PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENIGNO PINEDA DIMATULAC, AND JOUIE T. GARCIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People of the Philippines versus Pineda Dimatulac and Garcia

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Benigno Pineda Dimatulac and Jouie Garcia for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under the Revised Penal Code, arising from the killing of Estela Pineda in Magalang, Pampanga. The case matters to every bar candidate because it is a compact illustration of three examinable rules at once: the constitutional rule that the right to counsel cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel, so that a confession taken without counsel is inadmissible even if true; the rule that conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the acts of the accused; and the rule that in robbery with homicide, all who participated in the robbery are equally liable for the homicide committed by their co-conspirators.

Procedural History

The information was filed against both accused, and each entered a plea of not guilty at arraignment. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, sentencing each to death, ordering them to indemnify the heirs of Estela Pineda jointly and severally, and certifying the records to the Supreme Court for automatic review. The case was originally before the Supreme Court on automatic review. After the commutation of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, both accused manifested their desire to continue the case as an appealed case, and the Court resolved it on appeal.

Facts

Benigno Pineda Dimatulac was orphaned young and was raised in the household of his uncle, Gregorio Pineda, who supported him and treated him as a member of the family. When the family moved to a new house, Benigno was left behind at the old house in San Pedro Number One, Magalang, Pampanga, as its caretaker. Estela Pineda, a public school teacher and a daughter of Gregorio, taught at a school about one kilometer from that old house and would rest there after her classes.

On the morning of August 12, 1983, Estela left home for her classes, bringing her own party dress and that of her sister Alma, with whom she had agreed to meet at the old house later that day to change clothes for a despedida party. At about two o'clock in the afternoon, Alma arrived at the old house but found the front door closed. She called for her sister and got no answer. She went to the rear door, which was locked from the inside, and after knocking heard Benigno say "Oh" from upstairs. Benigno merely looked out the window and told her that Estela had left a message that they would change clothes at the school. Alma went to the school, found no one, and returned, but could not enter. She later saw Jouie Garcia at the rear of the house, where the backdoor was padlocked, and Benigno was no longer there.

That evening, Alma, her father, and her brother went to the old house and forced the door open with the help of Jouie Garcia, who was trembling as he struck the padlock. Inside, they found Estela's body on a bed, bloodied, her hands tied over her head. The autopsy showed a scalp wound over a skull fracture, a fractured cheek bone, a torn finger consistent with defense, rope marks on the neck, and a cause of death of shock, intracerebral hemorrhage, and asphyxia due to multiple wounds and fractures caused by violent beating and strangulation. Benigno was arrested that night in Angeles City, and the deceased's coin purse, gold necklace, and other items were found in his possession. Jewelries of the deceased were later recovered in a chicken pen after Jouie Garcia admitted hiding them there. Benigno's extrajudicial confession, taken without the assistance of counsel, was offered in evidence.

Issues

• Whether or not Benigno Pineda's extrajudicial confession, obtained without the assistance of counsel, is admissible in evidence.
• Whether or not Jouie Garcia's participation in the killing, and the existence of conspiracy between him and Benigno Pineda, were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that both appellants committed the complex crime of robbery with homicide.

Applicable Provisions

Article 3, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

This provision governs the confession of Benigno Pineda, which was taken without the assistance of counsel and is therefore inadmissible regardless of whether it was voluntary.

Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as applied by the trial court, provides:

Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.

This is the special complex crime of which both appellants were convicted, and it fixes the liability of all who took part in the robbery for the homicide committed on its occasion.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the question of coercion had become academic because of the change in the Bill of Rights under the 1987 Constitution. Even if the confession were the gospel truth, since it was made without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given. The Court nevertheless held that even without the confession, the evidence against Benigno Pineda remained strong. His alibi failed, he was positively seen at the scene, he locked the doors from the inside, refused to open them to the victim's sister, and misled her into going elsewhere, and the deceased's belongings were found in his possession.

On the second issue, the Court held that Jouie Garcia's own admission that he stole the jewelries and hid them in a chicken pen, and the discovery of the same in the exact place he mentioned, sufficiently proved his knowledge of and participation in the crime. The Court held that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from the acts of the accused, and that it is not essential that there be a previous agreement to commit robbery.

On the third issue, the Court held that all who participated in the robbery are equally liable for the homicide perpetrated by the other co-conspirators. The crime is a complex one, and conspiracy having been established, the act of one becomes the act of all, so it is no longer necessary to lay out the specific participation of each participant.

Doctrine

First, the rights of a person under investigation, including the right to counsel, cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel; a confession taken without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible even if voluntary and true. Second, conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the acts of the accused, and a prior agreement to commit robbery is not essential. Third, in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, all who participated in the robbery are equally liable for the homicide committed by their co-conspirators, because the act of one is the act of all.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of both appellants for robbery with homicide, with the penalty of death commuted to reclusion perpetua pursuant to the 1987 Constitution.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a confession made without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible even if it is the gospel truth, because the right to counsel cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Examiners use this case to test the 1987 constitutional rule on custodial confessions and the rule that in robbery with homicide, the act of one conspirator is the act of all.