People vs Januario

7 February 1997 | Ponente: Panganiban

Overview: Januario and Canape were involved in carnapping. Their involvement varies from different versions of what happened. They gave verbal confessions to the crime, which was only later on executed through a written statement and as assisted by counsel. This was considered inadmissible since it was a fruit of the poisonous tree. Topic: Police Investigation; Exclusionary rule/ Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine Statement of the Case: - This is an appeal from the decision of the RTC in Cavite, which held Rene Januario and Efren Canape guilty of violation of Sec. 14 last sentence of RA 6539, known as the Anti-Carnapping Law. Santiago Cid, in the same decision, is acquitted for lack of evidence. - 7 November 1988: Assistant Provincial Fiscal Jose Velasco, Jr. filed against Rene Januario, Efren Canape, Santiago Cid, Eliseo Sarita and Eduardo Sarinos for violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law - 4 September 1987: Januario and Canape, with Sarita and Sarinos, after stabbing driver Geronimo Malibago and conductor Andrew Patriarca, took one Isuzu passenger type jeep owned by Doris and Victor Wolf. - 7 February 1989: Januario and Canape pleaded not guilty. - 30 May 1989: Cid pleaded not guilty. - Sarita and Sarinos remain at large. Statement of Facts: - Vicente Pons story: o March 1988: Cid went to the house of prosecution witness Vicente Pons, Cid's cousin. He asked Pons if he wanted to buy a jeep. Pons said he had no money but he could look for a buyer who can pay 50,000. o So Pons offered to look for a buyer provided that Cid would entrust the jeep to him. o He offered it to Myrna Temporas who agreed to buy it for 65,000, which later became 48,500 only. - Myrna Temporas story: o According to her, Pons told her that the jeep belonged to her niece, Doris Wolf. o Pons, upon Doris Wolf's instruction, borrowed from Myrna 48,500 and used the jeep as collateral. o Pons failed to pay back the 48,500, and also failed to produce a deed of sale covering the jeep. Myrna filed a complaint. She just found out during the complaint that the driver and the conductor of the jeep had been killed by kidnappers. Upon NBI's investigation, they found that the carnapping of the jeep and the killing of the driver and the conductor were done by Januario, Canape, Sarita and Sarinos. The jeep was disposed of through Cid. From an oral investigation of Januario and Canape, NBI found out that the driver and the conductor were killed inside a sugar plantation. A lawyer who was just around, Atty. Carlos Saunar, was asked to assist the two during the investigation. Confession of Januario: o Januario said that 2 weeks before September, he was in the house of Canape to procure chicken and kalawit for his business. He also went there because his new friends, Sarita and Samera, with Canape, wanted him to look for a buyer of a jeep. He asked for a photo of the jeep but he was told that he'll have it later that night after they have drinks at Toto's house. o At about 5am, the group hailed a jeep. Here, Januario described how Canape, Sarita and Sarinos tied up the conductor and the driver of the jeep and took control of the vehicle. The jeep stopped after a while, and brought the conductor and driver down a sugar plantation. Januario described how he heard growls, but did not witness what happened. He also saw the bloodied hand Sarita and Sarinos.

Upon reaching Libmanan, Januario said they went to Cid with whom Januario had earlier conferred regarding the sale of the jeep. He got 1,000 cash and rice and eggs worh 600. Januario signed this statement and swore berfore NBI Executive Director Salvador Ranin. Also signed by Atty. Carlos Saunar as counsel. o Confession of Canape: o Sarita and Sarinos told him to look for a buyer of a jeep. He looked for a buyer with Januario. They saw Cid as an interested buyer. o They told Sarita and Sarinos about it. They drank, then at 5am, hailed a jeep, wrote it and was asked by Sarita and Sarinos to take out a knife and point at the driver and conductor of the jeep. o They stopped at a certain point. Januario, Sarita and Sarinos brought the driver and the conductor down the jeep at a sugar plantation, with Sarita later saying that everything was already fixed "Ayos na". o After this, they went to Cid and gave the jeep to him for 25,000. o He also said that Cid and Pons knew that the jeep was just going to be stolen. He also admitted that he himself knew that when they were looking for a buyer, the jeep they will be selling will also be just stolen. Canape signed, subscribed and swore to this statement. 12 September 1989: Prosecution offered evidence, which the court admitted. Defense manifested its intention to file a demurrer to evidence. 21 November 1989: Since defense has not presented Cid yet, the court ordered the cancellation of his bail bond and gave his surety 30 days within which to show cause why judgement against the bond should not be rendered. 22 December 1989: Court issued an order stating that the demurrer to evidence may not be allowed anymore for failure to appear at the scheduled hearings. 26 December 1989: Defense mailed a demurrer to evidence or motion to dismiss on insufficiency of evidence. 10 January 1990: Trial Court dismissed the motion, since the demurrer failed to contain a compelling reason to recall the previous order. 6 February 1990: The court issued an order considering the cases terminated against Januario and Canape, but granted a reservation to present evidence as regards Cid. 9 March 1990: Defense presented Cid as witness. He said that a certain Raul Repe, Toto Sarita and Digo Sarreal approached him about the sale of a jeep. He referred them to Vicente Pons who he thought would buy the jeep. 27 March 1990: The court denied defense counsels motion to cancel the hearing that day. Since Atty. Saunar was present, the trial court ordered that his testimony be heard that day. Here, Saunar said that Atty. Vela, an NBI agent, approached him. Vela, along with Atty. Toribio told him that Januario, Canape and Sid verbally confessed to participation in a crime, and they were about the execute their sworn statements, so they needed his assistance. Saunar agreed and explained to the three the consequences of their confession. He told them their constitutional rights, the Miranda rights, specifically. Prosecution reminded the court that Saunar cant be presented as witness, so they consider him only as additional evidence for the prosecution and/or rebuttal testimony. 11 May 1990: Defense manifested that it was closing its case.

Issue: 1. Was the admission of the testimony of Atty. Carlos Saunar proper? 2. Were the extra judicial confessions of Januario and Canape admissible as evidence? Held
1.

Yes. No.

2.

Rationale: - Rule 119 of the Rules of Court shows the order of trial. The order is followed, but strict observance of the rules depends upon the circumstances of the case, at the discretion of the trial judge. Therefore, the court may allow the prosecutor to still present involuntarily omitted evidence. Saunar's testimony was considered as a rebuttal witness with respect to Cid, so it was considered. - Atty. Saunar was not the choice of Januario as his custodial investigation counsel. - Even if he can be considered as a competent counsel, he is not independent because at that time, he was applying for a position in the NBI, so his loyalty would

not be to the accused but to NBI. Section 12(1) of Article II of the Constitution states that admission of facts related to a crime must be obtained with assistance of counsel, otherwise it would be inadmissible. An admission, under Section 26 of Rule 130 is "an act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact". This is different from a confession, which is defined in Section 33 as a "declaration of an accused acknowledging guilt of he offense. Januario and Canape made verbal admissions of complicity in the crime. But such verbal admissions must be made with assistance of counsel. They were not made with assistance of counsel when they made it in Naga City. People vs Alicando: There is a "libertarian exclusionary rule known as the fruit of the poisonous tree, where once the primary source (the tree) is shown to have been unlawfully attained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the fruit) derived from it is also inadmissible.

Judgement: Judgement: Januario and Canape are acquitted.