Pp vs Raquel

(1)

[Syllabus] [Syllabus]

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 119005. December 2, 1996] [G.R. No. 119005. December 2, 1996]

P

E

O

P

L

E

O

F

T

H

E

P

H

I

L

I

P

I

N

E

S

,

plaintiff

-appellee,

vs.

SAAS

RA!"E

L,

#A

LERIA

NO

RA!"E

L

$%&

A

'ADO

PON(E

,

accused

,

SAAS RA!"EL $%&

#A

LERIANO RA!"EL,

accused-appellants.

D E ( I S I O N

REGALADO,

REGALADO, J J .).)

The

The coucourtrt a quoa quo foufound nd herherein ein accuaccusedsed-app-appellaellants nts SabaSabas s RaRauel uel and and VValaleriaerianono Rauel! as "ell as accused #$ado %once! &uilty of the cri$e of robbery "ith ho$icide Rauel! as "ell as accused #$ado %once! &uilty of the cri$e of robbery "ith ho$icide and sentenced the$ to suffer the penalty of

and sentenced the$ to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetuareclusion perpetua! to pay the heirs of ! to pay the heirs of #&apito

#&apito 'a$balan'a$balan! ! (r) (r) the the su$ su$ of %*+!+++)++ of %*+!+++)++ as as inde$nity inde$nity for for his his death! death! and and thethe a$ount of %,!*++)++ representin& the alue of the stolen reoler)

a$ount of %,!*++)++ representin& the alue of the stolen reoler) [,][,]The Rauel brothersThe Rauel brothers

no" plead for their absolution in this appellate reie") no" plead for their absolution in this appellate reie")

In an infor$ation dated #u&ust ./! ,012! the

In an infor$ation dated #u&ust ./! ,012! the afore$enafore$entioned accused tioned accused "ere indicted"ere indicted for robbery "ith ho$icide before the Re&ional Trial Court of 3abacan! Cotabato! 4ranch for robbery "ith ho$icide before the Re&ional Trial Court of 3abacan! Cotabato! 4ranch ,2!

,2![.][.] alallele&ed&edly ly coco$$i$$ittetted d on on (u(uly ly 5! 5! ,01,012 2 inin Barangay Barangay OsOsias ias of of ththe e 6u6unicnicipaipalitlity y of of

3abacan) 3abacan)

7pon arrai&n$ent thereafter! all the accused pleaded not &uilty) 8hile trial "as in 7pon arrai&n$ent thereafter! all the accused pleaded not &uilty) 8hile trial "as in pro&ress! ho"eer! and before he could &ie his testi$ony! accused #$ado %once pro&ress! ho"eer! and before he could &ie his testi$ony! accused #$ado %once escaped fro$ 9ail)

escaped fro$ 9ail)[:][:]

The factual antecedents of the case for the %eople! as borne out by the eidence of The factual antecedents of the case for the %eople! as borne out by the eidence of re

recocord rd anand d "i"ith th papa&e &e rerefefererencnces es to to ththe e trtrananscscririptpts s of of ththe e cocoururt t heheararinin&s&s! ! araree su$$ari;ed by the Solicitor 'eneral in the appellees brief<

su$$ari;ed by the Solicitor 'eneral in the appellees brief<

At midnight of July 4, 1986, tragedy visited the peaceful

At midnight of July 4, 1986, tragedy visited the peaceful lives of spouses Juliet and

lives of spouses Juliet and

Agapito Gambalan, Jr. hin!ing of a neighbor in need, Agapito

Agapito Gambalan, Jr. hin!ing of a neighbor in need, Agapito attended to the person

attended to the person

!noc!ing at the bac!door of their !itchen. "uch to

!noc!ing at the bac!door of their !itchen. "uch to his surprise, heavily armed men

his surprise, heavily armed men

emerged at the door, declared a hold#up and fired their guns at

emerged at the door, declared a hold#up and fired their guns at him. $pp. 4#6,

him. $pp. 4#6,

%&, January '(, 1988)

Juliet *ent out of their room after

Juliet ent out of their room after hearing gunshots and sa her husbands lifeless

hearing gunshots and sa* her husbands lifeless

$sic) *hile a man too! her

(2)

%he shouted for help at their indo and sa* a man fall beside their *ater pump

hile to $') other men ran a*ay. $p. 9,

ibid.

₎

George Jovillano responded to Juliets plea for help. e reported the incident to the

police. he police came and found one of the perpetrators of the crime *ounded and

lying at about 8 meters from the victims house. e *as identified as Amado -once.

$pp. (#+, %&, ctober '1, 198+/ pp. 8#9, %&, "arch '1, 1988)

Amado -once as first treated at a clinic before he as brought to the police

station. $p. '+,

ibid.

₎

Amado -once revealed to -0%gt. Andal %. -angato that appellants %abas and

aleriano 2a3uel *ere the perpetrators of the crime and that they may be found in

their residence. o*ever, the police failed to find them there since appellants fled

immediately after the shooting incident. $pp. 1'#14,

ibid.

₎

Appellants *ere later on apprehended on different occasions. $pp. (#6, %&, April

', 1991)

[5]

7pon the other hand! appellants relied on alibi as their defense! on the bases of facts "hich are presented in their brief in this "ise<

Accused aleriano 2a3uel testified that on July ', 1986, *ith the permission of his

pa

rents he left -aatan, abacan, 5otabato and *ent to unggol -agalungan,

"aguindanao. e stayed in the house of his sister#in#la, the ife of his deceased

brother. ogether *ith oy "adriaga and 5ora7on 5orpu7, he harvested palay on July

 and 4. n July (, hile he as still asle$ep), police authorities accompanied by his

father arrested him and brought him to the municipal ail of abacan, 5otabato. e

already heard the name of accused Amado -once, to be an o*ner of a parcel of land in

-aatan.

n cross#e:amination, he admitted that their house and that of Gambalan are

located in the same arangay. efore July 4, he entertained no grudge against victim

Agapito Gambalan. $%&, April ', 1991, pp. '#';)

Antonio 2a3uel, 64 years old, testified that on July ', 1986 he as at home hen

his son aleriano 2a3uel told him that he *as going to unggol, -agalungan,

"aguindanao to harvest palay. n $the) same date, his other son, %abas 2a3uel, also

as!ed his permission to leave since the latter, a soldier, *as going to his place of

assignment at -agadian. n July (, 1986, several policemen came over to his house,

loo!ing for his t*o $') sons. e gave them pictures of his sons and even accompanied

them to unggol *here they arrested his son aleriano. $%&, April , 1991, pp. #'6)

(3)

0%gt. &atalio <afra, of the 1;' rigade, Aurora, <amboanga, testified that on July

4, 1986, he *as assigned in the 'nd =nfantry attalion, >irst =nfantry ?ivision, "aria

5ristina, =ligan 5ity. %abas 2a3uel as under his division then, and as on duty

on July 4, 1986. $%&, &ov. 6, 199', pp. '#';).

[*]

On #u&ust ,+! ,00:! the trial court! as stated at the outset! rendered 9ud&$ent findin& all of the accused &uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cri$e char&ed and sentenced the$ accordin&ly)[2]

Not satisfied there"ith! herein appellants filed a notice of appeal "herein they $anifested that they "ere appealin& the decision to the Court of #ppeals) [/] The lo"er

court ordered the trans$ittal of the records of the case to the Court of #ppeals) [1] In ie"

of the penalty i$posed! the Court of #ppeals properly for"arded the sa$e to us) [0]

4efore us! the defense sub$its a lone assi&n$ent of error! i)e)! that the trial court erred in conictin& accused Sabas Rauel and Valeriano Rauel of the cri$e char&ed! despite absence of eidence positiely i$plicatin& the$ as the perpetrators of the cri$e)

8e find such sub$ission to be $eritorious) # careful reie" and ob9ectie appraisal of the eidence coninces us that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the real identities of the perpetrators of! $uch less the participation of herein appellants in! the cri$e char&ed)

The lone eye"itness! (uliet 'a$balan! "as not able to identify the assailants of her husband) In her testi$ony on direct e=a$ination in court she declared as follo"s<

>< ?ou said you shouted ri&ht after the incident and pip @sicA at the "indo"! did you see any "hen you pip @sicA at the "indo"B

#< ?es! sir)

>< 8hat did you see if you "ere able to see anythin&B

#< I sa" a person "ho fel@lA do"n beside the "ater pu$p and I sa" a&ain t"o @.A persons "ho "ere runnin& a"ay! sir)

>< 8ere you able to identify this persons "ho fel@lA do"n near the 9et$atic pu$p and t"o @.A persons runnin& a"ayB

= = =

>< No"! you said so$ebody fel@lA do"n near the 9et$atic pu$p! "ho is this personB

#< I do not no" sir) I hae no"n that he "as #$ado %once "hen the %olice arried)

[,+] (Italics ours.)

On cross-e=a$ination she further testified<

>< or the first ti$e "hen you shouted for help! "here "ere youB

#< I "as at the Veranda sir and I started shoutin& "hile &oin& to our roo$)

>< In fact you hae no "ay @ofA identifyin& that one person "ho "as $as@edA and &ot the &un of your husband because he "as $as@edA! is that not ri&htB

(4)

#< ?es! sir)

>< In fact! you sa" only this one person &ot inside to your house and &ot this &unB #< ?es! sir)

>< #nd this #$ado %once cannot be the person "ho hae &ot this &un insideB ISC# DIFON<

#lready ans"ered)

She "as not able to identify! your Honor )

>< ?ou only sa" this #$ado %once "hen @hAe "as presented to you by the police! is that ri&htB

#< ?es! sir )[,,]

= = =

>< ?ou testified in direct testi$ony you pip @sicA in 9alousie after you shouted for help and you sa" t"o @.A person@sA runnin&! is that ri&htB

#< ?es! sir)

>< No"! you sa" these persons runnin& on the road! is that not ri&htB #< I sa" the$ runnin& sir &oin& around)

>< These t"o @.A persons "ere runnin& &oin& aroundB #< They "ere runnin& to"ards the road)

#TT?) DIVINO<

'oin& to the road)

>< #nd you cannot identify these t"o @.A persons runnin& to"ards the roadB #< No! sir )[,.] (Emphases supplied.)

Een the corroboratin& "itness! 'eor&e (oillano! in his testi$ony $ade no $ention of "ho shot #&apito 'a$balan) In fact! in his s"orn state$ent e=ecuted in the Inesti&ation Section of the 3abacan %olice Station on (uly *! ,012! he declared that<

,0 >< 4y the "ay! "hen you sa" three persons passin& about * $eters a"ay fro$ "here you "ere then drinin&! "hat hae you noticed about the$! if you eer noticed anyB

,0 #< I noticed that one of the $en ha@dA lon& firear$ "hich "as partly coered by a $aon& 9acet) The other one "ore a hat locally no"n as ipis $eanin& a hat $ade of cloth "ith leaes protrudin& aboe the forehead and see$ed to be

holdin& so$ethin& "hich I failed to reco&ni;e) The other one "ore a shortpant "ith a so$e"hat "hite T-shirt "ith $arin&s and there "as a "hite T-shirt coerin& his head and a part of his face as he "as head-do"n durin& that ti$e)

.+ >< Did you reco&ni;e any of these $enB

(5)

# thorou&h reie" of the records of this case readily reealed that the identification of herein appellants as the culprits "as based chiefly on the e=tra9udicial state$ent of accused #$ado %once pointin& to the$ as his co-perpetrators of the cri$e) #s earlier stated! the said accused escaped fro$ 9ail before he could testify in court and he has been at lar&e since then)

The e=tra9udicial state$ents of an accused i$plicatin& a co-accused $ay not be utili;ed a&ainst the latter! unless these are repeated in open court) If the accused neer had the opportunity to cross-e=a$ine his co-accused on the latters e=tra9udicial state$ents! it is ele$entary that the sa$e are hearsay as a&ainst said accused) [,5] That

is e=actly the situation! and the disadanta&ed pli&ht of appellants! in the case at bar) E=tre$e caution should be e=ercised by the courts in dealin& "ith the confession of an accused "hich i$plicates his co-accused) # distinction! obiously! should be $ade bet"een e=tra9udicial and 9udicial confessions) The for$er depries the other accused of the opportunity to cross-e=a$ine the confessant! "hile in the latter his confession is thro"n "ide open for cross-e=a$ination and rebuttal)[,*]

The res inter alios rule ordains that the ri&hts of a party cannot be pre9udiced by an act! declaration! or o$ission of another) #n e=tra9udicial confession is bindin& only upon the confessant and is not ad$issible a&ainst his co-accused) The reason for the rule is that! on a principle of &ood faith and $utual conenience! a $ans o"n acts are bindin& upon hi$self! and are eidence a&ainst hi$) So are his conduct and declarations) ?et it "ould not only be ri&htly inconenient! but also $anifestly un9ust! that a $an should be bound by the acts of $ere unauthori;ed stran&ersG and if a party ou&ht not to be bound by the acts of stran&ers! neither ou&ht their acts or conduct be used as eidence a&ainst hi$)[,2]

#lthou&h the aboe-stated rule ad$its of certain 9urisprudential e=ceptions! [,/] those

e=ceptions do not ho"eer apply to the present case)

irstly! e=cept for that e=tra9udicial state$ent of accused #$ado %once! there e=ists no eidence "hatsoeer linin& appellants to the cri$e) In fact! the testi$ony of police S&t) #ndal S) %an&ato that appellant Sabas Rauel "as "ounded and "ent to the clinic of Dr) #nulao for treat$ent usin& the na$e Dante Cle$ente! [,1] "as ne&ated by Dr)

#nulao hi$self "ho testified that he treated no person by the na$e of Danny Cle$ente)

[,0]

Secondly! this e=tra9udicial state$ent! ironically relied upon as prosecution eidence! "as $ade in iolation of the constitutional ri&hts of accused #$ado %once) This "as un"ittin&ly ad$itted in the testi$ony of the sa$e S&t) #ndal S) %an&ato "ho "as the chief of the intelli&ence and inesti&ation section of their police station<

>< Durin& the inesti&ation did you infor$ hi$ @ofA his constitutional ri&ht "hile on the process of inesti&ationB

#< No sir! because $y purpose "as only to &et the infor$ation fro$ hi$) ) ) ) #nd after that I checed the infor$ation that he &ae)

(6)

#< 8hat I no" is if "hen a person is under inesti&ation you hae in $ind to inesti&ate as to a&ainst @sicA hi$! and you hae to infor$ his constitutional ri&ht but if the purpose is to interro&ate hi$ to acuire infor$ation "hich "ill lead to the identity of the other accused "e do not need to infor$ hi$)

>< Dont you no" that under the case of %% s) 'alit! the accused should be @reApresented by counsel that is the rulin& of the Supre$e CourtB

#< I do not no" if it is actually the sa$e as this case)

>< 4ut it is a fact that you did not een infor$ hi$ @ofA his ri&htB #< No sir)

>< #t the ti$e "hen you ased hi$ he has no counsel) #< No counsel! sir)[.+]

E=tra9udicial state$ents $ade durin& custodial inesti&ation "ithout the assistance of counsel are inad$issible and cannot be considered in the ad9udication of the case) 8hile the ri&ht to counsel $ay be "aied! such "aier $ust be $ade "ith the assistance of counsel)[.,] These ri&hts! both constitutional and statutory in source and

foundation! "ere neer obsered)

# coniction in a cri$inal case $ust rest on nothin& less than a $oral certainty of &uilt)[..] 8ithout the positie identification of appellants! the eidence of the prosecution is

not sufficient to oerco$e the presu$ption of innocence &uaranteed by the 4ill of Ri&hts to the$)[.:] 8hile ad$ittedly the alibi of appellants $ay be assailable! the eidence of the

prosecution is probatiely lo" in substance and eidentiarily barred in part) The prosecution cannot use the "eaness of the defense to enhance its caseG it $ust rely on the stren&th of its o"n eidence) In fact! alibi need not be inuired into "here the prosecutions eidence is "ea)[.5]

It "ould not een hae been necessary to stress that eery reasonable doubt in cri$inal cases $ust be resoled in faor of the accused) The reuire$ent of proof beyond reasonable doubt calls for $oral certainty of &uilt) In the instant case! the test of $oral certainty "as neither $et nor "ere the standards therefor fulfilled)

*HEREFORE! on reasonable doubt! the appealed 9ud&$ent is REVERSED and accused-appellants Sabas Rauel and Valeriano Rauel are hereby #C>7ITTED of the offense char&ed! "ith costs de oficio)

SO ORDERED.

Romero, Puno, Mendoa, and !orres, "r., ""., concur .

[,]

%enned by (ud&e abiana Inserto-Te9ada)

[.]_{Ori&inal Record! .)}

[:]

(7)

[5]

4rief for %laintiff-#ppellee! .-:G Rollo! ,00-.++)

[*]

#ppellants 4rief! 2-1G Rollo! ,5.-,55)

[2]_{I#id.! 50-*1)} [/]_{I#id.! *0)} [1]_{I#id.! 2+)} [0] I#id.! ,) [,+]_{!$%, "anuary &', **, *+.} [,,] Ibid), id., -'+-. [,.]_{Ibid), id., /.} [,:]

E0hi#it 12 3riginal Record, '.

[,5]

%eople 4s) Ola! -5/,5/! (uly :! ,01/! ,*. SCR# ,)

[,*]_{%eople 4s. lores! et al)! ')R) No) /,01+! 6arch ,1! ,00,! ,0* SCR# .0*)}

[,2]

%eople 4s. Tena! ')R) No) ,++0+0! October .,! ,00.! ., SCR# 5:G %eople 4s. %a$on! ')R) No) ,+.++*! (anuary .*! ,00:! .,/ SCR# *+,)

[,/]_{The "riter of this opinion has else"here co$piled these e=ceptions as follo"s<}

@aA If the co-accused i$pliedly acuiesced in or adopted said confession by not uestionin& its truthfulness @%eople 4s) Orenciada! et al)! 5/ %hil) 0/+ [,0.5]A! as "here it "as $ade in his presence and he did not re$onstrate a&ainst his bein& i$plicated therein @%eople 4s) #$a9ul! et al)! -,52.2-./! ebruary .1! ,02,! , SCR# 2,.A<

@bA If the accused persons oluntarily and independently e=ecuted identical confessions "ithout collusion! co$$only no"n as interlocin& confessions @%eople 4s) Encipido! et al)! ')R) No) /++0,! Dece$ber .0! ,012! ,52 SCR# 5/1A "hich confessions are corroborated by other eidence @%eople 4s) #r&ana! et al)! ,0551! ebruary .1! ,025! ,+ SCR# :,,G %eople 4s) %roo! et al)! -.1:5/! (anuary .+! ,0/,! :/ SCR# ,0G %eople 4s) 6ateo! et al)! ')R) No) 2*,2*! (une .0! ,015! ,:+ SCR# .1.AG and "ithout contradiction by the other co-accused "ho "as present @%eople 4s) 6olleda! et al)! -:5.51! Noe$ber .,! ,0/1! 12 SCR# 22/AG

@cA 8here the accused ad$itted the facts stated by the confessant after bein& apprised of such confession @%eople 4s) Narciso! -.5515! 6ay .1! ,021! .: SCR# 155AG

@dA If they are char&ed as co-conspirators of the cri$e "hich "as confessed by one of the accused and said confession is used only as a corroboratin& eidence @%eople 4s) inde! et al)! -,+:*1! (anuary .1! ,02,! , SCR# :1G %eople 4s) Si$ba9on! -,1+/:-/*! Septe$ber :+! ,02*! ,* SCR# 1:G %eople 4s) Sta) 6aria! ,00.0! October :+! ,02*! ,* SCR# ...G %eople 4s) Corte;! et al)! -:,,+2! 6ay :,! ,0/5! */ SCR# :+0AG

@eA 8here the confession is used as circu$stantial eidence to sho" the probability of participation by the co-conspirator @%eople 4s) Conde$ena! et al)! -..*.2! 6ay .0! ,021! .: SCR# 0,+G %eople 4s) %are9a! et al)! -.,0:/! Noe$ber .0! ,020! :+ SCR# 20:G %eople 4s) Vasue;! ')R) No) *5,,/! #pril ./! ,01.! ,,: SCR# //.AG

@fA 8here the confessant testified for his co-defendant @%eople 4s) Villanuea! et al)! -,.21/! (uly :,! ,02.! * SCR# 2/.AG or

@&A 8here the co-conspirators e=tra9udicial confession is corroborated by other eidence of record @%eople 4s) %a;! et al)! -,*+*-*:! #u&ust :,! ,025! ,, SCR# 22/G %eople 4s) #&deppa! et al)! -,/510! Dece$ber .5! ,020! :+ SCR# /1.A)

(8)

[,1]

TSN! 6arch .,! ,011! ,5-,2)

[,0]_{TSN! (anuary .,! ,00:! 5-*)}

[.+]_{!$%, March &, **, &5+&*.}

[.,]_{See %eople 4s. Salan&&a! et al.! ')R) No) ,++0,+! (uly .*! ,005! .:5 SCR# 5+/)}

[..]

%eople 4s. #r&a"anon! et al )! ')R) No) ,+2*:1! 6arch :+! ,005! .:, SCR# 2,5)

[.:]_{%eople 4s. Sal&uero! et al)! ')R) No) 10,,/! (une ,0! ,00,! ,01 SCR# :*/)}

[.5]_{%eople 4s. Sal&uero! et al)! supraG %eople 4s. Dural! et al)! ')R) No) 150.,! (une 1! ,00:! ..: SCR#}