THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMANNUEL FELIPE, VELASCO, ET AL., ACCUSED, EMMANUEL FELIPE VELASCO Y SARNO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Velasco versus People

The Case

This is the case of Velasco versus People, a criminal appeal by Emmanuel Felipe Velasco from a conviction for murder handed down by the Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu. The appellant was accused, together with several others, of the killing of a taxi driver named Ricardo Barbado. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to test the strict constitutional standard for admitting an extra-judicial confession made during custodial investigation, and because it restates the rule that conspiracy, like guilt itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court acquits the appellant, and the reasoning is a model for examining the voluntariness of a confession and the presence of counsel.

Procedural History

The appellant was charged with murder before the Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu. After trial, that court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. It appreciated in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, but offset it with the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of the law, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Ricardo Barbado in the sum of 15,000 pesos as actual and compensatory damages and 50,000 pesos as moral and exemplary damages, and to pay the costs. The conviction rested mainly on the appellant's sworn statement, which the trial court treated as an extra-judicial confession perfectly admissible under the Constitution. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the statement was improperly admitted and that, even if admitted, it was insufficient to support conviction.

Facts

On the evening of March 21, 1978, the appellant Emmanuel Velasco was with Ben Verano, Agustin Kho, also called Boy Kho, and Ben del Rosario. Boy Kho hailed an Elite taxi driven by Ricardo Barbado. The appellant sat at the back while Boy Kho sat in front beside the driver. At San Jose dela Montaña, Boy Kho ordered the driver to stop, pointed a revolver at him, and said, "Don't move, bay, we need your vehicle." The driver attempted to fight back but was prevented. The appellant was ordered by Boy Kho to drive the vehicle, and the driver transferred to the back seat, all the time covered by Boy Kho's revolver.

They picked up Ben Verano and Ben del Rosario and proceeded toward Opra Village. On the way, Ben Verano also pointed his revolver at the driver. When they reached the Caltex Station at Escario Street, near the office of the Elite taxi, the driver attempted to jump out. There was a commotion at the back, and the appellant heard two shots from the revolver of Boy Kho. The driver was hit and slumped in the back seat. At Camp Marina, the appellant stopped the vehicle, and his companions alighted and fled. The appellant went home with Ben del Rosario.

The case was investigated by Lieutenant Domiciano Angel of the Cebu City police. On March 23, 1978, he received information that one Cesar Pelonio had extracted a bullet from the hand of Ben Verano. Pelonio was arrested and named Boy Kho, Ben Verano, Ben del Rosario, and Emmanuel Velasco as the persons responsible. Lieutenant Angel contacted the appellant's father and advised him to surrender his son. The father surrendered the appellant. Atty. Maximino Ylaya represented the appellant even before he gave his statement to the police. The statement was taken down by police corporal Romeo Cordova on April 4, 1978, and sworn to before State Prosecutor Benicio Arzadon on April 26, 1978. The appellant claimed that threats and a promise of immunity as a state witness vitiated the confession, and that counsel was not present during its execution.

Issues

• Whether or not the extra-judicial confession of the appellant was admissible, given the claim that it was not voluntary and was executed without the attendance of counsel.
• Whether or not the appellant was a co-conspirator in the killing of Ricardo Barbado, so as to make him liable as a principal or accomplice.
• Whether or not the evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

The Constitution, as quoted in the decision, provides on the rights of a person under custodial investigation:

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.

This provision bears on the case because the Court requires that counsel be present during the taking of the statement, and the absence of counsel renders the confession inadmissible.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the requirement of counsel being present during the taking of the statement of a suspect in a custodial investigation was not fulfilled. The Court noted that the trial court itself made a statement on the matter. The Court also found that a mixture of threat and cajolery was employed in the execution of the extra-judicial confession, and either or both would vitiate the confession for lack of voluntariness, the one essential element for its admissibility. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in People versus Ibañez:

In other words, the accused must be shown to have had guilty participation in the criminal design entertained by the slayer, and this presupposes knowledge on his part of such criminal design. It is not enough that there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as co-principal or accomplice; it is, furthermore, necessary that the latter, with knowledge of the former's criminal intent, should cooperate with moral or material aid in the consummation of the crime.

On the second issue, the Court held that the killing was a sudden and unexpected act of Boy Kho, prompted by the driver's sudden attempt to jump out of the taxi. Even Ben Verano was hit when Boy Kho fired. There was no circumstance upon which to base a finding that the appellant participated in the criminal design of killing the driver. The appellant's testimony, which was uncontradicted, showed that he was ordered at gunpoint to drive, that he protested, and that he stayed behind after the killing intending to wait for the police. Conspiracy, like guilt itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

On the third issue, the Court held that the absence of contradictory testimony by a state witness made the evidence of the prosecution insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution's case consisted of the appellant's supposed extra-judicial confession, which was inadmissible under the strict standard established by the Constitution.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain these rules. First, an extra-judicial confession, to be admissible, must be voluntary, and the attendance of counsel during its execution is required. A confession vitiated by threat or cajolery is inadmissible for lack of voluntariness. Second, conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and it requires knowledge of the criminal design and cooperation with moral or material aid in the consummation of the crime. Third, the absence of contradictory testimony by a state witness may render the prosecution's evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Disposition

The Court acquitted the appellant Emmanuel Felipe Velasco, reversing the judgment of conviction for murder.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that an extra-judicial confession must be voluntary and made with the attendance of counsel, and conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Examiners like to use this case to test the strict standard for admitting custodial confessions and the requisites of conspiracy.