properly, and
that the confessions written down were reviewed and checked by their clients.
- It is true that it was the PAOCTF which contacted and suggested the availability of Atty.
Uminga and Atty. Rous to appellants Arnaldo and Flores, respectively. Nonetheless, this
does not automatically imply that their right to counsel was violated. What the
Constitution requires is the presence of competent and independent counsel, one who will
effectively undertake his clients defense without any intervening conflict of
interest. There was no conflict of interest with regard to the legal assistance rendered by
Atty. Uminga and Atty. Rous. Both counsels had no interest adverse to appellants
Arnaldo and Flores.
- The Constitution states that the accused is entitled to have a counsel “PREFERABLY his
own choice.” This phrase does not mean that the choice of the person under investigation
is exclusive as to preclude other lawyers from handling his case. It would put the tempo
of the interrogation on the hands of the accused. For the appointment of counsel, the
accused has the last and final say, whether to accept or reject the lawyer provided. In the
case at bar, Flores and Reyes did not reject the services of the appointed Attys. Since the
prosecution was able to sufficiently establish that the confessions were obtained in
accordance with the constitutional guarantees, they are admissible.
Notes
- Atty. Uminga was a former National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent, he had been
separated therefrom since 1994 then he went into private practice. Atty. Uminga was a
private practitioner when he assisted appellant Arnaldo during the custodial investigation.