PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONERS, VS. ARNEL ORACOY AND NILO PLARISAN (AT LARGE), ACCUSED, ARNEL ORACOY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The lifeless body of Joel Vailoces, a helper of the Equatorial
Security Agency owned by Santiago Sierra was found in the farm of the latter in
Sitio Tagaytay, Pardo, Cebu. Written on
the left palm of the deceased in blue ballpen were the following: “Arnel Oracoy, bata-bata”
Discovered missing were two (2) shotguns belonging to Equatorial Security
Agency.

Proceeding from this lead, the police investigators conducted an
inquiry and proceeded to the house of Arnel Oracoy at To-ong, Pardo, Cebu which
was about four to five kilometers from the farm of Sierra. They invited him to the police station where
the latter executed an extrajudicial confession admitting the crime and
identifying Nilo Plarisan as his co-profligate in the commission thereof.

In an information dated April 4, 1990, the above accused, Arnel
Oracoy and Nilo Plarisan were charged of the crime of Robbery with Homicide
committed as follows:

“That on or about the 1st day of April, 1990 at about 5:00
P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and
mutually helping one another, armed with a piece of steel bar and bolo, with
deliberate intent, with intent to kill, did then and there attack, assault and
slashed the neck of one JOEL VAlLOCES; and inflicting upon him the following
injuries:

‘HEMORRHAGE, ACUTE, SEVERE, SECONDARY TO
CUT­-THROAT WOUND.’

which injuries caused the instantaneous
death of the latter and with intent of gain take and carry away two (2) shot
guns, belonging to Equatorial Security Agency to the damage and prejudice of
the latter in the amount of P8,000.00 each shot gun.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[1]

With the assistance of counsel, accused Oracoy pleaded “NOT
GUILTY” to the charge. The other accused,
Nilo Plarisan was never apprehended and had remained at large.

Trial ensued and in a decision dated February 25, 1992, the trial
court Presiding Judge German G. Lee, Jr. rendered judgment finding accused
Oracoy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide,
the dispositive portion of which states:

“WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing evidences, arguments and considerations, this Court
hereby holds and finds the accused Arnel Oracoy, guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of robbery with homicide as penalized under Article 294 Par. 1 as
he is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua with all accessory
penalties and to indemnify the heirs of Joel Vailoces in the sum of P50,000.00
and to pay moral damages of Fifty Thousand and exemplary damages of P20,000.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cebu City, February 25, 1992.”^[2]

Dissatisfied therefrom, accused interposed the present appeal
with the following assignment of errors:

“1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN RELYING ON THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE STATE.

“2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN ADMITTING THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF ACCUSED DESPITE THE FACT
THAT: IT WAS OBTAINED BY MEANS OF
FORCE, THREATS AND INTIMIDATION;
NO COMPLIANCE WITH THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; ASSISTANCE OF LAWYER NOT CHOICE OF ACCUSED;
CONTAINED ERASURES AND SUPER-IMPOSITION; AND WRITTEN IN ENGLISH.

“3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED.”^[3]

The facts established by the prosecution at the trial below show
that at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of April 1, 1990, Cpl. Doroteo
Mantos, a member of the Cebu PC-INP assigned to the homicide section received a
report of a dead body found in the farm of Santiago Sierra in Sitio Tagaytay,
Pardo, Cebu. Together with Patrolman
Alex Dacua, Pfc. Efren Racaza and Patrolman Ferdinand Tumakay, he responded to
the alarm and proceeded to the scene. They were met by Sotero de la Cerna, an employee of Santiago Sierra, who
handed them a bloodied bolo and led them to the place wherein the lifeless body
of Joel Vailoces was found. They examined
the same and found his neck slashed. At
one fathom distance from the dead body, they found a steel bar measuring I/2
inch by 3 feet long. They saw a ballpen
close to the deceased’s right hand and upon further examination they discovered
the words, “Arnel Oracoy, bata-bata” scribbled on the deceased’s left
palm.

They questioned Sotero de la Cerna if he knew Arnel Oracoy. They learned from him that the latter was
formerly employed by Sierra but was dismissed for mishandling the fighting
cocks of Sierra. Together with de la
Cerna, they proceeded to the house Of Arnel
Oracoy at Sitio To-ong, Pardo, Cebu that same night and picked him up. Oracoy at the time was with a friend, Joel
Jomuad. In the course of the
investigation, Arnel Oracoy admitted to the police that he and a certain Nilo
Plarisan had planned to enter the farm of Sierra in order to steal two
shotguns. In executing their plan, Nilo
unlocked the gate, entered first and suddenly struck Joel Vailoces at the back
of his neck. When Vailoces fell down,
Nilo took a bolo and slashed his neck. They proceeded to the sleeping quarters where the two shotguns were
kept, took them and went downward to the bushes, entered a cave located at the
hilly portion near Sitio Canduhat and placed the shotguns underneath a
stone. At about 4:00 a.m. of April 2,
1990, the police proceeded to the place where Oracoy said he hid the
shotguns. True enough, the two shotguns
with Serial Nos. 1034847 and 1038935 were recovered. Then they proceeded to Nilo Plarisan’s place but did not find him
there. When Oracoy volunteered to give
his statements in the form of an affidavit, they provided him with a counsel
from the Citizen’s Legal Assistance Office.

Dr. Jesus P. Cerna, the Police Medico Legal Officer, testified
that on April 2, 1990, he examined the dead body of Joel Vailoces. He recorded only one fatal wound on the
throat which completely cut the trachea and the esophagus, it also cut the
nerves to the brain such as the phrenic, carotid and jugular veins but the vagus
vein was intact. He opined that this 10
x 6 cm. wound, edges clean, cut below neck mid anterior portion could have been
inflicted by a sharp bladed instrument like a bolo. He concluded that the cause of death was hemorrhage secondary to
the cut wound. On re-direct, he
affirmed that the victim could still possibly write on his palm as his spinal
cord was not injured and his performance of voluntary acts was not impaired.

The defense presented accused Arnel Oracoy himself. He testified that he is 22 years old,
single, a construction worker of San Roque, Ginatilan, Cebu, and an elementary
school graduate with Visayan as the medium of instruction. He said he arrived in Cebu City at 2:00 p.m.
on April 1, 1990 with a friend, Joel Jomuad, having left Ginatilan, Cebu at
8:30 a.m. He admitted having been
employed by Santiago Sierra but only for seven months because the salary of P20.00
a day was very low. He made
representations with Sierra for an increase in salary but instead of granting
his demand, he was fired so he went back to Ginatilan, Cebu and engaged in
fishing. On that fateful day of April
1, 1990, he decided to go to Cebu City to look for a job. By chance, he met Joel Jomuad and went with
him to the latter’s boarding house. By
nighttime, they planned on sleeping at a friend’s house. Along the way, however, they were met by the
police who arrested him while Joel Jomuad was dropped off on reaching the road
to Pardo. He was not given food that
evening and even on the following day. They poked a gun at him and threatened to kill him if he did not sign a
prepared affidavit. Fearing for his
life, he signed the affidavit without reading its contents on top of the hood
of a police car where it was totally dark. He denied that the Miranda warnings were read to him nor was he told
that he has a right to counsel; that Atty. Nelson Plarisan assisted him as he
never saw him; that he never knew Nilo Plarisan, his alleged co-accused and the
victim, Joel Vailoces. He likewise
denied that cock handlers are called “bata-bata.” In short,
accused-appellant denied being involved in the killing of Joel Vailoces and in
accompanying the police to where the shotguns were hidden.

Joel Jomuad, his friend, corroborated
substantially the foregoing averments except for the fact that they arrived in
Cebu City between 12:00 and 12:30 p.m., took lunch, rested for a while and then
Oracoy asked permission to go to Colon Street to look for a job. The latter was back at about 4:00 p.m. They left again at about 5:00 p.m. to go to
the house of Imeldo Olivares who promised to help accused looked for a job when
they were intercepted by the police.

The defense also presented Dr. Rey Jabagat, 32, a physician at
the Metro Cebu Community Hospital, Surgery Department. He testified that a person whose throat has
been cut has still 30 seconds to one minute of consciousness but with the
injuries sustained by the victim as described in his medical certificate, he is
of the opinion that the injuries are fatal and the victim could no longer write
with a ballpen as death would immediately ensue. The victim could have drowned from his own blood and immediately
lapse into coma. He admitted, however,
that death from fatal wounds sometimes depends on the physical or health
condition of the victim.

Atty. Nelson Pañares, PAO lawyer, was presented by the
prosecution as rebuttal witness. He
told the court that on April 3, 1990, he was called to assist the accused
herein. He recalled that on seeing the
accused and asking him if he would agree to be represented by him, the accused
answered in the affirmative. Thereafter, he informed the accused of his rights and he affirmed that
Exhibit C, also Exhibit 1 of the defense, is his (Arnel Oracoy’s)
statement. He acknowledged having seen
Oracoy sign his statement in his presence before he affixed his own. He explained that his family name was
misspelled as Palmares so the police corrected it to Pañares after he gave his
identification card.

On sur-rebuttal, accused denied having met or talked with Atty.
Nelson Pañares: He reiterated that he
signed the extrajudicial confession on top of the hood of a police car as he
was forced to sign the same.

Confronted with these opposing versions of the prosecution and
the defense, we examined the records of the case with great care and found no
reason to disturb the conclusion of the lower court finding the
accused-appellant guilty beyond peradventure of doubt.

While it is true that no one saw the killing, the following
circumstantial evidence point to the accused-appellant as one of the
perpetrators of the crime. Firstly, he
admitted that he arrived in Cebu City on that fateful day of April 1, 1990. He had gone back to Ginatilan, Cebu after
being fired, but suddenly he is in Cebu City near the vicinity of the
crime. His presence therein renders a
strong probability that he had something to do with the crime. Secondly, his name, together with the word,
“bata-bata,” which refers to a cock handler was found scribbled on
the left hand of the deceased. There is
no question that he was once an employee of Sierra tasked with the duty of
taking care of the fighting cocks numbering about seventy-five. Why his name appears on the palm of the
deceased raises a strong indication that it was written by the deceased himself
to identify his assailant. However,
accused-appellant failed to give any explanation as to why his name appears
written in ballpen on the left palm of the deceased hand. Neither did he impute the presence of any
ill-will or motive on the part of the people at the Sierra farm that could have
impelled any of them to implicate him. Thirdly, the police could not have possibly recovered the stolen
shotguns of Sierra had not the accused-appellant led them to the specific spot
in the cave where he hid them. It has
been held that recovery of the loot from the accused-appellant corroborates his
extrajudicial confession.^[4]
Fourthly, the sworn statement of accused-appellant contains details of the
manner in which the crime was committed, particularly the mention of the name
of his confederate who went into hiding and the respective roles they played,
which only he as a participant could have known and which information he
supplied the police investigators.^[5]

Thus, although there were no eyewitnesses to the killing and the
robbery, the foregoing circumstances point to the accused-appellant as the
malefactor. Rule 133, Section 5 of the
Rules of Court states that there is sufficiency of circumstantial evidence when
(1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inference
is derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.^[6]

Our existing jurisprudence has not laid down any rule regarding
the quantity of circumstantial evidence which will suffice for any case. But a rule well ingrained in jurisprudence
and followed through the years is that the circumstances proven must be consistent
with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and
at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with
every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.^[7]

Accused-appellant’s denial of his extrajudicial confession on the
ground that the same was obtained by means of force, threats and intimidation
and without compliance with the Miranda warnings is not convincing. There was no specification as to the detail
and nature of the force, threat and intimidation employed on him. He only alleged that a gun was poked on him
and threatened by the police investigators which included Pfc. Efren Racaza who
faced a charge for murder, that he will be killed if he does not sign an
affidavit. He did not elaborate. The above complaint does not constitute the
force, threat or intimidation that vitiate the voluntariness and admissibility
of an extrajudicial confession. Noteworthy, too, is the fact that he did not repudiate said confession
at the earliest opportunity and did so only during trial. His failure to complain and institute any
criminal or administrative action against his alleged intimidators indicates
that his repudiation of his extrajudicial confession is only a last ditch
effort to avoid the consequences of the crime.

As evidenced by the extrajudicial confession itself, he was
apprised in accordance with Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution^[8]
that he has the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. Accused-appellant cannot deny that he had a
legal counsel, PAO lawyer Nelson Pañares during the investigation proper. Atty. Pañares categorically declared in
court that he assisted accused-appellant during said investigation. He had no reason to perjure himself and
violate his oath as a lawyer. Needless
to state, his presence therein effectively insured that no force, threat or
intimidation was employed to compel accused-appellant to sign his confession and
that everything written therein, although written in the English language, was
properly explained to him. Anent the
claim of accused-appellant that the name of Atty. Pañares was only
superimposed, as the original lawyer chosen by the police investigators
probably did not accede to affixing his name to a confession he did not
witness, Atty. Pañares sufficiently explained the same saying that the
superimposition was merely the result of the misspelling of his name.

It is interesting to note that accused-appellant’s confession
pointed to the other accused as the more guilty party. This is an indication that the same was not
just fabricated by the police as insinuated by him. The exculpatory tone of the confession is an index of its
voluntariness.^[9]

Moreover, a scrutiny of the evidence of the accused-appellant
shows that in the morning of April 1, 1990, he and Joel Jomuad boarded a bus at
Ginatilan, Cebu and arrived at Cebu City at about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon
to look for a job. In the evening of the
same date, accused-appellant claims that on his way to Pardo he was arrested by
the police. He left out the details of
what he did from the time of their arrival in Cebu up to the time when he was
picked up by the police.

The testimony of Joel Jomuad likewise leaves much to be
desired. Besides the inconsistency as
to their time of arrival in Cebu City, which according to Jomuad was between
12:00 and 12:30 p.m., he declared that after eating lunch at the terminal,
accused-appellant left on his own to look for a job and returned at around 4:00 o’clock p.m. Joel Jomuad himself could not account on the
whereabouts of his friend in the afternoon of said fateful day.

The defense evidence, therefore, miserably failed to establish an
alibi. In order to prosper, alibi must
be so convincing as to preclude any doubt that the accused could not have been
physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time of its
commission.^[10]
Evidently, the defense evidence did not in any way preclude the possibility
that he committed the crime.

In the final analysis, the crux of the matter in this case boils
down to the question of credibility. It
is well-settled that it is the trial court that can best ascertain the
credibility of witnesses. In a long
line of cases, we have held, and hereby reiterate in this case, that the
assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial
court as it is in a better position to decide
the matter having had the opportunity to observe the behavior, demeanor,
conduct and attitude of the witnesses at the trial.^[11]

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu, Branch 15 at Cebu City, in Criminal Case No. CBU-18133 is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Puno, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 23.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 34.

^[3]
Rollo, p. 41.

^[4]
People v. Gamit, G.R. No. 55029, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 870.

^[5]
People v. Layuso, G.R. No. 69210, July 5, 1989, 175 SCRA 46; People v.
Damaso, G. R. Nos. 41490-92, October 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 595.

^[6]
People v. Cariño, et al., G.R. Nos.
92144-49, December 18, 1992.

^[7]
People v. Ludday, 61 Phil. 216, quoting 12 Cyc., 488.

^[8]
This section was inspired by the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.
436 and applied in this jurisdiction, pursuant to Magtoto v. Manguera,
G.R. No. L-37201-02, 63 SCRA 4 (1975), to confessions extracted after the
ratification of the 1973 Constitution.

^[9]
People v. Balane, G.R. Nos. L-48319-20, 123 SCRA 614 (1923); People v.
Alvarez, G.R. No. 88451, 201 SCRA 364 (1991).

^[10]
People v. Lacao, Sr., G.R. No. 95320, 201 SCRA 317 (1991).

^[11]
People v. Evardo, G.R. No. 100724, December 1, 1992.