G.R. No. L-35598. May 29, 1987
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEONARDO DE LOS SANTOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BIDIN, J.:
This is an appeal
from a judgment of the former Court of First
Instance of Basilan City, which convicted Leonardo de los Santos of the crime
of Murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the
heirs of the victim in the amount of P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency and to pay proportionate costs.
Appellant Leonardo de los Santos and Alfredo Lacastesantos were charged with the crime of Murder
in an Information which reads:
“That on or about the 29th day of November 1971, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, viz., at Tairan, Isabela, City of
Basilan, Philippines, the above named accused, armed with a bolo and a knife,
conspiring and confederating together, aiding and assisting one another, and
with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, assault, attack and hack one Gregorio Dotado, thereby inflicting hack wounds upon the body of
said Gregorio Dotado, which caused his
death.
“Contrary to law.” (p. 5, Rollo)
On January 31, 1972, only
appellant was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to the charge (p. 13,
Original Records). Trials were
conducted and on May 24, 1972, appellant, as already stated, was convicted. It was only
on August 16, 1972 that the other accused, Alfredo Lacastesantos, was arraigned and he
pleaded not guilty (p. 68, Original Records). On even date, Prosecuting Fiscal Laurencio E. Saavedra orally moved for
the dismissal of the case against Lacastesantos for the reason that the
prosecution is bereft of evidence sufficient to convict Lacastesantos. The trial court dismissed the case against
Lacastesantos for the reason that although
appellant Leonardo de los Santos was convicted, his conviction was due to his
extrajudicial confession and that Lacastesantos was merely implicated by the
appellant as one of the participants of the crime (p. 69, Original Records).
The pertinent facts that
gave rise to the instant prosecution are as follows:
In the early morning of November
30, 1971, a certain Gregorio Dotado was found dead by his sister at the junction
of a trail leading to his house at Tairan, Isabela, Basilan City. Francisco Dotado, the father of the
deceased, upon being informed, reported the matter to the manager of Tairan
Plantation who notified the police authorities. There was no eyewitness to the commission of the crime. The police authorities immediately began the
investigation of the case. Patrolman
Conrado D. Francisco of the Basilan Police Department learned that prior to his death, the victim
Gregorio Dotado was courting a certain
Herminia Garcia and he
had a rival by the name of
Leonardo de los Santos, appellant herein. On December 6, 1971, at around 5:30 p.m., appellant was picked up for
questioning by the police authorities of Basilan City. The following day, appellant voluntarily
executed an affidavit wherein he confessed to his participation in the killing
of the deceased. The said affidavit was
sworn to by appellant before Clerk of Court Ruben Ramos of the City Court of Basilan. The affidavit
which was marked as Exhibit “D” reads:
“A
F F I D A V I T
STATEMENT OF LEONARDO DE LOS SANTOS y SAGDI taken by Pat. Conrado
Francisco, in the Office of the
Secret Service Division, Isabela, Basilan City, on December 7, 1971, at about
7:00 a.m., in the presence of Police Lieutenant Marciano Alberto.
1. QUESTION: Are you willing to tell the truth nothing but the whole truth in answer
to all questions that I may ask you in this investigation?
ANSWER: Yes, sir.
2. Q/ – Please state your name, age, civil
status and other personal circumstances?
A/ –
Leonardo delos Santos y Sagdi, 23 years, single, farmer and resident of Subaan,
Tairan, Isabela, this City.
3. Q/ – Do you personally know Gregorio Dotado a
resident of Tairan, Isabela, this City?
A/ –
Yes, sir.
4. Q/ – Can you tell me now where is Gregorio
Dotado?
A/ –
He is already dead sir.
5. Q/ – Why do you know he is already dead?
A/ –
Alfredo Lacastesantos and myself were the one who killed Gregorio Dotado.
6. Q/ – When did this killing incident happen?
A/ –
Last November 29, 1971, at about 9:00 p.m.
7. Q/ – Where did the killing of Gregorio Dotado
take place?
A/ –
On trail leading to his house, that is outside of the boundary of Alano’s
Plantation, at Tairan, Isabela, this City.
8. Q/ – With what kind of weapon did Alfredo
Lacastesantos and yourself use in killing Gregorio Dotado?
A/ –
Alfredo Lacastesantos used a knife, while myself with a bolo.
9. Q/ – Where is the bolo now that you used in
killing Gregorio Dotado?
A/ –
I left it in the possession of Felipe Sagdi, at Subaan, Tairan, Isabela, this
City.
10. Q/ – Who
owns the bolo that you used in killing Gregorio Dotado?
A/ –
Felipe Sagdi sir, but of course without his
knowledge.
11. Q/ – How about the knife of Alfredo
Lacastesantos can you tell me where is
it now
A/
– The knife of Alfredo Lacastesantos was turned over to me immediately after
the killing of Gregorio Dotado, but I left in the possession of Abtu Sahdi, at
Tairan, Isabela, this City.
12. Q/ – Was Gregorio Dotado with a companion when you
and Alfredo Lacastesantos waylaid him on a trail leading to his house, on the
night of November 29, 1971, at about 9:00 o’clock?
A/
– No sir, he was alone.
13. Q/ – What
prompted you and Alfredo Lacastesantos to kill Gregorio Dotado?
A/
– Sometimes two years ago Gregorio Dotado
and myself had had a misunderstanding, relative to our work in the Alano Plantation
at Tairan, and that recently we’re courting on one girl by the name of Herminia Garcia, and
because of that, I harbor grudge on him.
14. Q/ – Can
you tell me how did this incident happen?
A/
– On
November 29, 1971, at about 7:00 p.m., Alfredo Lacastesantos and myself went to
the house of Manuel Martinez, at Tairan Camp, Isabela, this City, purportedly
to drink tuba. Thereat, I saw Sebastian
Ambrosio, Romeo Martinez, Pablito Santos, Alberto Meneng and the late Gregorio
Dotado. The five were drinking tuba,
right in the balcony of the said house. There, we stayed by the staircase. And not long after, Alberto Meneng and the late Gregorio Dotado went
downstairs and they headed toward the house of said Meneng at a nearby distance. Immediately then Alfredo Lacastesantos and
myself went after Gregorio Dotado, who was on his way home outside of the
boundary of the Tairan Plantation. We
were able then to catch up Gregorio Dotado, who was almost to reach his
house. There and then I asked him in
chavacano dialect, in this manner: ‘VOLVE YA BOS?’ and with a bolo hacked the said Dotado on the throat,
once. And when he fell on the ground I
again hacked him on the forehead, once. After that I turned his body to a prostrated position, because he was
facing upward when he fell and there and then too, Alfredo Lacastesantos with a
knife slashed the neck of said
Gregorio Dotado. Thereafter, sensing
that Gregorio Dotado was already dead, we ran away home to Subaan Tairan,
Isabela, this City; and yesterday afternoon (December 6, 1971) I was picked up
by the Police for investigation in connection with the said killing.
15. Q/- Are all what you have stated here true and
correct?
A/ –
Yes, sir.
16. Q/ – Were you forced, intimidated or promised
of any reward in giving this statement of yours?
A/ –
No, sir.
17. Q/ – Are you willing to swear and sign this
statement of yours?
A/ –
Yes, sir.
(Sgd)
LEONARDO DELOS SANTOS y SAGDI
(Affiant)
Wit. & Int.:
(Sgd) Illegible
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 7th
day of December, 1971, Isabela, Basilan City, Philippines.
(Sgd.)
RUBEN M. RAMOS
City Clerk of
Court”
(pp. 13-16, Rollo)
On December 9, 1971,
appellant executed an affidavit repudiating his extrajudicial confession. The lower court, however, ruled that the
extrajudicial confession of appellant was freely and voluntarily executed and appellant was found guilty of
the crime charged.
In seeking the reversal
of the decision rendered against him, appellant herein raised the sole issue
that:
“The lower court erred in having
convicted defendant-appellant solely on the strength of Exhibit ‘D’ the alleged
confession when the same was obtained thru violence, threat and intimidation
and when the contents thereof were belied by the very evidence of the prosecution.” (Brief of
Defendant-Appellant, p. 47, Rollo)
Appellant
maintains that his confession Exhibit “D” is inadmissible for having
been obtained thru violence, threat and intimidation. He avers that in the evening of December 6, 1971, after Pat.
Conrado Francisco had brought him to the police station for questioning, two
men from the Detective Department investigated him; that when he denied any
participation in the killing of the deceased, the two men boxed him, hitting
him in the left eyebrow and in the mouth and they also kicked the left side of
his body while he was in a squatting position; that when he was brought before
the Clerk of Court of the City Court of Basilan on December 7, 1971 to
subscribe under oath his confession, he signed Exhibit “D” because
of threat made by the policeman who escorted him that he will again be
maltreated if he refuses to do so.
It is significant to
consider that Exhibit “D” was taken on December 7, 1971 by Pat. Conrado Francisco while the alleged maltreatment was done in
the evening of December 6, 1971. It is
unbelievable that the alleged maltreatment made by the two policemen was what induced appellant to admit the crime the following day. Ordinarily, confessions
executed through intimidation or maltreatment are obtained during or
immediately after the supposed maltreatment. In the instant case, appellant alleges that in spite of the alleged
manhandling, he never admitted anything that evening and the two policemen
desisted from further harming him. However, when investigated the following day (December 7, 1971) by
police detective Conrado Francisco, appellant readily confessed his participation
in the killing of Gregorio Dotado. In
fact, during the cross-examination, appellant expressly acknowledged that Pat.
Francisco neither maltreated nor intimidated him during the investigation. Appellant testified thus:
“Q When Conrado Francisco investigated
you did he maltreat you?
“A No, sir.
“Q Did Conrado Francisco intimidate
you while he was investigating you?
“A No, sir.
“Q Did he tie you?
“A No, sir.
“Q. In other words Conrado
Francisco simply conducted a very regular investigation without touching your
body?
“A Yes, sir.” (pp. 308-309,
tsn).
Even
Ruben Ramos, the Clerk of Court of the City Court
of Basilan, testified that when the confession was sworn to before him
by the appellant on December 7, 1971, the latter did not complain that
he was maltreated and instead
admitted that the statements in Exhibit
“D” were voluntarily given and signed by appellant. Ramos testified thus:
“Q After
the Contents of Exhibit ‘D’ was interpreted to the affiant Leonardo de los
Santos y Sagdi, did he inform you that he refused to sign this statement?
“A No,
as a matter of fact I asked him a question whether he was willing to sign it
and I investigated him whether he was coerced or intimidated and he said, no,
he was willing to sign.” (p. 120, tsn).
x x x
“Q Did
you ask Leonardo de los Santos whether the statement that he gave appearing on
Exhibit ‘D’ was only forced or vexed from him?
“A I
asked that question, he said he gave that voluntarily.
“Q Did he complain to you that he was maltreated to give this statement?
“A No,
sir.” (pp. 121-122, tsn).
A confession is deemed to have been made voluntarily if the
accused did no complain to the proper authorities regarding the alleged
maltreatment despite the opportunity to do so (People vs. Page, 77 SCRA 348). If appellant’s confession as contained in
Exhibit “D” was voluntary, we have to conclude that Dotado was slain
in the manner and for the reason set out in that document. It is needless to say that no one in his right mind would convict himself without compulsion by
fabricating a highly self-damaging story and suppressing the truth which would
absolve him (People vs. Carillo, 77 Phil. 572).
Another factor that militates against the claim of appellant of involuntariness in the execution of
Exhibit “D” is the fact that the confession is replete with details
that only the confessant could have known. Appellant narrated in his confession that at about 7:00 p.m. on November 29, 1971, the victim was then
drinking tuba at the house of Manuel Martinez together with Sebastian Ambrosio,
Romeo Martinez, Pablito Santos and Alberto Meneng; that when the victim left
the house of Martinez, he and Alfredo Lacastesantos followed the former; that
before the victim reached his house, they overtook him; whereupon appellant
hacked him with a bolo, first on the throat and when the victim fell on the
ground, he again hacked him on the forehead and realizing that the victim was
already dead, they ran away. The
post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased conducted by Sanitary
Inspector Hilario Guerrero showed that the wounds sustained by the victim were
located exactly in the places where appellant in his affidavit stated that he
inflicted them upon the victim, thus:
“1. Hacked wound, extensive, multiple, neck, almost severed.
2. Hacked wound, eyebrow,
bilateral.
“Cause of Death.
Due to multiple hacked wounds.” (Exhibit A, p. 1, Original
Exhibit)
Indeed, the confession at bar being
complete with details that only the appellant could have known, therefore, show that the confession was executed
voluntarily (People vs. Jimenez, 105 SCRA 721).
Considering the foregoing
circumstances, this Court is of the view that appellant’s admission voluntarily
made and confirmed by him in open court during his trial, renders worthless the
challenge now interposed by him to the admissibility of his sworn statement,
Exhibit “D”. It is
significant to note that the extrajudicial confession, Exhibit “D”, was
obtained and offered in evidence before the 1973 Constitution took effect. In
fact, the decision appealed from
was rendered by the trial court on May 24, 1972. Consequently, appellant’s extrajudicial confession, Exhibit
“D”, is admissible in evidence although the requisites in Section 20
of of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution which declares inadmissible a
confession obtained from a person under investigation for an offense who has
not been informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel were not
observed, since that portion of the 1973 constitutional mandate should be given
prospective and not retrospective effect and no law gave the accused the right
to be so informed before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution
(Magtoto vs. Manguera, 63 SCRA 4). Furthermore, the declaration of an accused
expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, may be given in
evidence against him (Sec. 29, Rule 130). It has been held that a confession constitutes evidence of high order
and the presumption is that no sane person would deliberately confess
the commission of a crime unless
prompted to do so by truth and conscience (U.S. vs. De los Santos, 24 Phil. 329).
Appellant likewise
impugns the truth of the confessions as regards the house where
the deceased was last seen. Appellant alleges that according to the
affidavit of Alberto (Roberto) Meneng which was attached to the information
filed by the prosecuting fiscal,
Meneng was the companion of the deceased in the evening of November 29, 1971
when they went to the house of Salvador
Martinez to drink tuba (p. 4, Original Record). While in the confession, it
was stated that the deceased just before his death was in the house of one Manuel Martinez. This argument deserves scant consideration
not only because of its immateriality but also because the
supposed witness Alberto (Roberto) Meneng was never presented during the trial as witness either for the
prosecution or the defense and his affidavit was also not submitted as
evidence.
Appellant’s extrajudicial
confession was corroborated by the evidence on the corpus delicti,
the post-mortem examination (Exhibit A) which suffices for conviction (Section 3,
Rule 133).
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED
with the sole modification that
appellant is ordered to indemnify the heirs of Gregorio Dotado in the
amount of P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Padilla, and Cortes, JJ., concur.