THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CRISPIN ROYO AND MARIANO MAGLENTE, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Crispin Royo and Mariano Maglente appealed
from the decision of the Circuit
Criminal Court of Manila, finding them guilty of murder, sentencing each
of them
to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to indemnify solidarily the
heirs of
Carmen Huelva-Lim Chan in the sum of twelve thousand pesos (Criminal
Case No.
2684).

At about noontime of October 12, 1977, the dead body of Carmen
H. Chan, a
fifty-one-year-old widow, was found between a partition and a printing
machine
on the ground floor of her three-story house located at 432 Jaboneros
Street,
Binondo, Manila.

The autopsy disclosed that she died due to manual strangulation
and multiple
stab and “blunt” wounds between three and six o’clock in the morning of
October
12, 1977 (27 tsn March 8, 1978; Exh. C and D).

The external injuries consisted of (1) a contused lacerated
wound in the
forehead, (2) lacerated wound in the basion, (3) lacerated wound in the
supraorbital area of the left eye, (4) contusions on the lips, (5) five
contusions over the left lower jaw, (6) small lacerated wound near the
right
corner of the mouth, (7) nail scratches on the slightly swollen and
purplish
neck, (8), (9) two penetrating stab wounds in the chest lacerating the
heart,
(10), (11), (12) three stab wounds also in the chest lace­rating the
heart, (13)
nine semi-circular contused, penetrating wounds in the chest, (14) and
(15) two
lacerated wounds on the scalp.

There were hematomas on the lower anterior chest extending to
the epigastric
region and on the larynx and surrounding soft tissues.  The
victim’s nasal
bones, ribs, malar bones and alveolar process were fractured.

Crispin Royo, 20 (19), a former household helper of Carmen
Chan, who had
stayed with her family for three years, was arrested in the afternoon of
the
following day, October 13, 1977, in connection with the
killing.  He made a
handwritten confession at eight-thirty in the evening.  He
admitted that he
stabbed the victim.  Royo stated that the killing was suggested
by Mariano
Maglente (Jun), who like Royo is from Masbate and who also used to work
as a
house-boy of the Chan family.  Although Maglente had found
another job in
Tayuman Street, he used to visit Royo on Sundays in the house of Carmen
H.
Chan.  Royo’s confession reads as follows:

” Sabi ni Jun sa akin na patayin ko si Miss Chan kasi manloloko
daw si Miss
Chan kaya inutusan ako ni Jun.  Kasi kung magpatrabaho paabot
ng alas dose ng
gabi umpisa sa alas sais ng umaga.  Ang pagkain ay parang sa
baboy.

” Ang suweldo namin sa isang semana ay sampung piso lang kaya
nagalit kami
kay Miss Chan, kaming lahat na trabahador.  Kaya mayroong nag-
utos sa akin, si
Jun, na patayin si Miss Chan.

” Sinabi ko oo, papatayin ko.  Sabi ni Jun magkita
kami ni Jun kung hindi 9
12 ng buwang ito.  Nagkita kami noong 9.  Sabi ko sa
kanya hindi ko magagawa. 
Sabi ni Jun sa dose na lang.

” Nagkita kami ng dose, alas sais ng umaga tapos binigay niya
ang kutsilyo. 
Pagdating ko sa bahay, nag­bukas na siya ng pinto.  Inutusan
ako na magtapon ng
basura.

” Pagdating ko sa loob, binunot ko ang kutsilyo sa
bulsa.  Pagkatapos lumapit
sa akin si Miss Chan, pagkatapos sinaksak ko ng dalawa o tatlong
beses.  Natumba
siya, tapos umalis na ako.

” Pumasok si Jun, pagkatapos hindi ko na nakita.” ( Exh . F).

Patrolman Ilagan testified that the foregoing confession does
not contain any
advertence as to Royo’s constitutional rights because Royo simply asked
for a
piece of paper so that he could write his confession. 
According to Ilagan, he
verbally informed Royo of his constitutional rights.

Elizabeth Chan, 22, the victim’s daughter, testified that at
about seven
o’clock in the morning of October 12, 1977, she spotted Maglente walking
on
Jaboneros Street and turning on San Fernando Street.

Maglente was arrested.  He was confronted with Royo’s
confession.  He denied
any complicity in the killing.  Royo executed another
confession at about ten
o’clock in the evening of October 13, 1977.  It was
typewritten.  He again
implicated Maglente.  He fingered Maglente who was present
during the
investigation.  He identified the weapon he used in stabbing
Carmen Chan, the
plastic printing press roller used by Maglente ( Exh. I) and the pants,
smeared
with blood, which he wore during the killing ( Exh. J).

On October 14, 1977, at about six-thirty in the evening, Royo
reenacted the
killing at the scene of the crime.  Maglente, who was present,
did not
participate in the re-enactment.  However, when arraigned on
the charge of
murder, Royo, like Maglente, pleaded not guilty.

The trial court in convicting Royo found that his two
confessions were
voluntarily executed.

Royo’s case.  – Royo, a native of Tinigban, Aroroy,
Masbate, who finished
Grade six, recounted in his typewritten confession that at about six
o’clock in
the morn­ing of Wednesday, October 12, 1977, Maglente gave him a kitchen
knife,
while they were at San Fernando Street, Binondo.  Maglente told
him that he (
Maglente) would wait for Royo at the corner of Jaboneros and San
Fernando
Streets.

Armed with the knife, Royo went to the house of Mrs. Chan on
Jaboneros
Street.  He saw her opening the door.  She told Royo
to get the garbage can. 
Royo disposed of the garbage and reentered the ground floor of the house
to
return the garbage can.  Mrs. Chan told him to get out,
actually pushing him,
and, as she did so, Royo stabbed her in the chest.  Maglente
entered the ground
floor and hit Mrs. Chan with a printing press roller ( Exh. I)
.  Royo fled to
Saluysoy, Meycauayan, Bulacan.

Royo identified the knife which he used and which was found at
the scene of
the crime.  He disclosed that the motive for the killing was
Mrs. Chan’s beastly
treatment of himself and Maglente.  His exact words were: “Alas
12:00 nang gabi
kami pinahihinto mula nang alas 6:00 na aga ang kain para sa baboy.”
(No. 39,
Exh . G).

While Royo’s confession was being taken, Maglente was present
at the
investigation room.  The investigator asked Royo to point to
Maglente.  Royo
complied and pointed to Maglente (No. 40, Exh. G).

The following notice and waiver of his constitutional rights
are found in
Royo’s second confession:

“01. Tanong:  Ikaw ba ay nahahandang magbigay nang
isang malaya at
kusang-loob na salaysay at sagutin nang buong katutuhanan lamang ang
lahat nang
aming itatanong sa iyo tungkol sa imbistigasiyong ito at ipinaaalam
na­min sa
iyo na ano mang iyong sasabihin dito ay maaaring gamitin sa iyo sa alin
mang
hukuman dito sa Pilipinas?  – Sagot:  Oho.

“02. T.  Ipinaaalam ko sa iyo na itong salaysay mo sa
amin ay bilang paglinaw
sa nauna mong salaysay sa amin kaninang alas 8:30 nang gabi, petsa 13
nang
Oktubre 1977 tungkol sa pagkasaksak mo kay Mrs. Carmen Chan noong petsa
12 nang
Oktubre 1977, naiintindihan mo ba ito?  – Sagot:  Oho.

“03. T.  Bago ang lahat ay inuulit ko sa iyo ang iyong
karapatan sa ating
Bagong Saligang Batas (Article 4, Sec­tion 20) at ang mga iyan ay ang
mga
sumusunod:

“1 .  Ikaw ay nahaharap tungkol sa imbistigasiyong ito
tungkol sa pagkamatay
ni Mrs. Carmen Chan nang ban­dang alas 6:00 nang umaga petsa 12 nang
Oktubre
1977 sa loob nang bahay nito sa 432 Jaboneros, Binondo,
Manila.  Naiintindihan
mo ba ito ?  – Sagot:  Oho.

“2 .  Ikaw ay may karapatang kumuha nang abogado na
iyong nanaisin na humarap
para sa iyo sa imbistigasiyong ito o kung wala kang abogado ay
mabibigyan ka
namin nang abogado na haharap para sa iyo sa imbistigasiyong ito nang
walang
bayad.  Ano ang masasabi mo?  – Sagot: 
Magbibigay ako nang katutuhanan ho.

“3 .  Ikaw ay may karapatang huwag magbigay nang
salaysay kung iyong
nanaisin.  Ano ang masasabi mo?  – Sagot: 
Magbigay ako.

“4 .  Ikaw ay may karapatang huwag sumagot sa alin
mang katanungan namin na
iyong nanaisin.  Ano ang masa­sabi mo?  –
Sagot:  Magsagot ako.

” Sgd. Crispin Royo

CRISPIN C. ROYO

“WITNESSES:

RODOLFO S. ILAGAN

RODOLFO JANER

“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13th day of October
1977 in the City
of Manila.

Sgd. BALTAZAR DIZON

(Assistant Fiscal of Manila)

Administering Officer”

An examination of that confession reveals that the police
investigator
endeavored to comply with the cons­titutional requirements by apprising
Royo of
his rights to have counsel and to remain silent and by securing from him
a
waiver under oath of those rights.  The swearing officer,
Fiscal Baltazar Dizon,
also apprised him of his constitutional rights (22 tsn October 9, 1978).

Royo testified briefly at the trial.  He declared that
the charge that he
killed Mrs. Chan was not true.  On April 30, 1979 (after the
prosecution had
closed its evidence), he executed in the chapel of the city jail before a
police
captain an affidavit wherein he said that “Mariano Maglente ay walang
kasalanan
sa pagkamatay ni Carmen Chan” (par. 4, Exh. 2, p. 115, Record).

In that affidavit, Royo also said: “Na ako ay binugbog ng mga
Pulis sa
Detective Bureau ng Homicide bago kami ay dinala dito sa Manila City
Jail, at
walang mga declaration o ‘statement’ na ibinigay ko sa Pulis na kasama
ko si
Mariano Maglente noong fecha 12 ng Oktubre, 1977 sa Jaboneros, Binondo,
Maynila,
noong nakitang patay si Carmen Chan ng mga pulis.” (No. 5, Exh . 2).

It is evident that Exhibit 2 is in the nature of a retraction
of the
statements in his two confessions im­plicating Maglente in the killing
of Mrs.
Chan.  It has no probative value because it was obviously an
afterthought, a
belated self-serving declaration designed to exculpate Royo and
Maglente.  It
was by means of that 1979 affidavit that Royo repudiated his 1977
confessions.

Royo’s testimony on direct examination consisted merely of his
denial that he
killed Mrs. Chan and his identification of his affidavit repudiating his
prior
confessions.  On cross-examination, he admitted that he had
never complained to
the authorities about any maltreatment.

The issue is whether Royo’s confessions are admissible under
Article IV of
the Constitution which provides:

“SEC. 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.”

Section 20 refers to confessions taken during custodial
interrogation.  We
agree with the trial court that Royo’s confessions were
voluntary.  One
tell-tale badge of the spontaneity and regularity of the second
confession is
the fact that Royo used therein Visayan words, aside from Tagalog
words.  That
shows that the investigator took down his answers verbatim and did not
alter the
same.

But did Royo waive his constitutional rights to have counsel
and to remain
silent when he executed those confessions?

The rule is that “a defendant may waive effectuation of his
rights to remain
silent and to be assisted by counsel at a custodial police
interrogation,
provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently”
(Syllabus, Miranda vs. Arizona, 16 L. Ed. 2nd 694, 697, 706-707).

We hold that under the circumstances surrounding the execution
of Royo’s
second pre-trial confession, especially the warning and notice to him of
his
constitutional rights, which he waived under oath, he made a valid
renunciation
of the said rights.  Consequently, the confessions are
admissible.  His
conviction can be predicated thereon.  A different holding
would result in a
palpable miscarriage of justice.

Maglente’s case.  – As already stated, Royo in his two
confessions implicated
Maglente in the killing of Mrs. Chan by stating that it was Maglente who

suggested the killing and that it was Maglente who used the printing
press
roller in bludgeoning the victim.  Elizabeth Chan testified
that she saw
Maglente on Jaboneros Street early in the morning of the day when her
mother was
killed.  Maglente did not testify at the trial.

Royo’s confessions are not admissible against Maglente because
they are
hearsay and res inter alios acta as to Maglente.  Royo did not
testify on the
confessions.  In his later affidavit, he swore that Maglente
had nothing to do
with the killing of Mrs. Chan and that his confes­sions were induced by
maltreatment ( Exh. 2).  Without Royo’s confessions, there is
no evidence
against Maglente.  The Solicitor General recommended his
acquittal.

WHEREFORE, the lower court’s
judgment is affirmed as to
Crispin Royo and reversed as to Mariano Maglente who is hereby
exonerated
because the evidence showing that he was a co-principal by inducement
and direct
partici­pation is inadmissible.  Costs de oficio .

SO
ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Guerrero,
Abad Santos, De Castro,
and Escolin,
JJ.,concur.
Concepcion,
Jr., J.,
on leave.