G.R. Nos. L-36436-38. October 23, 1981
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MAURO VERGES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ALFREDO LARCADA, APPELLANT.
DE CASTRO, J.:
Automatic review of three death sentences imposed on Alfredo Larcada, appellant herein, in three separate cases for
murder, the dispositive portion of the decision
rendered by the Court of First Instance of Rizal
reading as follows:
“ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds the accused Alfredo Larcada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three separate
crimes of murder and hereby sentences him (1) in Criminal Case No. 2008, to
suffer the penalty of DEATH and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Alberto Rubiso in the amount of P12,000.00; (2) in Criminal Case
No. 2009, to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Pedro Trijo in the amount of P12,000.00; and
(3) in Criminal Case No. 2011, to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to indemnify
the heirs of the deceased Jaime Caballero in the amount of P12,000.00.
“With proportionate costs against the accused in each of these
cases.”[1]
The version of the prosecution is given in the People’s brief as
follows:
“At about 8:00 in the morning of May 4, 1969, some sixty-five
prisoners, all members of the Sigue-Sigue (Sputnik)
gang, were being escorted by Prison Guard Pedro Palparan
and twenty other guards to a new place of confinement at Dormitory No. 4-D, New
Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa,
Rizal. While
passing in front of their cell, Alfredo Larcada and
seventeen other cellmates at Dormitory Cell No. 4-C suddenly rushed out of
their cell (the door of the cell was then opened) and attacked the passing
prisoners with improvised stabbing instruments.
(Tsn., p. 3, Nov. 9, 1972). During the assault accused Larcada stabbed two members of the Sigue-Sigue
(Sputnik) gang. Returning to their cells
afterwards, Larcada threw his weapon out of the
window. (Exh.
E, pp. 10-12, Folder of Exhs.).
“As a result of the incident, three members of the Sigue-Sigue (Sputnik) gang, namely, Alberto Rubiso, Pedro Trejo and Jaime Caballero sustained multiple
stab wounds and died. (Tsn., pp. 4-16, Oct. 12, 1972; Exhs.
A, C, D, Folder of Exhibits).
“All eighteen inmates of Cell No. 4-C, including appellant Larcada, were brought to the Investigation Section of the
prison for investigation. (Tsn., pp. 24-25, Nov. 2, 1972). Police Investigator Felimon
Olivera, Jr. interrogated appellant and reduced his
statements in writing, after which it was signed by the latter, and later on
sworn to by him before the administrative officer of the Bureau of Prisons,
Julio Alcantara (tsn., pp.
28-29, Nov. 2, 1972; pp. 2-4, Nov. 2, 1972).”[2]
For Its importance, the verdict of guilt having been based solely
on the appellant’s statement which was admitted as an extrajudicial confession
(exhibit “E”), same is reproduced in full as follows:
“TANONG –
Matapos kong maipabatid sa iyo
ang iyong karapatan tugkol sa pagbibigay ng
malayang salaysay sang-ayon sa ating
Saligang batas, ikaw ba’y nahahandang
magbigay ng kusang loob na
salaysay at wala kang ibang isasagot
sa mga tanong
ko sa iyo,
kundi pawang katotohanan lamang?
“SAGOT – Opo.
“1. T – Sabihin ang iyong tunay
na pangalan, taong gulang at iba pang mahalagang bagay tungkol sa
iyong sarili?
S – ALFREDO LARKADA,
may 21 na taong gulang, binata, kasalukuyang napipiit sa pambansang bilangguan
ng Muntinlupa sa salang ‘Robbery Snatching.’
“2. T – Saan brigada ka ngayon nakahimpil?
S – Sa dormitoryo 4-C-1 po.
“3. T – Anong pangkat ang iyong
kinaaaniban sa loob?
S – Commando po.
“4. T – Nalalaman mo ba ang dahilan
kung bakit ka sinisiyasat sa tanggapan ng
Intelligence at Investigation Section?
S
– Opo
sir. Tungkol po sa pag-saksak
ko at ng aking mga kasama
sa pangkat ng Sputnik.
“5. T – Kailan nangyari ito, anong oras
at saan lugar?
S
– Kanina po ika 4 ng
Mayo 1969, humigit-kumulang sa
ika 8:30 ng umaga, sa
harap ng dormitory 4-C-1, po.
“6. T – Ilan ang iyong
nasaksak at sino-sino kung nakikilala mo?
S – Dalawa po. Hindi ko po nakikilala
pero namumukhaan ko po.
“7. T – Ilan saksak ang
ginawa mo sa bawat isa sa
kanila?
S – Bawat isa po sa
kanila ay anim.
“8. T – Mayroon ka bang kasama noong saksakin mo ang dalawang taong
iyong sinabi?
S
– Mayroon po, si Taba
po (Pablo Reyes po).
“9. T – Ano ang ayos
ng dalawang ito, noong saksakin
ninyo ni Reyes?
S
– Noon
po una ay nakatayo, at noon
pong nadapa ay sinaksak din
namin.
“10. T – Bukod sa iyo
at kay Pablo Reyes, mayroon
bang ibang kasamahan mong nanaksak din?
S
– Mayroon po. Pero hindi ko
po kilala kung sino ang kanilang
sinaksak.
“11.
T – Anong pangkat ang kinaaaniban
ng mga sinaksak
ninyo?
S
– Sigue-Sigue
Sputnik po.
“12.
T – Iyon matalas na panaksak
na iyong ginamit, saan galing
iyon?
S
– Ginawa ko po sa
brigada. Matagal na pong gawa iyon, at nakatago
sa dormitoryo namin.
“13.
T – Iyon
bang pananaksak ninyo ay inyo bang binalak?
S
– Opo
sir. Binalak po namin noong
biernes ng gabi sa brigada
namin.
“14.
T – Ano ang dahilan kayo ang nanaksak ng
Sputnik?
S
– Gusto po namin gumanti dahil
sa sinaksak din po nila ang
kasamahan namin noong biernes.
“15.
T – Iyon matalas na ginamit
mo, matapos mong gamitin ano ang
iyong ginawa doon?
S- Pagpasok ko po sa
selda kuatro ay tinapon sa likod
ng bintana.
“16.
T – Makikilala
mo ba kung sakaling makita mo ang nasabing
matalas?
S
– Opo sir.
“17.
T – Ipinakikita
ko sa iyo
ang mga matalas
na ito, na
nakumpiska matapos ng gulo, naririto
ba ang matalas
na ginamit mo?
S – Wala po dito sir.
“18.
T – Isalaysay
mo kung papano mo nasaksak ang dalawang tao
na iyong binanggit, ganoon din ang ginawa ng
iyong kasamahan?
S
– Iyon pong
pinto ng aming brigada ay binuksan ni Taga sa
oras na iyon
– pero hindi ko lang malaman
kung papaano ang kanyang pagkakabukas. Noon pong makita namin ang pangkat
ng Sputnik na dumaan sa tapat
namin papunta 4-D ay bigla kaming naglabasan
sa brigada at pinagsusugod namin ang nasabing grupo. Ang ginawa ko ay bigla
kong sinaksak iyong isa at noon bumagsak ang aking pinagsasaksak. Matapos ay mayroon naman tumatakbong
pasalubong sa akin. At noon
bumagsak ay sinaksak ko ng sinaksak
rin. Ngayon po ay dumating
si Pablo Reyes, at sinaksak
niya ang pangalawa kong nasaksak. Iyon pong ibang mga kasamahan ko
ang nanaksak na rin. Pagka tapos noon ay bumalik na kami
sa brigada. At iyon mga matalas ng
aking kasamahan ay sinurender kay Inspector Borja.
“19.
T – Noong papalabas sa brigada
upang manaksak sino ang nangunguna?
S
– Ako po.
“20.
T – Sino ang
pinakapuno ninyo?
S – Wala po.
“21.
T – Sino-sino
ang mga kasamahan
mo lumabas sa brigada at nanaksak?
S
– Iyon iba ay hindi ko
nakikilala sa pangalan, ngunit sa mukha ay maituturo
ko sila. Ang nakikilala ko lang
sa pangalan ay sina Rodolf Fangera
alyas taga, Virgilio Quintana, Gavino Lucas, Villaruel Ocampo at Pablo Reyes.
“22.
T – Matagal
mo na bang kasama sa brigada ang
mga kasama mong nanaksak?
S
– Opo sir.
“23.
T – Ilan kayong lahat ang
lumabas ng brigada?
S
– Labing walo po kami.
“24.
T – Noon
lumabas kayo ng brigada, iyon keeper ninyo saan naroroon
kung alam mo?
S
– Nasa malaking pinto po.
“25.
T – Tapos na akong magtanong,
mayroon ka bang gustong bawasin o idagdag sa salaysay mong
ito?
S
– Wala na po.
“26.
T – Inaamin
mo ba ang pagkakasala mong ito?
S
– Opo sir.
“27.
T – Ikaw ba’y pinilit, sinaktan,
tinakot kaya pinangakuan ng pabuya upang ibigay
mo ang salaysay na ito?
S
– Hindi po.
“28.
T – Handa mo
bang lagdaan at panumpaan ang salaysay mong
ito, na nagpapatunay
na totoong lahat ang iyong
sinabi?
S – Opo.”[3]
The statement was taken down by Felimon
Olivera, Jr. of the Custodial Force of the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa, on May 4, 1969 but signed and sworn to
only on May 13, 1962 before
Julio M. Alcantara, Administrative Officer of the New
Bilibid Prisons.
Appellant testified in his behalf, and his testimony is set forth
in the decision appealed from as follows:
“1. ACCUSED ALFREDO LARCADA
– He testified that on May 4, 1969, he was serving sentence for the crime of
robbery at the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa, Rizal; that he was
confined inside Dormitory Cell No. 4-C-1 together with all his co-accused; that
there were around twenty prisoners inside that cell; that he was awakened on
the morning of that date by the sound of whistles and gunshots because of a
commotion in front of their cell; that when he woke up he saw the door of the
cell opened so that he tried to get out of it; that he was unable to get out
because his cellmates came rushing in and closed the door; that he does not
know the names of his cellmates who came inside the cell but he can recognize
their faces; that he does not know why his cellmates closed the door; that
after the commotion, the custodian arrived and he, as well as seventeen (17) of
his cellmates, was brought to the Investigation Section of the New Bilibid Prisons; that he does not know why he was brought
out for investigation; that he saw some of his companions being maltreated and
then confessed to the killings; that he does not know whether the persons who
maltreated his companions were prisoners or prison guards as they were in
civilian clothes; that he gave a sworn statement admitting his participation in
the commission of the crime because he was afraid of being maltreated; that
while being investigated inside the investigation room he was maltreated by
somebody who was standing behind him; that the investigator was propounding
questions when he was boxed; that he gave the answers to the questions
propounded because he was afraid that the person behind him would hit him again;
that the signatures appearing on the left hand margins of pages one and two of
the document, Exhibit “E-Larcada“, as well
as the signature on top of the typewritten words Alfredo Larcada
on page three thereof are his; that the contents of the document, Exhibit
“E-Larcada“, were read to him before he
signed it; that he did not give any answer to Question No. 18 of the said
document; that he gave the answer to Question No. 19 of the same document
because he was maltreated in order to give it; that he did not conspire with
his companions to kill Alberto Rubiso, Pedro Trijo and Jaime Caballero and neither did he kill anyone of
them as he was then sleeping inside his cell; that he was once charged with the
killing of a co-prisoner sometime in 1968 but was acquitted; that he escaped
from confinement on January 6, 1971, because he wanted to visit his mother whom
he had not seen for fourteen years; and that he surrendered later to Major
Cabrera at Precinct No. 4 of the Manila Police Department.
“On cross-examination, he testified that he was originally a
member of the “Bahala Na” gang; that he
transferred to the “Sigue-Sigue Commando”
gang in 1967 and was still a member thereof on May 3, 1969; that his companions
in Dormitory Cell No. 4-C-1 were also members of the “Sigue-Sigue
Commando” gang; that he did not know that a member of his gang was killed
on May 3, 1969, because he was then under the influence of a drug (seconal); that he did not talk with any of his companions
on that date because he was asleep due to the drug; that he met the
investigator for the first time when the latter investigated him; that he can
read and write Tagalog very well; that he gave the
answer to Question No. 19 of the document, Exhibit “E-Larcada“,
because he was boxed; that he was not touched by anybody before he gave the
answers to the other questions propounded to him; that he informed his aunt who
went to visit him in 1970, that he was forced to admit his participation in the
killings but nothing was done by her because they had no money; that he did not
tell Mr. Alcantara before whom he was brought to
swear to his statement that he was forced to give the statement because as
prisoners they were not allowed to complain, besides the fact that nobody would
believe them that when he signed the document, Exhibit “E-Larcada“, in 1969, he knew then that he was being
charged with the killing of Alberto Rubiso, Pedro Trijo and Jaime Caballero but did not know that the
probable penalty that might be imposed on him would be death; that he escaped
from prison on January 6, 1971, and surrendered to Major Cabrera of the Manila
Police Department at Precinct No. 4, Sampaloc,
Manila, on May 22, 1971; and that he pleaded guilty to the charge of evasion of
service of sentence which was filed against him and was sentenced to suffer a
penalty of one year and one day of prision correccional.”[4]
The issues raised in this appeal are: (1) whether the statement of appellant
(Exhibit E) was properly admitted as an extrajudicial confession, and (2)
whether his claim of not having participated in the prison riot of May 4, 1969
was correctly rejected by the trial court.
The two issues indicated are how appellant’s seven assignments of error
may be reduced, which further resolve themselves to the single question of
credibility. Thus, with respect to his
supposed extrajudicial confession, is appellant’s claim of involuntariness in
its execution credible?
One circumstance that immediately excites suspicion against the voluntariness of the execution of appellant’s confession is
the long and ill-explained delay in the swearing of the statement only on May 13, 1969 when it was taken down
on the same day of the incident on May
4, 1969. If the confession
was voluntarily made, as is the claim of the prosecution, there should be no
reason for not immediately bringing the appellant to the administering officer
for the necessary oath, if only to help dispel all doubts as to the voluntariness of the confession, considering the
ever-present probability, as is a well known and frequent practice of accused
repudiating their confessions during the trial upon a claim of force and
intimidation having been used to extract them.
Appellant herein made such a claim, and We are not disposed to dismiss
it as a mere afterthought as the trial court, in effect, found.
To begin with, We are quite impressed by the testimony of defense
witnesses, Gavino Lucas and Mariano Guevarra, self-confessed participants in the riot, that
appellant did not take part therein.
These witnesses have not been shown to have any motive in testifying in
exculpation of appellant except, to all appearances, upon the promptings of
truth and justice. If appellant had
taken part in the rioting specially in the stabbing of any of the victims,
these two witnesses who have been indicted for the same offense of triple
murder and who admitted participating in the riot that resulted in the multiple
killing would, in the natural course of human behavior, feel no urge to
volunteer to free one who they know participated in the same way as they did in
the incident. Their most natural
reaction is to leave their co-accused to fend for himself, not to take the
witness stand and testify positively and on their own volition, to save him
from a heavy penalty which could be death, to which they themselves remained
exposed, their cases then being still pending trial when they testified. But let Us look into the testimony of these
two defense witnesses:
“Testimony of Gavino Lucas
Q. Now,
do you know if Alfredo Larcada was one of your group
that attacked the Sigue-Sigue Sputnik?
A. I
do not know if he was the one.
Q. Why
do you say that you do not know whether Alfredo Larcada
was among those who attacked the other group?
A. Because
I saw him sleeping inside our cell, sir.
Q. You
saw him sleeping?
A. Yes
sir.
Q. Now,
before you and your companion went out of the cell, did you make any
observation regarding the fact that Alfredo Larcada
was sleeping at the time?
A. Yes,
I saw him.
Q. Where
was Larcada at the time insofar as the cell is
concerned, if you know?
A. At
the floor. (t.s.n., pp. 40-41, Nov. 9, 1972)”
“Testimony of Mariano Guevarra:
Q. Now,
in the incident of May 4, 1969,
do you know the incident?
A. Yes
sir.
Q. Will
you kindly tell us what was that all about?
A. We
came out of our cell and we attacked some of the Sputnik gang.
Q. When
you said we, with whom were you?
A. I
remember that we were about ten.
Q. Do
you know their names?
A. Gavino Lucas, Rodolfo Manguerra,
Quintana, Castro, Reyes, Abad, dela
Peña, Pariente, Lambino, Simplicio Ocampo. (t.s.n., p. 45, Nov.
9, 1972).
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Do
you know Alfredo Larcada?
A. I
only came to know him while the case was being tried.
Q. Do
you know him as a prisoner like you?
A. Yes
sir.
Q. Have
you seen him in your cell?
A. I
saw him in our cell only when we came again in our cell.
Q. When
you saw him what was Larcada doing?
A.
He was lying.
Q. Was
Larcada among the group who attacked the other group
with you?
A. No,
sir, he was not with us.
Q. Why
do you say so?
A. Because
I know my companions. (tsn, pp. 45-46, Nov.
9, 1972).”
Even a prosecution witness, prison guard Juanito
Acosta, on cross-examination, testified not having seen appellant participate
in the attack (p. 7, t.s.n., Nov. 9, 1972). There were twenty prison guards who escorted
the prisoners. With how appellant
allegedly attacked his alleged victim dealing several stabs on the latter,
attention of the guards should have been drawn to and focused on appellant
while thus engaged. Is it not surprising
that not one of the guards took the stand to identify appellant as one of the
participants in the rumble? No
eye-witness having been presented to affirm appellant’s participation in the
prison riot, his defense gains strength and credence. Had there been such witness who identified
appellant having taken part in the riot, his alibi, as his defense
amounts to, would have been unavailing.[5]
Conversely, without such eye-witness despite the number of prison guards
present, appellant’s defense should, unceremoniously, not be waved off as
futile.
With credible testimonies strongly supporting appellant’s own
disclaimer of any participation in the riot of May 4, 1969 because he was in
his cell all the time the riot was in progress and was only taken along with
his cell mates who did take part when they rushed back inside their dormitory
cell, appellant meeting them at the door which they closed as they entered, the
extra-judicial confession would easily emerge as merely extracted, if not by
actual violence, by intense fear of being similarly maltreated as those he saw
were so subjected in the course of their being interrogated. He knew such violence could have had no other
purpose than to extract confession. His unrebutted testimony on this point is as follows:
“Q. Now,
on May 4, 1969, what time
did you wake up?
“A. May be around 6:00 o’clock,
sir.
“Q. In the morning?
“A. Yes,
sir.
“Q. Where
did you sleep that night?
“A. In the cell where the other prisoners were confined who are now
being charged before this court.
“Q. Will
you kindly clarify your answer, where did you sleep that night?
“A. I slept in dormitory cell 4-C-1.
“Q. Who were with you at the time that you slept that night, if any?
“A. We were many, sir.
“Q. Now, those companion of yours that night, were they also prisoners?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And about how many of them were your companions that night?
“A. We were in different cells.
In our particular cell, we were more or less twenty, sir.
“Q. Now, after you woke up that morning, what happened, if any?
“A. I was awakened by the blowing of whistles and gunshots because
there was a commotion in front of our cell.
“Q. Now, when you were awakened because of those blow of whistles and
gunshots, what did you do?
“A. I stood up from the place where I was sleeping.
“Q. And where did you proceed if you go somewhere?
“A. I was not able to get out of my cell because when I was attempting
to get out immediately then and there some of my companions from the cell came
inside the cell.
“Q. You made mention of companions, do you know some of their names?
“A. I do not know their names but I know their faces.
“Q. But are they your cellmates?
“A. Sometimes there are different prisoners who slept in that cell.
“Q. As far as your cell is concerned, was the door of the cell open when
you woke up?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And then you made mention that when you were about to go out you
noticed your companion or cellmates coming in the cell, what happened next?
“A. I saw them closing the door and so I was not able to get out
because the door was already closed.
“Q. You made mention of them to whom do you refer who closed the door?
“A. My companion inside the cell, sir.
“Q. Did you discover the reason why they closed the door?
“A. No, sir. (t.s.n., pp. 18-19, Nov.
9, 1972)”[6]
Equally unrebutted is appellant’s
testimony on how actual force and fear worked on him to make him give the
statement that served as the sole basis of his conviction.
Thus –
“Q. Were you and your other companions able to give your respective
affidavits during that investigation?
“A. I gave a sworn statement because I was afraid that I might be
maltreated and the truth of the matter I was already maltreated.
“Q. Will you tell this Honorable Court how you were maltreated?
“A. I was boxed here (Witness pointing to his right lower armpit, at
the right side of his middle body below the ribs).
“Q. Who boxed you?
“A. I do not know who he was because I have just waken up. I did not recognize them. (tsn, pp. 20-21, Nov. 9, 1972)
xxx xxx xxx
“Q. Now,
how many persons investigated you?
“A. One only, sir.
“Q. And
was that the very person who maltreated you?
“A. No, sir. It was somebody behind me so I did not see who he was.
“Q. But
was there anybody infront of you when you were boxed?
“A. The person investigating me.
“Q. And
that person investigating you was in front of a typewriter in the office?
“A. Yes,
sir.
“Q. And
all the while you were giving him answers?
“A. I was answering to the questions propounded to me because I was
afraid that the person at my back would hit me again. (tsn, pp. 21-22, Nov. 9, 1972)
xxx xxx xxx
“Q. And likewise in this question
and answer number 19: “Isalaysay mo kung papaano mo nasaksak ang dalawang
tao na iyong
binanggit ganoon din ang ginawa ng
iyong kasamahan? x x x
“A. Yes, sir. I was asked this question and I gave that
answer.
“Q. Will you kindly tell us why you answered that way?
“A. Because when I was being asked this question, I was hit at my side
as I have previously stated.
“Q. Was that answer of yours voluntary?
“A. I was then being forced, sir.
(t.s.n., pp. 23-24, Nov. 9, 1972)”[7]
On being cross-examined, his testimony as quoted above, remained
unshaken. With no rebuttal testimony
given by the prosecution as could have easily been offered by the investigator
and the administering officer, dismissing appellant’s claim of involuntariness
of his confession would, by no means, be justly warranted. His own testimony with the strong
corroboration of not only his two witnesses, but to some extent, by a
prosecution witness as earlier shown, regarding his non-participation in the
prison riot in the morning of May 4, 1969, suffice to discredit the supposed
confession, or to caution the court against its admissibility. The trial court clearly failed to appreciate
the effect of the defense witnesses’ testimony on whether appellant’s
extrajudicial confession was voluntary or not, when it said that “standing
alone, the bare testimony of the accused cannot destroy the presumption of
the voluntariness of his confession.” It can
hardly be said that the testimony of appellant is “bare,” and it
certainly did not stand “alone” with the testimonies of his two
witnesses.
The trial court also cites the ruling that “a confession
which is rich in details as to which the police could not be interested and
which could have been known only to the person making it some of which could
shift a large responsibility to others, bears the earmarks of voluntariness.” (People vs. Sy
Pio, G.R. No. L-5848, April 30, 1954). The confession does not shift any
responsibility to others. The trial
court also forgot that other suspects preceded appellant in being interrogated. The investigator, therefore, had acquired
knowledge as to the details of the incident when appellant’s turn came to give
his statement.
Appellant brought into question the admissibility of his
extra-judicial confession taken without assistance of counsel as the New
Constitution requires, although said confession was executed before the said
Constitution took effect.[8]
This is a settled matter. The
constitutional provision was given only a prospective operation.[9]
Be that as it may, the imposition in the New Constitution of an additional safeguard
against extraction of confessions is a recognition of an already prevalent
practice in custodial interrogations that has tarnished the image of police
investigators and which is sought to be erased by the aforesaid constitutional
safeguard. In recognition of the same
evil, courts should, therefore, have to be extremely circumspect and cautious
in choosing between the conflicting claims of the prosecution and the defense
on the voluntariness of extra-judicial confessions.[10]
This case came to Us for a review of three death sentences. This Court is naturally loathe to send one to
death by execution except upon the clearest of evidence of guilt. The same reason is behind the rule relative
to improvident plea of guilt in capital offences to satisfy the Court’s mind
beyond the slightest vestige of doubt before it imposes or affirms a death
sentence. The evidence in this case
fails to bring the mind at rest on the certainty of appellant’s guilt beyond
the possibility of error. If at all We
could have erred, We would prefer to do so to save a life rather than to
declare it forfeit.
WHEREFORE, We reverse the judgment appealed from and
acquit appellant on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Cost de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee,
Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez,
Guerrero, Abad Santos,
and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
[1]
p. 21, Decision, p. 70, Rollo.
[2]
pp. 2-3, Appellee’s Brief, p. 87, Rollo.
[3]
pp. 4-9, Appellee’s Brief, p. 87, Rollo.
[4]
pp. 8-11, Decision, Appendix to Appellant’s Brief, p. 70, Rollo.
[5]
People vs. Mahinay, 80 SCRA
273; People vs. Nabaunog, 79 SCRA 33; People vs. Roncal,
79 SCRA 509; People vs. Villamala,
78 SCRA 145; People vs. Gonzaga,
77 SCRA 140.
[6]
pp. 49-50, Appellant’s Brief; p. 70, Rollo.
[7]
pp. 18-19, Appellant’s Brief; p. 70, Rollo.
[8]
p. 12, Appellant’s Brief, pp. 38-43; p. 70, Rollo.
[9] Magtoto vs. Manguera, 63 SCRA 4.
[10] U.S.
vs. Lio Team, 23 Phil. 64.