PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, VS. JEFFREY LOGRONIO, ACCUSED/APPELLANT.

Jeffrey Logronio was accused of robbery with homicide, tried and
convicted by the Regional Trial Court and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Logronio entered a plea of not guilty to the information which
described the offense charged in the following manner:

“That at or about 9:00 o’clock in the evening of December 26,
1986, at the Poblacion, Municipal­ity of Manito, Province of Albay,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with evident premeditation, taking advantage of the night
to better accomplish his purpose, with intent to gain, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of force and violence, take,
steal, rob and cart away assorted articles including several cartoons (sic) of
cigarettes of assorted brands and cash money of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00),
the same articles and cash totalling Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00)
Philippine Currency, from the store of FELISA DAEN and on said occasion and by
reason of the aforestated robbery, the same accused, with intent to kill,
taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously inflict physical injuries upon the person of FELISA DAEN by
boxing her several times and strangulating her which consequently caused her
death, to the damage and prejudice of the latter’s heirs.

Acts Contrary to Law.”^[1]

The prosecution’s narration of facts was summarized in the
Solicitor-General’s Brief as follows:

“At about midnight of December 26, 1986, a report was received
at the Manito (Albay) Police Station about a Robbery-Homicide case at the
residence of old man Crispin Daen at Poblacion Manito, Albay. Sgt. Genny Egar, Pat. Nestor Sapanta,
together with some CHDF men repaired to the premises in question in order to
investigate. Sgt. Egar just stayed
outside the house in order to secure the place because electric light was then
off, and the investigators were afraid that some undesirable elements may raid
them (sic). Pat. Nestor Sapanta with a
CHDF man went inside to investigate. The finding of Pat. Sapanta was that the store of the place was robbed
while the wife of the owner, 76 year old Felisa Daen, was killed by the
robber. Cigarettes and other items
inside the store were in disarray.

Immediately, Pat. Sapanta summoned the Municipal Health Officer of
the place, who is Dr. Napoleon Se, to conduct an autopsy. Dr. Se said that corpse was already clean
and arranged properly when he arrived in the house. The victim seemed to be just asleep. The cause of death was strangulation which resulted to
asphyxia. A strong fistic blow on the
throat could possibly cause the injury because he found “contusion with
hematoma.”

Meanwhile, Pat. Nestor Sapanta investigated the surroundings, then
went to the neighbors of the victim in order to ask questions. At one point, a neighbor told Pat. Sapanta
to investigate accused Jeffrey Logronio who was seen loitering in the premises
of the victim that evening.

That morning, Pat. Sapanta tried to invite Jeffrey Logronio for
questioning but was told that Jeffrey went to far away barrio of Balasbas which
is in the high mountains of Manito. Sgt. Egar, together with a CHDF man and another PC soldier were
therefore dispatched to the barrio in order to inquire about the whereabouts of
the accused. They were told that
Jeffrey is with Allan Magayanes, in the house of the latter’s mother in the
upper portion of the mountains, so they went there.

The team found Jeffrey and Allan on the place. Allan was asked first who is responsible for
the robbery and killing, and Allan pointed to Jeffrey as the one responsible
for it. Jeffrey was also asked the same
question wherein he at first tried to deny, but ultimately admitted being the
one who robbed and killed Felisa Daen that evening. Jeffrey was asked where the loot was and he said he buried them
underneath the table of Federico Dado, Sr. in the poblacion, so, they went
there to recover the items. Jeffrey dug
under the table and unearthed a yellow T-shirt with a print “People
Power.” Wrapped in the T-shirt
were 2 fifty peso bills, a one hundred peso bill and plenty of coins rolled in
paper, at 10 pesos, 5 pesos per roll, and some lose change (Exhibits D to D-9 )
totalling P304.00 in all.

Sgt. Egar cause [sic] some pictures to be taken of Jeffrey and the
loot, which were marked Exhibits F to F-3. A box was also dug where the items were placed when buried.

Jeffrey was turned over to Pat. Sapanta for investigation in the
Manito, INP station. Upon seeing
Jeffrey, Pat. Sapanta, who had investigated Jeffrey earlier about the incident,
asked ‘Why are you here with those items when you said you do not know anything
about the incident?’ Jeffrey said he was there to tell the truth on the
incident.

Before the questioning, Pat. Sapanta told the accused that it will
be hard to investigate him because he has no lawyer, but the accused said he
will be assisted by Atty. Salvador Silerio who was therefore summoned to the
station on request of the accused. Jeffrey was then told about his constitutional right to remain silent
(and) to counsel, and to the fact that his testimony can be used as evidence
against him, but Jeffrey said, “You may proceed with the
investigation.” Atty. Salvador
Silerio assisted the accused throughout.

The affidavit executed by Jeffrey (marked Exhibit A) stated that in
that evening (Dec. 26, 1986), he went inside the house of the victim and hid
under the bed because the old man, Crispin Daen was watching TV. Accused said he fell asleep under the
bed. He was awakened when Crispin put
off the TV. While getting some items in
the store, the victim Felisa woke up. In order that he will not be recognized, accused said he theretofore
boxed the old woman in the throat and on the jaw causing her to be knocked out,
trembling. He hurriedly left the place
then went to the house of Federico Dado, Sr. where he slept that evening, then
buried the loot beneath the table.

The affidavit (Exhibit A) was signed by the accused and by his
counsel Atty. Salvador Silerio x x x.

The day of the investigation was a holiday because of the Christmas
season. The judge was not therefore
there, so, the statement of the accused was left unsubscribed.”

The prosecution’s view of the facts was essentially accepted by
the trial court. The above narration
tallied substantially with the general sequence of events (but not the details
thereof) recounted by the accused during his direct testimony in court.^[2]
In particular, it appears that in the early morning of 27 December 1986,^[3]
Jeffrey Logronio was invited by Pat. Sapanta to the police station in the
poblacion, Municipality of Manito, Province of Albay, to shed light on the
incident, considering that a neighbor of the deceased Felisa Daen had mentioned
to Pat. Sapanta that Jeffrey Logronio had been seen loitering in the premises
of the Daens on the evening of the crime. Logronio told Pat. Sapanta that he knew nothing about the robbery with
homicide and went home; Pat, Sapanta did not try to detain him.^[4]
Pat. Sapanta then asked the assistance of his companions in the police force in
solving the crime. Sgt. Genny Egar,
another PC soldier and a CHDF member, subsequently decided to talk to Logronio
again. Having learned that Jeffrey
Logronio had gone to Barangay Balasbas in a mountainous part of Manito, Albay,
Sgt. Egar and his companions proceeded to Balasbas.^[5]
There they found Jeffrey Logronio with Allan Magayanes in the house of Allan’s
mother. On the afternoon of the same
day, on 27 December 1986, Sgt. Egar and his companions brought Jeffrey Logronio
and Allan Magayanes to the police station in the poblacion of Manito. At the police station, after questioning and
investigation by the police, Jeffrey Logronio executed a written extrajudicial
confession admitting that he had taken some money and articles away from the
store of Felisa Daen and had hit the old woman in the throat and jaw to prevent
her from recognizing him and that the old woman had accordingly fallen on the
ground. About two (2) months later,
Logronio executed an affidavit repudiating his 27 December 1986 written
extrajudicial confession.

During the trial, Logronio presented his own version of the
facts. He testified that at around 7:00
o’clock in the evening of 26 December 1986, he went to the store of Felisa Daen
to buy some cigarettes. He did buy the
cigarettes, from Felisa herself. Upon
leaving the store, a man called out his name. Jeffrey approached this man and recognized him to be one Rafael Dado,
Jr. Dado, according to Logronio, pointed a gun at him and brought him and
detained him at the rear fence of the Daen house, with drawn pistol, for about
two (2) hours.^[6]
During this time, Logronio continued, he heard a cry for help emanate from the
Daens’ house. Then Allan Magayanes came
out of the door of the Daens’ house and called for Dado. The latter forced Logronio forward to enter
the store of the victim. There, Logronio
observed Magayanes and Dado search and ransack the store. After sometime, Logronio was led out of the
house by Magayanes and Dado. Federico
Dado, Sr. met Magayanes and Dado, Jr. and they brought Logronio with them to
the house of Dado, Sr. where the three (3) men divided the proceeds of the
robbery among themselves. Logronio
stated that he sat on a bed in Federico’s house, watching while the partition
of the loot was carried out. He slept
at Federico Dado’s house that evening, and the next morning he was allowed to
go home. Logronio declared in court
that he had admitted responsi­bility for the offense in his extrajudicial
confession because of death threats made by Allan Magayanes against Jeffrey and
his family.^[7]

The trial court found the statements made in Logronio’s affidavit
of repudiation and during his testimony in court, to be unworthy of
belief. The trial court noted that, in
effect, according to Logronio, the perpetrators of the robbery with homicide
had decided to detain Jeffrey Logronio and made him observe and witness the
commission of the robbery with homicide including the partition of the loot,
and had the next morning simply allowed him to go home.^[8]
For criminals to make an innocent third party a passive and unnecessary witness
to their crime of robbing and killing, and then to let such witness go free and
unharmed, is obviously contrary to ordinary human experience.

We agree with the trial court that Logronio’s story assumes an
excessive degree of credulity on the part of the trial court and does not
warrant serious consideration.

The basic issue presented in this appeal relates to the
admissibility of Exhibit “A,” the written extrajudicial confession of
Jeffrey Logronio. There is no question
that the trial court had admitted and taken into consideration this confession
in reaching its judgment of conviction. The accused-appellant argues, however, that the extrajudicial confession
was inadmissible on the following grounds:

a. he did not voluntarily execute the extrajudicial confession;

b. he was not assisted by counsel during his custodial investigation;

c. he was not “meaningfully” apprised of his rights during
custodial investigation; and

d. his extrajudicial confession had not been subscribed or sworn to before
an officer authorized to administer oaths.

We examine these objections seriatim.

Jeffrey Logronio did not claim that he had been physically
beaten and maltreated by the police officers at the police station or anywhere
else. Instead, Logronio asserted that he
gave his extrajudicial confession because he had been intimidated by Allan
Magayanes who was “well?connected” with the Philippine
Constabulary authorities.^[9]
We consider, however, that the facts of record do not show the existence of any
fear which could reasonably have coerced the accused into admitting guilt and
signing the extrajudicial confession when he was actually innocent. The claimed threat was not alleged to have
been exercised by any of the investigating police officers but by a person,
Allan Magayanes, who was not even physically present in the investigating room
at the time that Logronio was being questioned at the police station. Logronio did not attempt to indicate how or
in what sense or to what extent Allan Magayanes was “well-connected” with
the police authorities and how such “connection” or influence had
affected the conduct and outcome of the custodial investigation. Further, Logronio had several opportunities
to seek help from his family or the protection of the authorities if indeed he
was in fear of his life at the hands of Allan Magayanes or of any other person;
but he never sought such help or protection. Logronio had breakfast with his father and brother on the very morning
that he was released from the house where allegedly he had been brought and
detained by Magayanes and Federico Dado and Rafael Dado.^[10]
Moreover, as noted, Pat. Sapanta had asked him to shed light on the crime on
the morning of 27 December 1986, but Jeffrey Logronio never intimated to Pat.
Sapanta the claimed threats by Magayanes.^[11]
His failure to speak up and disclose his fear at the earliest opportunity
subjects to serious doubt the reality and substance of that supposed fear. Still further, the conduct of Jeffrey
Logronio on 27 December 1986 was clearly inconsistent with his allegation of
fear and of having been intimidated; he set off for the mountains of Barangay
Balasbas and went to the house of Allan Magayanes,^[12]
behavior which appears strange indeed, if in truth he was being coerced by
Allan Magayanes. Finally, at the police
station, in the presence of the police officers in the investigating room and
his counsel, and in the absence there of Allan Magayanes, he could have
revealed and obtained protection from the threats of Magayanes, if indeed those
threats were real. He did nothing of
the kind. Under these circumstances,
the claimed intimidation appears to us to be too contrived and fanciful and to
constitute an afterthought designed to Shift responsibility for the crime from
himself.

Next, Logronio asks this Court to believe that he had not been
meaningfully assisted by counsel during the custodial investigation. This
contention, too, is not borne out by the record. The extrajudicial confession was signed both by Jeffrey Logronio and
Atty. Salvador Silerio.^[13]
Before commencement of the investigation, and upon the request of appellant
Logronio, Atty. Salvador had been called to the police station that afternoon
of 27 December 1986. Atty. Silerio, now
a Regional Trial Court Judge, was present throughout the proceedings at the
police station.^[14]
Logronio did not question either the lawyer-like competence or the independence
of Atty. Silerio, whether in his affidavit of repudiation before the police
authorities or during the trial.

In his third contention, appellant Logronio claims in effect that
the custodial investigation began in the mountains of Balasbas, Manito where
Sgt. Egar addressed questions to Allan Magayanes and Jeffrey Logronio which led
to Logronio’s oral confession of guilt. The contention of appellant Logronio is
that from the time the police started talking to him, he should have been
informed of his rights to remain silent and to counsel and that anything he
said could not be used against him, and that the failure so to inform him
during the inquiry of the police at Balasbas, Manito, had “tainted”
with irregularity the written extrajudicial confession subsequently executed by
Logronio at the police station in the poblacion of Manito. The accused claimed that the proceedings at
the police station in the poblacion were a “farce.”^[15]

The Court is not persuaded.

The rights set out in Section 12, Article III of the
Constitution, sometimes called “custodial rights,” are in the language of
Section 12 (1) itself, rights pertaining to persons “under investigation
for the commission of an offense.” Such persons are “suspects” held under custodial investigation
by Police authorities.^[16]
In People vs. Caguioa, the Court defined “custodial
investigation” to refer to “questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person had been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
his freedom of action in any significant way.”^[17]
The Court in Morales v. Enrile elaborated and described the relevant
situation in the following terms:

“x x x. After a person
is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a confrontation arises which
at best may be termed unequal. The
detainee is brought to an army camp or police headquarters and there questioned
and “cross-examined” not only by one but as many investigators ad may
be necessary to break down his morale. He finds himself in strange and unfamiliar surroundings, and every
person he meets he considers hostile to him. The investigators are well-trained and seasoned in their work. They employ all the methods and means that
experience and study have taught them to extract the truth, or what may pass
for it, out of the detainee. Most
detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their constitutional rights. And even if they were, the intimidating and
coercive presence of the officers of the law in such an atmosphere overwhelms
them into silence. x x x “^[18]

At the time the police inquiry began in the mountains of
Balasbas, neither Jeffrey Logronio or Allan Magayanes were “person[s]
under investigation for the commission of an offense” within the meaning
of Section 12(1) of Article III. Neither was a “suspect” under investigation by the police
authorities in any substantive sense. Neither had been taken into police custody or been significantly
deprived of his freedom. There was at
that time nothing to connect either Logronio or Magayanes to the robbery with
homicide. As noted, Logronio was
reported to have been seen near the place where the crime had taken place;
while he had already casually informed Pat. Sapanta earlier in the day that he
knew nothing about the incident, the police presumably were interested in
finding out whether he had become aware of anything which could furnish a clue
to the discovery of the malefactor(s). The police officers must have been startled to find Allan Magayanes
promptly pointing to Logronio as responsible for the crime and Jeffrey Logronio
orally admitting soon enough that he had grabbed some money and goods at the
Daen store and had hit the old woman on the jaw and throat. Effectively, Magayanes
and Logronio had volunteered that information to Sgt. Egar at Balasbas.

Both Magayanes and Logronio were brought from Balasbas by Sgt.
Egar to the police station at the poblacion of Manito, Albay, in the afternoon
of the same day, for investigation by Pat. Sapanta. It is clear that when Pat. Sapanta began his questioning of
Logronio and Magayanes at the police station, the custodial investigation had
begun. Pat. Sapanta, however, had taken
the precaution of informing Logronio of his rights to remain silent and to
counsel before commencing the questioning. Clearly, too, Logronio had exercised his right to counsel by naming and
requiring the presence of his counsel, and by making his extrajudicial
confession only after his lawyer, Atty. Silerio, had arrived at the police
station and extended to him advice and assistance. Atty. Silerio, as noted, signed that confession along with
Logronio and stayed with the latter throughout the proceedings at the police station
that day.

We believe, therefore, that the written extrajudicial confession
of appellant Logronio was admissible in evidence and that the trial court was
entitled to take it into account in determining the guilt of Logronio. We believe that by voluntarily executing
that extrajudicial confession after having been informed by Pat. Sapanta of his
rights under custodial investigation, and in the presence and with the
assistance of Atty. Sapanta, appellant Logronio effectively waived his right to
remain silent.

In this connection, we note that even if the oral statements made
by Logronio in the mountains of Balasbas and the loot dug up by him were
excluded as inadmissible because made before Pat. Sapanta had at the police
station expressly advised Logronio of his rights to remain silent and to counsel,
nonetheless, the extrajudicial confession of Logronio, given its detailed
recitals, was quite sufficient to support the finding of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt by the trial court.

The final contention of appellant Logronio that his extrajudicial
confession was worthless because it had not been sworn to, is similarly not
persuasive. There is no dispute that
appellant had signed his extrajudicial confession, in the presence of Atty.
Silerio who also signed that document. At that point, the extrajudicial confession was complete. We are not aware of any provision of law
that requires confessions or other admissions against interest to be excluded
from the record unless made under oath.^[19]
Signed written confessions are not rendered inadmissible nor bereft of
probative value by the simple failure to subscribe to them under oath. The evidentiary value of an extrajudicial
confession rests upon the fact that it was made by the accused himself,
voluntarily and against his own interest.

It remains to note that the subsequent retraction by appellant
Logronio of his signed extrajudicial confession, regularly made before an
investigating police officer, cannot be given serious consideration. The well-known rule is that retractions are
generally unreliable^[20]
and are looked upon with considerable disfavor by the courts.^[21]
The asserted motives for the repudiation are commonly held suspect and the
veracity of the statements made in the affidavit of repudiation are frequently
and deservedly subject to serious doubt.^[22]
In the instant case, we have already noted that the statements made in
Logronio’s affidavit of repudiation were properly disregarded by the trial
court as contrary to human experience and hence inherently unworthy of belief.

WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the trial court dated 12 December 1989 is hereby AFFIRMED, save
that the indemnity to be paid by accused-appellant to the heirs of the victim
Felisa Daen is hereby INCREASED to P50,000.00, in accordance with the
prevailing jurisprudence of this Court.^[23]

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Records, p. 101.

^[2]
TSN, 3 March 1989, pp. 1, 6-11.

^[3]
Records, p. 192.

^[4]
Id.

^[5]
TSN, 21 March 1988, p. 15.

^[6]
TSN, 3 March 1989, p. 5.

^[7]
TSN, 3 March 1989, p. 20.

^[8]
Rollo, p. 30.

^[9]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 14; Rollo, p. 49.

^[10]
TSN, 3 March 1989, p. 12.

^[11]
TSN, 5 August 1988, p. 13.

^[12]
TSN, 3 March 1989, p. 15.

^[13]
Records, p. 13.

^[14]
TSN, 3 March 1989, p. 122.

^[15]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 12-13; Rollo,
p. 49.

^[16]
People vs. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216,
213 (1989). In People v. Duero,
104 SCRA 379, 386 (1981), the Court referred to “in-custody interrogation
of accused persons.”

^[17]
95 SCRA 2, 9 (1980) quoting Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 US 436, 445, 16 L.Ed. 2d. 694 (1966).

^[18]
121 SCRA 538 at 553-554 (1983). In Miranda vs. Arizona, supra,
the United States Supreme Court clarified that “[its] decision is not
intended to hamper the traditional function of police officers in investigating
crime. When an individual is in custody
on probable cause, the police may, of course, seek out evidence in the field to
be used at trial against him. Such
investigation may include inquiry of persons not under restraint. General on-­the-scene questioning of
citizens in the fact-finding process is not affected by our holding. It is an act of responsible citizenship for
individuals to give whatever information they may have to aid in law
enforcement. In such situations the
compelling atmosphere inherent in the process of in custody interrogation is
not necessarily present.” (384 US at 477)

^[19]
See U.S. v. Corrales, 28 Phil.
262 (1914).

^[20]
People vs. Domenden, 6 SCRA 343
(1962).

^[21]
People vs. del Pilar, 188 SCRA
37 (1990); People vs. Aldeguer, 184 SCRA 1 (1990); People vs.
Navasca, 76 SCRA 70 (1977).

^[22]
People vs. Dorado, 30 SCRA 53
(1969).

^[23]
People vs. Sison, 189 SCRA 643
(1990); People vs. Sazon, 189 SCRA 700 (1990); People vs. Jereza,
189 SCRA 690 (1990); People vs. Devaras, G.R. No. L-48009, 3 February
1992.