PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AUGUSTO MUTUC AND FERNANDO BONDOC, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

This is an automatic review of the decision of the Circuit Criminal
Court, Pasig, Rizal imposing on the accused Fernando Bondoc and Augusto
Mutuc the supreme penalty of death for the crime of murder.

The accused where charged in an information dated December 14, 1972 as follows:

“That on or about the 28th day of May, 1970, in the municipality
of Tagig, province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, with
the intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery and armed with a
lead pipe and a hunting knife, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously hit the victim with a lead pipe in the neck and stab
him several times on the vital parts of his body, thereby inflicting
upon the said Benjamin Garcia, mortal stab wounds, which directly caused
his death.

“Contrary to law.”

Upon arraignment, the accused assisted by their counsel de oficio pleaded “NOT GUILTY”.

The prosecution presented evidence to prove that on May 26, 1970,
Fernando Bondoc went to Benjamin Garcia’s house at barrio Balucu,
Apalit, Pampanga. The two left for a sari-sari store where Trinidad
Garcia, Benjamin’s wife saw them drinking with Augusto Mutuc and Elpidio
Lopez. About 5:00 o’clock in the morning of May 27, 1970, Benjamin
Garcia left his residence at Barrio Balucu, Apalit, Pampanga, together
with accused Fernando Bondoc, Augusto Mutuc, and Elpidio Lopez. Since
that day, Benjamin Garcia never returned home. When Trinidad Garcia
asked Fernando Bondoc about the whereabouts of her husband he answered:
“I do not know. He alighted from my vehicle.” A similar query by
Trinidad to Augusto Mutuc produced the same answer “I do not know.”
Trinidad Garcia, assisted by her brother-in-law, sought the assistance
of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Pampanga but that
office failed to find anything regarding the disappearance of Benjamin
Garcia. On February 21, 1972 or almost two years after Garcia’s
disappearance, through an indorsement of the Secretary of Justice, the
Honorable Vicente Abad Santos, the case was referred to the National
Bureau of Investigation in Manila. NBI Agent Mariano P. Matta, Jr., who
was assigned to investigate the case questioned Fernando Bondoc and
Augusto Mutuc. Bondoc, who was then detained in the Municipal jail of
Apalit, Pampanga for a serious physical injuries charge was turned over
to the NBI upon its request. After a “systematic interrogation”
conducted by Matta, Bondoc admitted his participation in the killing of
Benjamin Garcia and implicated Augusto Mutuc and Elpidio Lopez. The
prosecution states that Bondoc gave a statement voluntarily admitting
his guilt (Exhibit “D”); and that after affixing his signature as well
as his right thumbmark to each and every page of his statement he
appeared before the NBI Regional Director to subscribe and swear to the
truthfulness of his statement. Augusto Mutuc was next apprehended by
the NBI after Bondoc gave his statement. According to the prosecution’s
evidence, Mutuc also admitted his participation in the killing of
Benjamin Garcia in a statement (Exhibit “E”) which he gave voluntarily
answering questions propounded by NBI Agent Paras in the presence of
Matta. Since Mutuc manifested that he cannot read and write, his
statement was read to him and after his acknowledgment that he
understood the questions and his answers, he impressed his right
thumbmark on each and every page. He was then brought before the NBI
Regional Director who administered the oath. Elpidio Lopez could not be
located and remained at large. After the two accused gave their
statements the two were brought to the place where they stated the
killing of Benjamin Garcia took place. The investigating team also took
steps to verify any autopsy referred to the NBI on or around May 28,
1970 from the municipality of Taguig, Rizal. After research, the
records of the NBI medico-legal division showed that an unidentified
male cadaver was found in Taguig, Rizal sometime on June 4, 1970 in an
advanced stage of decomposition. The decomposed body was retrieved from
Sitio Tanyang, Taguig, Rizal by Leonardo de Angeles, a driver of
Funeraria Rizal, Corporal Jimenez and two helpers from the Funeraria
Rizal. During the autopsy, photographs were taken and later filed in
the medico-legal division’s record. Dr. Dario C. Nalagan conducted the
postmortem examination of the unidentified cadaver on June 7, 1970 at
4:30 o’clock in the afternoon upon request of Corporal Roman Jimenez of
the Taguig Police Department. The doctor found at the time of autopsy
that the body “x x x must have been dead around the last week or ten
days or two weeks from the time of the autopsy counting backward.” Dr.
Nalagan found 3 stab wounds on the body of Benjamin Garcia which he
described as follows: “Wound No. 1 is located at the medial aspect,
lower chest of the fourth intercostal while at the right chest there are
two wounds in the inter-costal and the third wound is found also at the
right chest, 1 centimeter on the medial line that is just below the
chest.” After the investigation of the accused in 1972, the same
pictures were shown to Trinidad Garcia, Benjamin’s wife who identified
them as those of her husband. During the re-enactment in 1972, the
place pointed by the accused as the place where they killed and dumped
the body of Benjamin Garcia turned out to be the same spot pointed by
witnesses who discovered the body of Benjamin Garcia in 1970.

In their respective extra-judicial statements (Exhibits “D” and “E”) the
accused confessed that on or about May 28, 1970 (Mutuc said he could
not recall the exact date), together with Elpidio Lopez and Benjamin
Garcia, they went to the residence of Pedro Ignacio in Barrio Bicutan,
Taguig, Rizal. While there Mutuc, Lopez, and Garcia had a drinking
spree. According to Bondoc’s statement, the four of them went to a
hilly place about 500 yards away from Ignacio’s residence and upon
arrival there, Bondoc hit Benjamin Garcia on the head with a piece of
lead pipe causing Benjamin Garcia to fall down. While Benjamin was in
that position, Lopez successively stabbed him on the chest with a
“hunting knife” taken from Benjamin’s body. The confessions state that
Mutuc removed Benjamin’s clothes leaving only his brief. Benjamin’s
clothes were thrown away. The body of Benjamin was dumped in a dry well
and covered with grass. The accused then returned to Pampanga.

The defense of the accused was alibi. Fernando Bondoc claimed that he
was in his house in Balucu, Apalit, Pampanga on the date he was supposed
to have killed Benjamin Garcia in Taguig, Rizal. His wife had
delivered a baby boy and he could not leave them. Appellant Augusto
Mutuc alleged that he was fencing their lot in the barrio on May 28,
1970 and had nothing to do with Garcia’s disappearance and death.

Both Mutuc and Bondoc claimed that severe maltreatment led to the giving
of their extrajudicial confessions. The appellants allege:

“Fernando Bondoc, testifying on his behalf, substantially thus:
He was first apprehended on December 7, 1972; he was detained first at
the Apalit Police Department and later on brought to the headquarters of
the NBI, Manila. He learned that he was suspected of being involved in
the killing of Benjamin Garcia. At the NBI, Manila Atty. Paras was the
first to question him. He was asked if he has anything to do with the
killing of Benjamin Garcia, and he answered, he has nothing to do with
it; after giving his answer, Atty. Paras told him, ‘matigas ka’ and
slapped his ‘two ears with both hands in a cymbal-like manner and gave
him blows at the right side of his body; when he fell down from the
chair, it was in the presence of five persons.’ Later on, he was brought
to the other building and was subjected to a lie detector test. He was
made to sit on a chair and his left arm and chest strapped. He was
asked many questions. After the lie detector test, he was told he could
go home already, and be with his family. Then he left the building and
while he was ‘about to take a jeep, Atty. Paras stopped’ him and told
him ‘sleep in the jail, in the NBI, as he (Atty. Paras) will ask him
(Bondoc) some more important questions. That ‘at about 12:00 o’clock
midnight,’ he ‘was called by two persons who tied both his hands at his
back and was ‘brought to the third floor of the other building. There
again he was asked if he has anything to do with the killing of Benjamin
Garcia and he answered ‘I don’t really have nothing to do with this.’
Then Atty. Paras told him to remove his ‘kamiseta,’ and with it he was
blindfolded, and while blindfolded he was given fist blows on different
parts of his body. When he fell down, he was lifted and was again asked
many questions. When he told them that ‘I really don’t know anything
about that,’ he was told to remove his brief. Then his penis was
pressed with a plier, and then ‘electrocuted.’ And this made him felt
that he would die; it is very painful. He insisted ‘x x x I really do
not know anything about it and have nothing to do with that, and they
put again the wire at my penis and electrocuted it again.’ Then he was
again asked if he has anything to do with the killing of Benjamin
Garcia, and when they ‘were about to electrocute again my penis, I told
them ‘kahit na po ano ang gusto ninyo, susunod po ako, huwag lang po
ninyo akong sasaktan’ and it was only then that they told him to put on
his brief and his shirt, and then he was brought inside a room, where
Atty. Matta, Jr. was. The latter asked his true name, his work, where
he lives, his age, the name of his wife and that of his mother and
father, and was told to admit. His statement was reduced in writing,
and when asked to sign it, he did sign the same.

“He was not adviced that he is entitled to a counsel; that when
his statement was taken, he was not accompanied by any of his relatives;
nor any person known to him, much less a lawyer. He did not get any
counsel of a lawyer. That he did not have any misunderstanding with
Benjamin Garcia; he has not even quarreled with him. He has never
suspected Benjamin Garcia as having down something against his
relatives.

“That he was told to point to Augusto Mutuc and while doing so, a
picture was taken of him. That he was told to hold the ball pen of
Atty. Matta, and told to sign the statement, again a picture was taken.
He signed the statement because he was told that ‘if I will not sign
that, I will suffer a grievous one than the previous one and they told
me that I will not see my family anymore.’ That during the alleged
re-enactment, Atty. Matta demonstrated what he was told to do and he did
for fear that he would be harmed again.

“The first time he was allowed to receive visitors was after more
than ten (10) days from his arrest. His first visitors were his wife
and brother-in-law. They were not able to talk with one another; they
just cried upon seeing each other.

“He (Bondoc) was first investigated by Sgt. Capulong of the Apalit
Police Department but he did not admit any participation in the alleged
disappearance of Benjamin Garcia. (t.s.n., pp. 11-48, inclusive,
February 21, 1973).

“His wife, Ines Ignacio-Bondoc, testified that she gave birth to a
male child named Dante Bondoc on February 12, 1970; she was assisted by
a ‘hilot’ and was attended for one month (pp. 5-6, March 26, 1973); she
was told not to work and touch cold water, but ‘because nobody will do
the work’ in the house, she was forced to do washing against the advice
of her ‘hilot’ (p. 7, id.); on May 28, 1970, her husband, Fernando
Bondoc, was at home doing the household chores as she was lying in bed,
sick. Her blood was ‘becoming clear’ and was being attended and treated
by a doctor. (pp. 4-5, id.)

“Accused-appellant Augusto Mutuc, testifying on his behalf,
declared that he was arrested by the NBI on December 9, 1972. He was
then sleeping under a mosquito net when suddenly somebody grasped his
hand and asked him who he was and when he said he is Augusto Mutuc, he
was pulled and brought inside a car. He was not allowed to change his
dress. Then they proceeded to the municipal building of Apalit,
Pampanga where one of the policemen companion of the NBI headquarters in
Manila. Upon arriving thereat, he was inside a room of the building
and there saw Fernando Bondoc. Then Bondoc asked him why he was there
and Mutuc answered ‘I was suspected in the killing of Benjamin Garcia.’
Bondoc told him that he was also suspected and because he refused to
admit, he was maltreated. Then Atty. Paras brought Mutuc inside a room
and was asked of his participation in the death of Benjamin Garcia.
When he answered that he did not know anything about it, he was slapped
and kicked in the stomach, causing his vision to become dim. Then he
was forced to stand and told to remove his pants and shirt. His eyes
were blindfolded, and was maltreated. Then he was asked if he has
anything to do with the death of Benjamin Garcia, to which he answered:
‘I do not know anything about that.’ Then he was made to squat. While
squatting he was kicked. When he was asked again and refused to answer,
he was told ‘matigas ka.’ And when he could no longer stand the
maltreatment, he told his tormentors, he signified conformity to what he
was being made to admit, thus: ‘you can do anything you want now, and
they stopped maltreating him. Thereafter he was brought inside an
investigating room where he saw Atty. Matta. There he was investigated
and his statement reduced in writing. But that he was not told that he
is entitled to counsel; nor informed of his constitutional right to
remain silent. Thereafter, they were brought to Taguig, Rizal. They
climbed a hill and when the NBI saw a hole, they (accused) were told to
point to the hole. The NBI would demonstrate an act, and the accused
were made to repeat the act, While doing what they (accused) were told
to do, they were photographed.”

The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as charged
in the information and sentenced them “x x x to suffer the penalty of
DEATH, to indemnify the heirs of the victim the amount of P12,000.00,
jointly and severally; to pay the amount of P10,000.00 as moral damages
and another P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, jointly and severally, and
to pay the proportionate share of the costs.”

In convicting the accused, the trial court relied on their
extra-judicial statements reasoning out its finding of guilt as follows:

“There were extra-judicial confessions in this case, executed by
accused Bondoc and Mutuc, as evidenced by Exhibits ‘D’ and ‘E’,
respectively. Settled is the rule in our jurisdiction that an
extra-judicial confession, if corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti, will suffice conviction. It is the contention of the
prosecution that their extra-judicial confessions were voluntarily
given. On the other hand, the defense claimed that they were
involuntarily given that the extra-judicial confessions were but a
product of maltreatment on their persons by the N.B.I. agents.

“After a careful study of their extra-judicial confessions, the
Court is convinced that the same were voluntarily given. What with
their going to the scene of the crime, their re-enactment thereof and
their identification of the pictures of the relative positions of the
victim, the Court is more convinced that these accused were the
perpetrators of the crime. Granting that they were maltreated by the
N.B.I. agents into admitting their participation of the killing of the
victim, why did they not file administrative or criminal charges to the
proper authorities against their alleged tormentors? The Court could
see no valid reason why these N.B.I. agents, career men at that and
members of the Philippine Bar, would, in solving a case, go beyond the
limitations of legal procedure by extracting such extra-judicial
confession (People versus Sedon, et al., 46 O.G. 2644 (1950), and People
versus Castillo, G.R. No. L-1667, February 10, 1949). Necessarily, in
solving a case, they will also furnish a report of their investigation
to the Department of Justice, and that they would be the object of
charges if it turns out that they procured these extra-judicial
confessions through illegal means. Besides, their confessions exhibited
no signs of suspicious circumstances tending to cast doubt on the
integrity of the same. In fact, the statements were replete with
details which could only be supplied by the accused themselves (People
versus Cruz, G.R. No. L-11870, Oct. 16, 1961; People versus Saez, G.R.
No. L-15776, March 29, 1961; and People versus Mojica, G.R. No. L-17234,
March 31, 1964).”

The accused-appellants raise the following assignments of errors in their brief:

1. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE ALLEGED EXTRA-JUDICIAL
STATEMENTS (EXHIBITS D AND E) AND EVIDENCE BASED THEREON, AND IN GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE SAME.

2. ASSUMING WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL STATEMENTS
(EXHIBITS D AND E) WERE OBTAINED WITHOUT THE LEAST INTIMIDATION AND
MALTREATMENT, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED BECAUSE
THE DEATH OF BENJAMIN GARCIA HAS NOT BEEN FULLY ESTABLISHED.

3. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED BASED ON THE
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WHICH FAILED TO MEET THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
REQUIRED TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN FAVOR OF THE
ACCUSED.

The general rule has long been that “x x x the presumption of the law is
in favor of the spontaniety and voluntariness of an extra-judicial
confession of an accused in a criminal case. The burden is upon the
declarant to destroy this presumption.” (People v. Soligan, 101 SCRA
264; People v. Castañeda, 93 SCRA 56; People v. Caramonte, 94 SCRA 150;
People v. Ramos, 94 SCRA 842; and People v. Juliano, 95 SCRA 511.)

The extra-judicial statements were taken before the Constitution was
amended in 1973 and before the right to counsel during any custodial
interrogation became the subject of instructions required to be followed
strictly by all police agencies. Under the People v. Manguera, Simeon v. Villaluz and People v. Isnani (63
SCRA 4) rulings, the new right provided by Section 20, Article IV of
the Constitution was not to be applied retroactively and, therefore,
police agencies could be excused for not complying earlier with the
strict and detailed guidelines promulgated after the new Constitution
became effective.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court has also repeatedly stressed that –

“x x x the most painstaking scrutiny mist be resorted to by the
trial courts in weighing evidence relating to alleged voluntary
confessions of the accused and the courts should be slow to accept such
confessions unless corroborated by other testimony.” (People v. Urro, 44
SCRA 473 (1972); People v. Palacpac, 49 SCRA 440 (1973); People v.
Manipula, et al., 52 SCRA 1 (1973); and People v. Francisco, 74 SCRA 158
(1976).

The only pieces of evidence which sustain the finding of guilt and the
imposition of the DEATH penalty are the extra-judicial confessions which
the accused-appellants repudiated during trial.

Murder is always a heinous and infernal offense. It is particularly
diabolic when, as in this case, the victim is lured from his home and
family and is disposed of elsewhere, with his widow and children not
having the consolation of burying their loved one and knowing where his
remains rest. We are constrained to repeat the words of Chief Justice
Enrique M. Fernando in his dissent in Magtoto v. Manguera (supra):

“So I would view the matter and thus reach a conclusion different
from that of the Court. This is not to discount the possibility that it
may be a little more difficult to obtain convictions. Such a misgiving
informs the prevailing opinion. It seems to me, again with due
respect, that a reaction of that sort, while not groundless, may have an
element that goes beyond the bounds of permissible exaggeration. Even
if, as I would have it, the confessions in question are deemed
inadmissible in accordance with the specific wording of the provision
under scrutiny, it does not follow that the efforts of the prosecution
are effectively stymied. It would be, to my way of thinking, an
undeserved reflection on that arm of the government if the only way it
could prove guilt is to rely on confessions, especially so when, as is
quite apparent from the early sixties, the trend in judicial decisions
has been as is quite proper to scrutinize them with care to erase any
lurking doubt or suspicion as to their having been obtained by coercion,
either physical or psychological. Only thus maybe truthfully said that
there is full respect for the constitutional mandate that no person
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”

To resolve this automatic review of the lower court’s decision, we do
not have to make a finding on whether or not the investigating officials
indeed tortured the two accused in order to extort the confessions. An
allegation of torture was a natural and logical defense under the
circumstances and, as pointed out by the trial court, no action was
taken by the accused to substantiate the alleged maltreatment. It is
their word against the word of the investigating officers. There may
also have been exaggerations, if not concoctions, in the story of
appellant Bondoc who, while blindfolded, was given fist blows by
unidentified “they” or “them” and not having the ability to see anything
still testified that pliers were applied to his penis, which was then
“electrocuted.”

At the same time, there are also circumstances of this case tending to
show that the confessions may not have been voluntarily given. Police
investigators should be given a certain leeway in making patient,
persistent and even relentless questioning of suspects about whose guilt
they entertain strong convictions. However, beyond a certain point the
methods used become impermissible and any confession secured may no
longer be called “voluntary”. It is precisely because of the difficulty
of fixing the boundary line between permissible and impermissible modes
of interrogation, plus the fact that all interrogations, as in this
case, are incommunicado that the right to counsel becomes significant.

Because of doubts engendered by facts in the records, we resolve the
doubts in favor of the accused and reject the extra-judicial statements
as basis for the conviction.

Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436) explains that even in the
absence of torture or third degree methods or, as in this case, alleged
electrocution of the genitals and notwithstanding the absence of
administrative charges against the investigators or physical
examinations of the victims of the beatings, an extrajudicial statement
is not necessarily voluntary. It states:

“Again we stress that the modern practice of in-custody
interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented. As we
have stated before, ‘Since Chambers v Florida, 309 US 227 [84 L ed 716,
60 S Ct 472], this Court has recognized that coercion can be mental as
well as physical, and that the blood of the accused is not the only
hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition.’ Blackburn v Alabama, 361
US 199, 206, 4 L ed 2d 242, 247, 80 S Ct 274 (1960). Interrogation
still takes place in privacy. Privacy results in secrecy and this in
turn results in a gap in our knowledge as to what in fact goes on in the
interrogation rooms. A valuable source of information about present
police practices, however, may be found in various police manuals and
texts which document procedures employed with success in the past, and
which recommend various other *[384 US 449] effective tactics. (The
manuals quoted in the text following are the most recent and
representative of the texts currently available. Material of the same
nature appears in Kidd, Police Interrogation (1940); Mulbar,
Interrogation (1951); Dienstein, Technics for the Crime Investigator
97-115 (1952). Studies concerning the observed practices of the police
appear in LaFave, Arrest: The Decision To Take a Suspect Into Custody
244-437, 490-521 (1965); LaFave, Detention for Investigation by the
Police: An Analysis of Current Practices, 1962 Wash ULQ 331; Barrett,
Police Practices and the Law – From Arrest to Release or Charge, 50
Calif L Rev 11 (1962); Sterling, supra, n. 7, at 47-65.) These
*texts are used by law enforcement agencies themselves as guides. (The
methods described in Inbau & Reid, Criminal Interrogation and
Confessions (1962), are a revision and enlargement of material presented
in three prior editions of a predecessor text, Lie Detection and
Criminal Interrogation (3d ed. 1953). The authors and their associates
are officers of the Chicago Police Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory
and have had extensive experience in writing, lecturing and speaking to
law enforcement authorities over a 20-year period. They say that the
techniques portrayed in their manuals reflect their experiences and are
the most effective psychological stratagems to employ during
interrogations. Similarly, the techniques described in O’Hara,
Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation (1956), were gleaned from long
service as observer, lecturer in police science, and work as a federal
criminal investigator. All these texts have had rather extensive use
among law enforcement agencies and among students of police science,
with total sales and circulation of over 44,000.)

xxx                            xxx                               xxx

“From these representative samples of interrogation techniques,
the setting prescribed by the manuals and observed in practice becomes
clear. In essence, it is this: To be alone with the subject is
essential to prevent distraction and to deprive him of any outside
support. The aura of confidence in his guilt undermines his will to
resist. He merely confirms the preconceived story the police seek to
have him describe. Patience and persistence, at times relentless
questioning, are employed. To obtain a confession, the interrogator
must ‘patiently maneuver himself or his quarry into a position from
which the desired objective may be attained.’ (Inbau & Reid, Lie
Detection and Criminal Interrogation 185 [3d ed. 1953]) When normal
procedures fail to produce the needed result, the police may resort to
deceptive stratagems such as giving false legal advise. It is important
to keep the subject off balance, for example, by trading on his
insecurity about himself or his surroundings. The police then persuade,
trick, or cajole him out of exercising his constitutional rights.

“Even without employing brutality, the ‘third degree’ or the
specific stratagems described above, the very fact of custodial
interrogation exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty and trades on
the weakness *[384 US 456] of individuals.” (Interrogation procedures
may even give rise to a false confession. The most recent conspicuous
example occurred in New York, in 1964, when a Negro of limited
intelligence confessed to two brutal murders and a rape which he had not
committed. When this was discovered, the prosecutor was reported as
saying: ‘Call it what you want-brain-washing, hypnosis, fright. They
made him give an untrue confession. The only thing I don’t believe is
that Whitmore was beaten.’ N. Y. Times, Jan. 28, 1965, p. 1, col. 5. In
two other instances, similar events had occurred. N. Y. Times, Oct.
20, 1964, p. 22, col. 1; N. Y. Times, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 1, col. 1. In
general, see Borchard, Convicting the Innocent (1932); Frank &
Frank, Not Guilty (1957).

There are significant matters found in the records which lead us to
differ from Judge Onofre A. Villaluz who stated that the “Court wholly
believes on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses” and who found
the extrajudicial confessions “voluntarily given.”

The information avers that Benjamin Garcia was killed on May 28, 1970.
Bondoc and Mutuc were immediately suspected as implicated in the
disappearance of Garcia and were, in fact, investigated. Nothing
resulted from the investigations until more than two and a half years
later when the appellants were suddenly picked up, subjected to
incommunicado interrogation, and persuaded to give “voluntary”
confessions.

The prosecution evidence itself shows that Fernando Bondoc was turned
over to the investigators on December 8, 1972. His “interview” took
place a day later, on December 9, 1972. Starting at 6:00 o’clock in the
evening, the interview lasted until midnight. The time element is a
factor to be considered in assessing the voluntary nature of the
confession, considering that the statement itself is short and narrates a
most simple occurrence.

On the other hand, Mutuc’s extra-judicial statement is dated December 9,
1972. Yet the record is clear that Mutuc was apprehended only on
December 10, 1972 because according to Atty. Matta himself, Mutuc was
apprehended in his house after Bondoc gave his extra-judicial statement
which was past midnight of December 9, 1972. This inconsistency is very
apparent and has not been reconciled by the prosecution. Under
cross-examination, Atty. Matta testified:

Atty. Gonzales:

“Q When was this alleged statement of Augusto Mutuc taken?

“A After he was specifically identified by Bondoc, the interview started.

“Q How about his statement identified by you a while ago, when was it taken?

“A It was taken immediately after we learned from him his participation in this case.

“Q I am showing you here in this statement of Augusto Mutuc, it
appears that it was taken on December 9, 1972, was that the exact date
when this statement was taken before his apprehension?

“A Yes sir.

(TSN., Jan. 24, 1973, pp. 96-97)

The date which shows that a statement was taken a day before the accused
declarant was apprehended may have been the result of oversight.
However, this Court is reviewing a decision imposing the death penalty
where the only prosecution evidence implicating the accused is his own
wrongly dated confession. We cannot ignore the discrepancy.

The trial court asks why the accused-appellants did not file
administrative charges or criminal complaints against their alleged
tormentors.

The records show that the accused-appellants are ignorant farmers from a
distant barrio of Apalit, Pampanga. Mutuc cannot even sign his name
and merely affixed his thumbmark to his extra-judicial statement. The
visitors of Bondoc were allowed to see him only ten days after his
apprehension. When the first visitors, his wife and brother-in-law, saw
him, they were unable to talk to one another at first; they just cried
upon seeing each other. How could the lower court expect these people
to file charges against the authorities, more so when the court itself
emphasized that the investigations were conducted less than three months
after martial law was proclaimed in the whole country? There was no
inkling at the time on how martial law “Philippine style” would be
implemented.

It is likewise difficult to ascertain the truth or falsity of appellant
Bondoc’s allegations that his body was subjected to blows and his
genital organ pressed with a pair of pliers and then electrocuted.
Bondoc was already fully clothed when photographs were taken while he
was signing his extra-judicial statement and subscribing to it under
oath.

The trial court stated that the appellants’ going to the scene of the
crime, their re-enactment of the crime, and their identification of the
pictures of the relative positions of the victim convinced it that the
accused perpetrated the crime.

The prosecution presented as evidence a photograph (Exhibit “F-8”)
showing a certain Almenon and a certain Pancho pointing to a “hole”
where they discovered the body of Benjamin Garcia, the same “hole” which
the prosecution stated had earlier been pointed to by the accused as
the place where they dumped the body of Benjamin Garcia after killing
him. According to the prosecution, Almenon and Pancho joined the NBI
authorities after the accused had voluntarily gone to the place to show
the exact spot where they dumped Benjamin’s body and to re-enact how
they killed him. Almenon and Pancho were however, not presented as
witnesses in the trial court.

Considering that, as early as June 7, 1970, the authorities already knew
that a cadaver had been discovered in the same place and had autopsied
the decomposed body and photographed it from various angles and that the
accused-appellants were brought to the same place by the officers
holding them in custody, and not the other way around, the supposed
identification of the well or hole loses much of its probative value.
It would be different if an accused who gives an extra-judicial
confession leads the police to a place till then known only to the
accused and which would not have been discovered had the accused not
brought the police there. Moreover, Almenon and Pancho were not
introduced as witnesses to give details on how the corpse was discovered
and whether their being brought to the “hole” was before or after the
appellants had identified it as the place where the body of Garcia was
dumped.

The trial court justified the voluntariness of the extra-judicial
statements by applying the test that the statements contained details
which could have been supplied only by the affiants.

The test cannot apply four square to this case.

The records show that before the Manila agents took over the case of
Benjamin Garcia, the Pampanga office had already conducted their own
investigation. The findings were embodied in a report forwarded to
Manila. On cross-examination, Atty. Matta testified that the accused
Bondoc was a “suspect” in the disappearance of Benjamin Garcia because
of – (1) the letter of Mr. Nicolas Abelardo and (2) the statements
furnished by the Pampanga office. The latter statements, according to
Atty. Matta, included those of Mrs. Trinidad A. Garcia, Beatriz Garcia
de Timoteo, and Domingo Reyes. The 1970 findings on the unidentified
corpse also formed part of NBI records.

The report from Pampanga was never introduced in court during the trial.
We find it surprising why the prosecution appeared reluctant to
present it.

The testimony regarding the report states:

“ATTY. GONZALES

“May we request for a subpoena duces tecum to be sent to the
Director of the NBI, your Honor, regarding this case, as far as the
report of the NBI is concerned. It appears that it is not among the
files brought by the NBI before this Court.

“FISCAL MELLENDRES

“Your Honor please, I want to manifest that the report asked by
counsel as he claimed is the report of the NBI of San Fernando. It
seems that the report itself now attached to the record is the very
report asked for because there is no such copy your Honor. We are
attaching the original copy of the report of the case so I presumed that
that is the very report asked for.

“ATTY. GONZALES

“No, this is not the report I requested the NBI to bring to this
Honorable Court. After going over the files brought by by the NBI
representative, it appears that said report is not among the files.

“FISCAL MELLENDRES

“Your Honor please, it is very surprising to hear the statement of
counsel that there is till another report with the exception of this
report now in our file, and has already been marked as Exhibit 2, for
them.

“After all this report is immaterial in this case. This NBI is
not the witness in this case. The best witness is the witness to the
crime.

“COURT

“Are you sure that there is still another report? Because the
representative here said that the same has been submitted and he even
confirmed about the existence of said report.

“Why don’t you present him?

“ATTY. GONZALES

“We will do that, your Honor. In the meantime, we will present Mutuc.”

(TSN, April 24, 1973, pp. 2-3)

Exhibit 2 mentioned by the Fiscal is the necropsy report, not the report
of investigation of the Pampanga Office which led Atty. Matta to
suspect that Bondoc was one of the authors of the crime. The appellants
state that their efforts to get a copy of the Pampanga report or to
have it produced in court wre unavailing.

It is, therefore, probable that the investigators in Manila had more or
less formed some opinions about the culpability of the appellants and
were familiar with some details regarding the disappearance of Garcia
and the recovery of an unidentified corpse which bore stab wounds when
the confessions were taken. This probability affects the trial court’s
findings that the statements were replete with details only the accused
could have furnished.

Whether or not the decomposed cadaver examined in 1970 was truly the
corpse of Benjamin Garcia is itself not satisfactorily established.

Mrs. Trinidad A. Garcia never saw the exhumed body or whatever remained
of it in order to ascertain whether it was indeed that of her missing
husband. The pictures taken in 1970 were shown to her in 1972. The
trial court relied on Mrs. Garcia’s statement that her husband had a
missing tooth in his lower dentures and the photographs shown to her
appears to indicate that a tooth was missing. Mrs. Garcia also stated
that she could still identify the face of her husband in the pictures.

Leonardo Garcia, the funeral coach driver who retrieved the body from
Taguig, Rizal declared that the body had tattoos. He stated:

“x x x may tatoo sa kaliwang braso sa itaas ng siko at mayroon ding tatoo sa palibot ng dalawang binti x x x”.

The widow, Mrs. Garcia, was quite emphatic on cross-examination that her husband had no tattoo on his body; he had only “balat.”

It is difficult to comprehend how anybody, including a spouse, could
give a positive identification of the corpse from the pictures
introduced in evidence. It would also be a risky proposition to
corroborate extra-judicial statements about a murder with testimony that
a tooth appears to be missing from the lower dentures shown in the
photographs. Any apparent gap could be the result of some defect in the
photographic film or teeth could have been knocked off in the course of
the killing or the falling into the well. Moreover, the necropsy
report prepared in 1970 states:

“Body in advance stage of decomposition with marked softening
beginning liquifaction of soft tissues exposing the body (bony)
structures of the anterior and posterior chest wall and upper
extremities. Scalp hairs are falling off and the skull devoid of soft
tissues exposing the cranial bones.”

Considering all the foregoing, we are constrained to rule that the trial
court failed to give the extra-judicial statements “the most
painstaking scrutiny” which we have directed must be taken by all trial
courts trying cases with similar circumstances.

We, therefore, acquit the accused appellants on grounds of reasonable
doubt. This judgment of acquittal does not necessarily mean that the
appellants had nothing at all to do with the crime. It simply means
that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants
beyond reasonable doubt. The constitutional presumption of innocence
was not successfully overcome by the prosecution.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court imposing the death penalty on
accused-appellants Fernando Bondoc and Augusto Mutuc is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The accused-appellants are ACQUITTED of the
charge against them and their immediate release is ordered unless they
may be held for some other lawful cause.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., see dissenting opinion.

Abad Santos, J., no part.

---

DISSENTING OPINION

AQUINO, J.:

I dissent because the guilt of the accused was established beyond
reasonable doubt by their confessions which were corroborated by
evidence of the corpus delicti (Exh. A to E). No evidence could be more
conclusive and indubitable. Their acquittal is not justified.

Fernando Bondoc, 28, a jeepney driver, and Augusto Mutuc y Bondoc, 41, a
jueteng collector, third cousins, both natives of Barrio Balucoc,
Apalit, Pampanga, admitted in their confessions the assassination of
Benjamin Garcia of the same barrio.

It was recounted in their confessions that Bondoc, Mutuc, Elpidio Lopez
and Garcia met one morning on May 28,1970 at a gas station in Plaridel,
Bulacan. They rode in a jeep to the house of Pedro Ignacio in Taguig,
Rizal. The jeep was driven by Bondoc Mutuc, Lopez and Garcia had a
drinking spree at Ignacio’s house. In the afternoon, the four went to
an uninhabited place or promontory in Barrio Tanyag, Taguig.

Bondoc suddenly hit Garcia in the head with an iron bar or pipe. He
fell on the ground. Lopez got the hunting knife of Garcia and stabbed
him three times in the chest. Mutuc undressed Garcia and buried him.
Then the trio returned to Apalit. The postmortem examination disclosed
that Garcia sustained three chest wounds which affected his heart,
liver, stomach and intestines (Exh. A).

Garcia was liquidated because he had killed Tomas Mandap and Marcelo
Manlapaz, Mutuc’s brother-in-law and cousin, respectively. Garcia
behaved arrogantly (“siga”) in Barrio Balucoc like a “hukbo” whose
wishes had to be obeyed (Nos. 12 and 13, Exh. E). About a week before
the incident, Mutuc and Garcia quarreled and Garcia attempted to stab
Mutuc but was not able to hit Mutuc due to the intervention of
by-standers. (According to Garcia’a wife, he was also suspected of
having killed Mayor Mercado’s brother, Juanito, 107 tsn.)

Bondoc gave the following declaration to Agent Mariano P. Matta, Jr. of
the National Bureau of Investigation on December 9, 1972 (Exh. D):

“8. T – Sino itong si Benjamin Garcia na tinutukoy mo? S – Kababaryo ko po.

“9. T – Natatandaan mo ba kung kailan nawala itong si Benjamin
Garcia? S – Kung hindi po ako nagkakamali ay mula pa nuong Mayo 28,
1970.

“10. T – Ano naman ang nalalaman mo tungkol dito sa pagkawala ni
Benjamin Garcia? S – Isa po ako sa kasama nina Augusto Mutuc, Elpidio
Lopez at Benjamin Garcia nang sila ay magpunta duon kay Pedro Ignacio sa
Bo. Bicutan, Taguig, Rizal, nuong araw na iyon.

“11. T – Bukod sa inyong apat, mayroon pa bang ibang kasama o nakaaalam ng bagay naito? S – Wala na po.

“12. T – Isalaysay mo nga ang buong pangyayari na namagitan sa
inyo nuong araw na iyon? S – Nuong umaga po ng Mayo 28, 1970, ako po ay
nanduruon sa estasyon ng gasolinahan sa Plaridel, Bulacan, at
naghihintay sa pagdating nina Augusto Mutuc at Elpidio Lopez.

“Sila po ay dumating ng mga alas-siyete ng umaga na kasama sa
pagdating si Benjamin Garcia. Sakay po ng minamaneho kong jeep na
pampasahero, kami po ay nagtungo sa bahay ni Pedro Ignacio sa Taguig,
Rizal, at dumating duon ng mga alas-diyes ng umaga. Sila po nag-inumang
tatlo na tumagal ng mga hanggang ala-una ng hapon.

“Matapos po nuon, kaming apat ay namasyal duon sa may burol at habang nanduruon, bigla ko na lamang pinalo sa ulo si Benjamin Garcia. Nang nakahandusay na po si Benjamin Garcia, ang ginawa po ni Elpidio Lopez ay inundayan naman ng saksak si Benjamin Garcia.

“Matapos po nilang maihulog duon sa isang hukay si Benjamin
Garcia, kami pong tatlo ay umalis na at umuwi sa Bo. Balucoc nang mga
mag-aalas singko ng hapon.”

Mutuc made the following confession to NBI Agent Romulo R. Parras on
December 9, 1972 in the presence of Agent Matta (Exh. E):

“10. T – Ano ang kinalaman mo sa pagkawala at pagkamatay nitong si
Benjamin Garcia? S – Ako po ay kasama nina Fernando Bondoc at Elpidio
Lopez na pumatay kay Benjamin Garcia.

x x x                              x x x                             x x x

“15. T – Isalaysay mo nga ang buong pangyayari buhat nuong
magkasama kayo nina Benjamin Garcia hanggang sa nang siya ay inyong
patayin? S – Nuong pong Mayo nang nakaraang taon, ang tiyak na petsa po
ay hindi ko matandaan, kami nina Benjamin Garcia, Elpidio Lopez,
Fernando Bondoc at ako ay nagkita-kita sa Plaridel, Bulacan.

“Kami po ay sumakay sa jeep na minamaneho ni Fernando Bondoc. Ang
sabi po nila ay papunta kaming Taguig, Rizal. Nang kami po ay nasa
isang bahay na, kaming tatlo nina Elpidio at Benjamin ay nag-inuman.
Itinuloy po namin ang aming inuman sa may bundok na malayo duon sa bahay
na una naming ininuman.

“Duon po sa lugar na iyon pinalo ni Fernando Bondoc sa ulo si
Benjamin Garcia. Nang nakahandusay na si Benjamin, ang ginawa naman po
ni Elpidio ay makatatlong ulit na sinaksak si Benjamin.

“Matapos po nito, aking hinubaran si Benjamin at itinira, lamang
iyong kanyang karsonsilyo. Iyon pong mga damit niya ay aking itinapon.
Tinabunan ko lamang po ang katawan ni Benjamin ng kaunting damo at
kaming tatlo ay umalis na pabalik sa Pampanga.”

The two confessions were sworn to before Nestor E. Gonzales, NBI, regional director. Lopez is at large.

When Garcia failed to return home on May 28, 1970, his wife Trinidad
Abelardo inquired from Bondoc and Mutuc about his whereabouts. Garcia
had told her that he was going to meet Mutuc and Bondoc. The two
answered that they did not know.

The Constabulary detachment in Barrio Balucoc asked her about her
husband. She said that she was ignorant of what happened to him. Her
brother Nicolas reported his disappearance to the NBI office in Pampanga
and its Manila office.

A week after Garcia was killed, or on June 4, 1970, a
Taguig policeman reported the discovery of a cadaver in Barrio Tanyag.
The body was brought to the morgue where an autopsy was made (Exh. A).
Photographs (Exh. B to B-2 and C-1-a to C-1-c) were taken of the body
under the supervision of Doctor Dario C. Nalagan, NBI senior
medico-legal officer.

About eighteen months later, or in 1972, Trinidad identified
the cadaver in the photographs as that of her husband Garcia as shown by
the face, which was still intact, and the fact that a tooth was missing
in the lower left jaw (Exh. C-1-d; 106-107 tsn).

The NBI, acting on the letter of Nicolas Abelardo and suspecting Bondoc
to be implicated in the case, asked the police of Apalit to turn over
Bondoc to the NBI, He was then being detained by reason of a charge for
physical injuries. The case was referred to the NBI also by Secretary
of Justice Vicente Abad Santos.

The NBI agents confronted Bondoc with Abelardo’s complaint. After a
series of interrogations, Bondoc admitted his complicity in the killing
of Garcia. He identified Mutuc and Lopez as his co-conspirators.

Photographs were taken of (1) the actual interrogation of Bondoc and
Mutuc, (2) Bondoc pointing to Mutuc as a confederate and Mutuc pointing
to Bondoc as his companion, (3) the taking of their oaths before
Regional Director Gonzales and (4) the taking of their fingerprints,
Exhibits D-2 to D-5 and E-2 to E-7. The photographs unquestionably show
that the confessions were given voluntarily or without any duress
whatsoever.

Bondoc and Mutuc reenacted the crime. Presented in evidence
were photographs of (1) Bondoc and Mutuc at the scene of the crime in
Barrio Tanyag, pointing to the spot where they buried Garcia, (2) how
Bondoc hit Garcia on the nape with a tube or iron bar, (3) how Mutuc
stabbed Garcia with the latter’s hunting knife, (4) how Garcia was
dragged and dumped into the depression where his body was found later
and (5) Reynaldo Almanon and Restituto Pancho, who discovered the
cadaver of Garcia on June 4, 1970, present at the reenactment (Exh. F to
F-8).

In People vs. Del Mundo (Commander Sumulong), L-39051, June 29, 1982,
114 SCRA 719, Marciano T. Miranda was kidnapped by the Huks in Barrio
Balitucan, Magalang, Pampanga and brought some hours later in Sitio
Cauayan, Barrio Pam-pang, Angeles’ City. A grave was dug and Miranda
was ordered to say his prayers. Miranda was bound and brought near the
grave. While Miranda was praying, he was hit by a pipe and he fell into
the grave. Commander Sumulong directed that the grave be covered.

More than six months later, two corpses in an advanced state of
decomposition were exhumed in the spot where Miranda was killed. One of
the corpses was identified by Miranda’s wife and brother as that of
Miranda’s because the molars were missing and the hair was reddish.
Commander Sumulong and his confederates were convicted of kidnapping
with murder in connection with Miranda’s liquidation.

In this case, the NBI agents solved the crime without resorting to
illegitimate measures. They performed their duties regularly in the
ordinary course of business. There is no reason for not giving the
confessions their high degree of probative value (Sec. 29, Rule 130,
Rules of Court). They contain many details which are tell-tale indicia
of their voluntariness.

However, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death.