PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DAQUILLO MIANA Y LINAZA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal by accused Daquillo Miana from the decision^[1]
dated August 18, 1991, of the Regional Trial Court of Bislig, Surigao del Sur,
in Criminal Case No. 564, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, finding accused Daquillo Miana guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons where Juanito Palsagingin was hacked several times to death, the court
impose [sic] upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua to be served by him in
the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, with costs against him.

“The accused is hereby ordered to pay as indemnity to the
heirs of the victim the amount of P30,000.00, P10,000.00 for moral damages, and
P5,000.00 for exemplary damages, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

“SO ORDERED.”^[2]

Based on the evidence adduced before the court a quo, the facts of the case are as follows: On November 1, 1988, prosecution witness
Eduardo Lim, a supervisor of Anchorage Wood Industries, Inc. (AWII for
brevity), received a report from an employee of said company that one of the
guards at the company logpond had been killed, the company bodega forcibly
opened and a chainsaw stolen. Lim
immediately proceeded to the company logpond at Pasadera, Palo Alto, Lingig,
Surigao del Sur, and discovered the body of Juanito Palsagingin, one of the
company’s guards, lying outside the office with several hack and stab wounds.

Lim inspected the bodega and found that a portion of a wall
thereof was forcibly detached. Near the
bodega, Lim found a claw hammer with a small handle about 8 inches and with the
handle made of Bahi,^[3] which
was later turned over to the police. An
inventory of the bodega was then made, which revealed that a Stihi chainsaw
belonging to the company, as evidenced by Invoice No. 11666,^[4]
was missing.

A police team led by P/Sgt. Felix Plaza, Jr., Station Commander
of Lingig, Surigao del Sur, arrived at the scene later and immediately
conducted an investigation. Shortly
thereafter, Sgt. Plaza received information from Romulo Bantayan, barangay
captain of Palo Alto, Lingig, Surigao del Sur, that a certain Guadalupe Garay
of their barangay had knowledge of facts relative to the case.

Sgt. Plaza and his team proceeded to Palo Alto and interviewed
Guadalupe Garay. She revealed that
accused-appellant Daquillo Miana and Israel Dapitanon borrowed a flashlight
from her on the night of October 31, 1988, and returned the same the following
day. She further suggested to the
investigators that they pick up accused-appellant and Dapitanon, since she
believed that the two had committed the crime. Sgt. Plaza obtained the flashlight from Guadalupe Garay and which was
offered in evidence as Exhibit “G”.

Upon returning to the AWII logpond, Sgt. Plaza and his companions
discovered a fishing spear or “pana.” The “pana” and the
flashlight taken from Guadalupe Garay are usually used by so-called “night
divers” for fishing.

On the basis of the information he had, Sgt. Plaza ordered the
arrest of accused-appellant and Dapitanon. Accused-appellant was arrested by Pat. Antonio Lagura, Jr. on the
afternoon of November 3, 1988 at Sabang, Lingig, Surigao del Sur, and was
brought to the Lingig Police Station for questioning where he was asked by Pat.
Lagura to confess to the crime charged. Accused-appellant allegedly admitted his participation in the killing of
the AWII guard and in the taking of the company’s chainsaw. He likewise told Pat. Lagura that his companion
in the crime was Israel Dapitanon and that they hid the chainsaw on Buhangin
Island, also in Palo Alto. Pat. Lagura
thereafter brought accused-appellant before Sgt. Plaza and told the latter
about accused-appellant’s confession.

Thereafter, a police team led by Sgt. Plaza proceeded to Nag-as, Lingag, Surigao del Sur
accompanied by accused-appellant to look for Israel Dapitanon. They found Dapitanon at around 11 o’clock in
the evening of November 3, 1988, at the house of a certain Normina Lauron.

Sgt. Plaza interviewed Dapitanon, who confessed that he and
accused-appellant killed the guard, took the chainsaw, and hid the same on
Buhangin Island. That the bolo used in
killing the guard belonged to Victoriano Garay, which he took without Garay’s
knowledge that same night.

The police team then proceeded by pumpboat to Buhangin Island to
recover the chainsaw, bringing the two suspects with them. Upon reaching Buhangin Island, Dapitanon
accompanied several policemen to the spot where the chainsaw was kept, while
accused-appellant remained on the pumpboat guarded by the remaining policemen.^[5]

Upon the group’s return to the Lingig police station, the two
suspects reenacted the commission of the crime. The chainsaw was returned to AWII.

An information for robbery with homicide was subsequently filed
against the two suspects. During their
arraignment on January 24, 1989, Dapitanon pleaded guilty to the crime charged
while accused?appellant pleaded not guilty. Israel Dapitanon was correspondingly sentenced on February 8,
1989.^[6]

During the trial, the prosecution presented as its witnesses,
Sgt. Plaza, Pat. Lagura, barangay captain Bantayan, and Eduardo Lim.

Accused-appellant’s defense was based on alibi. He claimed that from October 28, 1988 to
November 2, 1988, he was at the Davao Savory House in Davao City where he works
as a waiter. On the morning of November
3, 1988, accused-appellant was asked by
his brother to go to Lingig to get some fish. Upon arriving at Lingig sometime in the afternoon of the same
day, he met Pat. Lagura who invited him to the police station where he was
detained for twenty minutes. He was
later asked where they could find Israel Dapitanon. Accused-appellant told the officers that Dapitanon could be found
at Nag-as, Palo Alto. A police team
brought him to Palo Alto, where they eventually found Israel Dapitanon. Accused-appellant claims that it was
Dapitanon who told the officers where the chainsaw could be found on Buhangin
Island and who actually pointed out the exact hiding place thereof.

In support of his defense, accused-appellant presented Israel
Dapitanon, who affirmed his (Dapitanon) participation in the commission of the
crime, but that his companions were one Bobong Cero and one Rey Padilla. Accused-appellant was not with them at the
time they committed the crime and at the time they hid the chainsaw on Buhangin
Island.

The trial court brushed aside the defense, holding that the same
could not prevail in view of the positive statement of the witnesses. Hence this appeal.

We reverse.

None of the prosecution’s witnesses testified that they saw
accused-appellant committing the crime. Sgt. Plaza and Pat. Lagura’s testimony were to the effect that
accused-appellant confessed to the crime upon his arrest. However, accused-appellant points out that
his alleged confession was taken while
he was being interrogated without the assistance of counsel, in violation of
his constitutional rights which provide:

[a]ny 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.^[7]

The fact that accused-appellant had verbally confessed to the
crime is immaterial. He was under
custodial investigation at the time he made his alleged confession, and
therefore the police officers should have complied with this Court’s ruling in People
vs. Galit^[8] to the effect that —

No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the
presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his
behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself
or by anyone on his behalf.^[9]

Since the confession was obtained in violation of the aforestated
constitutional provision, the same is inadmissible in evidence against him.^[10]

Without the extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellant,
his conviction cannot stand. The items
used in the commission of the crime, such as the hammer, the flashlight, the
fishing spear and the bolo, were not recovered from accused-appellant nor was
there evidence linking him to these items. In fact, it was Dapitanon who revealed to the investigators where they
could find the bolo used in killing Juanito Palsagingin.

The information which led to the recovery of the chainsaw was
provided by Dapitanon, as testified to by Dapitanon himself, Sgt. Plaza, and
Pat. Lagura. It was Dapitanon who led
the police team to the spot on Buhangin Island where the chainsaw was actually
hidden.

The trial court took into consideration the testimonies of Sgt.
Plaza and Barangay Captain Batungan regarding the information provided by Guadalupe Garay that
accused-appellant and Dapitanon borrowed her flashlight during the night of the
crime and probably used it to commit the same. This is in error as their testimonies are hearsay,^[11]
in the light of the prosecution’s failure to present Guadalupe Garay to
corroborate the same.

While it is true that alibi is an inherently weak defense, the
same assumes importance when faced with the uncertainties and inconsistencies
of the prosecution’s evidence.^[12]
Conviction of the accused cannot be justified even if the defense of alibi was
not satisfactorily proven, since conviction must be based not on the weakness
of the defense, but on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence.^[13]

In view of the foregoing, the acquittal of accused-appellant is
in order.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and accused-appellant
Daquillo Miana ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Regalado, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Judge Martin V. Vera Cruz.

^[2]
Decision, pp. 7-8.

^[3]
Exhibit “F”.

^[4]
Exhibit “D”.

^[5]
Testimony of Pat. Lagura, T.S.N., March 8, 1989, pp. 45-55.

^[6]
Records, 62-64.

^[7]
1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12 (1).

^[8]
L-51770, 135 SCRA 465 (1985).

^[9]
135 SCRA at 554.

^[10]
1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12 (3).

^[11]
People vs. Tiozon, G.R. No. 89823, 198 SCRA 368, 381 (1991).

^[12]
People vs. Viray, G.R.
No. 87184-85, 202 SCRA 320, 331 (1991).

^[13]
Id.