THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARISTON GUILLERMO, CARLITO ABORDE, RONITO CULLO, AND JESUS CULLO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Guillermo

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Ariston Guillermo, Carlito Aborde, Ronito Cullo, and Jesus Cullo, a criminal appeal from a judgment of conviction for robbery in band with homicide. The trial court found all four guilty and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua. The case matters to a reviewee because the Supreme Court uses it to settle two enduring questions: when an extrajudicial confession is involuntary and therefore inadmissible, and how far the confession of one accused may be used against his alleged companions. It is a compact lesson on the constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination and on the res inter alios acta rule.

Procedural History

The four accused were charged before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch Four, presided over by Judge Valerio V. Rovira, in a criminal case for robbery in band with homicide. After trial, the court rendered judgment convicting all four of robbery in band with homicide under the Revised Penal Code, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties, and ordering them to indemnify the parents of the deceased, jointly and severally, for the death, for loss of income, for moral damages, for the value of the unrecovered property, and for funeral expenses, plus costs. All four appealed to the Supreme Court. The Cullo brothers filed a separate appellant's brief from that of Guillermo and Aborde, but all raised substantially identical errors, centering on the admission of the two extrajudicial confessions and on the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence.

Facts

At about five thirty in the morning of May 10, 1972, in Barrio Lamonan, Passi, Iloilo, the household of Vicente Gardoce was awakened by barking dogs. Vicente sent his son Benedicto down to the gate. When Benedicto opened it, Ariston Guillermo seized him and pushed him to Carlito Aborde, who tied his hands behind his back. Godofredo and then Rufino followed and were likewise subdued and bound, while Ronito Cullo and Jesus Cullo pointed homemade firearms at the brothers. When Billardo Gardoce came down and asked what was going on, Guillermo, without a word, shot him with a homemade shotgun. Billardo was hit on the left eye and died immediately.

Guillermo then demanded money and Vicente's long barrel shotgun, threatening to kill his sons if he refused. When Vicente hesitated, the group approached the balcony and Aborde fired his gun in the air. The sons pleaded with their father, and Vicente gave five pesos and his shotgun to Guillermo. Before leaving, the malefactors warned the family not to report the matter to the police.

Guillermo and Aborde were later taken into custody and signed extrajudicial confessions prepared in English by the Chief of Police, though both affiants did not know English. Both testified that they first refused to sign and signed only after being maltreated and threatened with further harm. The Cullo brothers were arrested later, held incommunicado, and refused to sign any confession. The trial court admitted the two confessions, relying on the old doctrine that the admissibility of evidence is not affected by the illegality of the means by which it was secured.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the extrajudicial confessions of Ariston Guillermo and Carlito Aborde despite proof of maltreatment and intimidation.
• Whether or not the confessions of Guillermo and Aborde may be used against the Cullo brothers in the absence of independent evidence of conspiracy.
• Whether or not the guilt of the four accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 20 of Article Four of the 1973 Constitution provides:

Section 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence.

This is the decisive provision: it makes a confession extracted through force or intimidation inadmissible, and it is the constitutional anchor of the Court's ruling.

Section 25 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the res inter alios acta rule, provides:

Section 25. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.

This rule bars using the confession of one accused against his co-accused.

Section 27 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 27. The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.

This is the exception the Court examines, requiring conspiracy to be proven by evidence independent of the confession itself.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the confessions inadmissible. The old doctrine that admissibility is unaffected by the illegality of the means used to secure evidence has long been abandoned, and illegally obtained evidence is not admissible. The Court noted that the confessions were written in English though the affiants did not know the language, that the Chief of Police himself prepared them, that both affiants said they signed only after threats of further maltreatment, and that the municipal judge before whom they were sworn admitted the affiants had first said they would not sign. The physical examination relied on by the trial court came more than two months after the alleged maltreatment and could not be conclusive. Lingering doubt on voluntariness must be resolved in favor of the accused and against admissibility.

On the second issue, the Court held that even assuming the confessions were admissible, they could not be used against the Cullo brothers under the res inter alios acta rule, since the confessions of Guillermo and Aborde are effective against themselves alone absent independent evidence of conspiracy. The Court looked for such independent evidence in the testimony of Vicente and Benedicto Gardoce but found a flaw: in their sworn statements taken shortly after the crime, both described the companions of Guillermo and Aborde as unidentified, and the original complaint had even named two other persons, later amended to substitute the Cullo brothers. That left serious doubt on their in-court identification of the Cullo brothers.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the conviction of Guillermo and Aborde. Even without the confessions, the direct testimony of Vicente and Benedicto Gardoce, straightforward and without shown motive to falsify, established that Guillermo shot Billardo and received the money and guns, and that Aborde fired to intimidate the family. As to the Cullo brothers, the doubt on their identification, taken with the weakness of the case against them, materially strengthened their alibi and entitled them to acquittal.

Doctrine

A confession obtained through force, violence, threat, or intimidation vitiates the free will and is inadmissible in evidence under Section 20 of Article Four of the 1973 Constitution. The doctrine that admissibility is unaffected by the illegality of the means used to secure evidence has been abandoned; illegally obtained evidence is excluded. Any lingering reasonable doubt on the voluntariness of a confession must be resolved in favor of the accused and against its admission. Under the res inter alios acta rule, the extrajudicial confession of one accused is admissible only against himself and cannot prejudice his co-accused, unless the conspiracy is first shown by evidence independent of the confession, as Section 27 of Rule 130 requires.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction and penalty of Ariston Guillermo and Carlito Aborde, reversed and set aside the judgment as to Ronito Cullo and Jesus Cullo and acquitted them on reasonable doubt, and ordered the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo to investigate the taking of the confessions and prosecute the policemen concerned if warranted, with costs against Guillermo and Aborde.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a confession wrung out by force or intimidation is inadmissible, and one accused's confession cannot be used against his co-accused without independent proof of conspiracy. Examiners use this case on the exclusion of involuntary confessions and on the res inter alios acta rule in conspiracy cases.