G.R. Nos. 88753-54. August 20, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTHONY KIDAGAN Y PAQUITO, AND ROBERTO TULDIKAN, ACCUSED. ANTHONY KIDAGAN Y PAQUITO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
PARAS, J.:
In an information dated November 3, 1983 filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Bontoc, Mountain Province, Branch 35; docketed as Criminal Case
No. 536, Anthony Kidagan y Paquito alias “Agnawa” was charged with
the crime of Rape with Homicide defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, and committed as follows:
“That at nighttime on or before December 4, 1982, Mountain
Province, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused with lewd designs and armed with a bolo, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and have carnal knowledge of one
Paula Sagamla, by means of force, violence and intimidation with the use of his
said bolo, and immediately after having sexual intercourse with the victim, the
said accused, with treachery and with the evident purpose of silencing the
victim and concealing the crime, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously strike and hack said Paula Sagamla with his bolo inflicting upon
her, mortal wound at the left neck and infra-aural area, which injury and other
injuries inflicted by the accused upon said victim on other parts of her body
while raping her, were the direct and proximate cause of her death.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.”1
Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. After
trial or on March 28, 1989, the lower court rendered a judgment of conviction
in this wise:
“IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, accused Anthony Kidagan
alias ‘Agnawa’ is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex
crime of Rape with Homicide and considering the presence of two aggravating
circumstances and the indeterminate sentence law not applicable in this case,
accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
“Accused is also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the
victim in the sum of P30,000.00, Philippine Currency.
“Accused is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim
Paula Sagamla the sum of P7,987.50 representing burial expenses, and the sum of
P20,000.00 as moral damages.”2
Thus, the instant appeal.
The facts of the case, as found by the trial court, are
undisputed.
In the afternoon of December 4, 1982, Victor Gabaen and his
girlfriend Paula Sagamla (victim), both 18 years old, left the sitio of
Cagubatan together for sitio Tue to inform Gabaen’s parents of their intention
to get married as Paula was already two (2) months pregnant. On the way, however, Paula became reluctant
and ashamed to meet the parents of Gabaen so they decided to return to
Cagubatan without reaching their destination.1
On their way back, at around 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon, they
stopped at Tompacan and sat down under a santol tree. At this juncture, a man armed with a bolo, surreptitiously and
without any warning approached Gabaen and Sagamla from behind and shouted
“whoa!” As Gabaen looked behind to see the person the latter hammered
his head with the handle of his bolo causing Gabaen to fall to the ground
unconscious. While lying on his
stomach, Gabaen was able to regain consciousness and as he looked around, he
saw the man having sexual intercourse with his girlfriend Paula Sagamla. He could not do anything for he felt
weak. After having sexual intercourse
with Paula, the man approached Victor Gabaen and struck the latter with his
bolo hitting Gabaen’s nape. After
hitting Gabaen, the man left. Gabaen
managed to stand up and found Paula lying on her back with a hack wound on her
neck and with her skirt lifted up to her waist and her blouse raised up to her
neck exposing her breast and her genital organ. Paula was dead. Her panty was found approximately one-and-a-half
metersfrom where she lay.2 Victor Gabaen managed to reach
Cagubatan and was brought by his uncles to the hospital.
At about midnight of the same day, December 4, 1982, Paula’s
father, Lauriano Sagamla, received a report that his daughter was missing and
that her companion came home wounded. Upon hearing the report, Lauriano Sagamla went with some companions to
the Mankayan Police Station and reported the matter. Thereafter, together with his wife and barrio mates, Lauriano
Sagamla proceeded to Cagubatan and reached the place in the early morning. A number of people and Tadian policemen were
already there. Lauriano Sagamla found
his dead daughter lying on her back with a hack wound on her neck and traces of
fingernail scratches on her body. (TSN
July 16, 1984, pp. 46-49). After the
police officers have seen and taken pictures of the body of the victim and
inspected the scene of the crime, Paula’s body was carried and brought home to
Bedbed, Mankayan, Benguet.
A post-mortem examination conducted on December 6, 1982 by Dr.
Mario K. Abuan showed the following:
“EXTERNAL PHYSICAL FINDINGS:
x x x
Deep gaping wound at the left neck and infra-aural area with
blood clotted stains around the said wound, generdized contussion with
hematomas and pinch marks of the faceleft cheek.
x x x
“HEAD AND NECK:
The forehead and (R) cheek were characterized with plenty of hematomas. There were five (5) pinch marks each
corresponding to a finger with contusion/hematomas on the (L) cheek. Mouth was sightly opened with the teeth
visible, eyes were closed. On the
posterior of the neck starting from the cervical region is a deep hacking wound
about 6 inches long in its entire length extending about 4 cm right beyond the
cervical vertebral column up to the infra-aural area (L) side. The wound was about 7 cm in its depth
completely bisecting the, involved vertebral column with portions of the spinal
gray matter and brain tissues clearly visible, the stenoclidomastoid, portions
of the trapezius muscles exposing the carotid, subclavian arteris, the parotid
glands and some nerves. Hacked portions
were greenish in color exceeding odorous smell. There were no other similar wounds on other parts of the neck. On
the posterior portion, (L) side, infra-occipital was depression/hematoma about
5 x 8 cm. in its greatest dimensions.
“THORAX AND ABDOMEN:
There were occasional contusions/hematomas and bite marks at
the breast area and scratch marks at the epigastric area.
“EXTREMITIES:
UPPER EXTREMITIES: There
were minor cuts about 2 cm. at the base of the thumb and second finger (L)
hand. There were multiple
contussions/hematomas at the arm and forearm region, anterior part.”1
On July 24, 1983, a certain Roberto Tuldikan was investigated at
the Tadian (Mt. Province) Police station in connection with the killing of a
certain Fernando Pitlongay. Tuldikan
gave an extrajudicial confession wherein he claimed that herein accused Anthony
Kidagan told him that he (Anthony Kidagan) killed a girl in Cagubatan and
wounded said girl’s companion.
On the basis of this revelation, Anthony Kidagan was summoned and
investigated on July 25, 1983, wherein he allegedly gave an extrajudicial
confession admitting the raping and killing of Paula Sagamla and the wounding
of her boyfriend. Based on this alleged
extrajudicial confession, Anthony Kidagan was charged with and eventually
convicted of the crime of Rape with Homicide.
The accused alleges that he does not know anything about the
raping and killing of Paula Sagamla and that he was forced to sign his alleged
extrajudicial confession. While
admitting having signed the waiver in his extrajudicial confession, the accused
claims that his constitutional rights and the waiver he signed were not
explained to him. He further contends
that even when he was brought before the mayor for the subscription of his
alleged confession, the mayor did not explain to him the contents of said
confession. The accused also admitted
that he never informed the mayor of his maltreatment by the policemen because
of his fear that he would receive more maltreatment from the hands of the
police officers.
Evidence for the defense also shows that when the lone eyewitness
of the prosecution (Victor Gabaen) was asked to identify the accused Anthony
Kidagan, Gabaen failed to point to the accused as the person who raped and
killed his girlfriend Paula. In the
affidavit executed by Gabaen, he pointed to a certain Sario Ladangan as the
culprit in the instant case. A criminal
complaint was allegedly filed charging said Sario Ladangan with Murder with
Frustrated Murder. Furthermore, a
certain police officer Melencio Bulaga stated in his affidavit that when he
investigated Gabaen at the hospital, the latter pointed to Sario Ladangan, his
alleged love rival for the hand of Paula Sagamla, as the perpetrator of the
crime at bar.1
The sole issue in the instant case is whether or not the guilt of
accused-appellant Anthony Kidagan has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Crucial to the resolution of this issue is
the determination of the validity of the extrajudicial confession upon which
the trial court based its judgment of conviction.
The pertinent provisions of law are found in the Bill of Rights
of the 1973 Constitution, which are as follows:
“Section 17. No
person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law.
xxx xxx xxx
“Section 19. In
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved x x x.
“Section 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
vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Any confession obtained in
violation of this section shall be inadmissable
in evidence.” (Emphasis supplied)1
The extrajudicial confession of accused Anthony Kidagan having
been made on July 25, 1983, it must therefore be considered in the light of the
aforequoted law.
Patrolman Dionisio Dennen who took the statements of the accused,
testified on cross-examination:
Q. My
question is, did you personally explain to him
in detail the meaning of the constitutional
right to remain silent and to counsel?
A. No
sir but it was explained by Mr. Depayso, Joaquin.
Q. But
Mr. Depayso was not an investigating officer is that correct?
A. Yes
sir.
Q. Now,
when this Roberto Tuldikan was being investigated, was there any
counsel present at the time of his
investigation?
A. None
sir.
Q. Now,
marked as Exhibit “G-5” of the prosecution is the supposed waiver of
the accused Roberto Tuldikan; was there a counsel present
when the accused was supposed to have
waived his right to remain silent and
to counsel was there at counsel present?
A. None,
sir, but there were two witnesses whom I invited to the police station
in the persons of Joaquin Depayso and Ponciano Ma-ing assist in the course of
the investigation.
Q. But
these two persons Depayso and Maing are not lawyers, is that correct?
A. What
I know is Mr. Depayso is a law graduate and Mr. Ma-ing is not a lawyer.
Q. And
this Depayso never passed the bar, is that correct?
A. As
far as I know he did not pass the bar sir.
Q. Now,
it would seem from the sworn statement that Mr. Roberto Tuldikan was being
investigated for a crime of murder with robbery at Ipos Dalit, Tadian, Mountain
Province, did you inform the accused Roberto
Tuldikan that he was being charged of
murder with robbery which is punishable
with reclusion perpetua to death?
A. No
sir.
Q. Now,
it appears that there is only a thumbmark of, above the typewritten name of
Roberto Tuldikan in Exhibit “G” for the prosecution which is supposed
to be the sworn statement of this Roberto Tuldikan, is this Roberto Tuldikan
illiterate?
A. What
I know sir is that he does not know how to
write sir.
Q. He
does not also know how to read?
A. Yes
sir.
Q. Now,
let us go to the other accused, Anthony Kidagan, when was he apprehended?
A. I
do not know sir.
Q. But
it was you who investigated Anthony Kidagan?
A. Yes
sir.
Q. And
you are supposed to know the date when he was apprehended?
A. I
was only called to the police station to investigate him sir.
Q. Now,
where was he investigated, this Anthony Kidagan?
A. Anthony
Kidagan was investigated inside the office of the Station Commander.
Q. Were
you alone when you investigated him?
A. No
sir.
Q. Who
were present?
A. Present
during the investigation were Police Captain Rafael Delson, Mr. Depayso and Mr.
Ma-ing, Ponciano.
Q. When
was Anthony Kidagan investigated?
A. I
investigated Anthony Kidagan in the afternoon
of July 25, 1983 sir.
Q. What
time in the afternoon did you investigate Anthony Kidagan?
A. I
can recall sir that from 1:00 o’clock to 3:00 o’clock p.m. sir.
Q. Now,
you mentioned to this court that among the people present during the
investigation was the chief of the INP in Tadian Rafael Delson, did he also
investigate the accused when you were investigating, did he also investigate
the accused?
A. No
sir.
Q. Of
course this investigation of Anthony Kidagan was written down also, is that
correct?
A. It
was written sir.
Q. Who
typewrote the statement of Anthony Kidagan?
A. I
was the one sir.
Q. He
signed his sworn statement, is that correct?
A. Yes,
sir,
Q. When
did Kidagan sign his sworn statement?
A. On
July 25, 1983 in the afternoon.
Q. Immediately
after it was taken out from the typewriter is that correct?
A. Just
after it was explained sir.
Q. Was
there any counsel present when Mr. Kidagan
was being investigated by your office,
by you personally before the office?
A. None
sir, but there were two witnesses during the investigation in the
persons of Joaquin Depayso and Ponciano Ma-ing who assisted him in the course
of the investigation.
x x x
Q. Now, you will agree with
me that there is nothing in this
alleged confession of his that he was
even informed of the effects of his
sworn statement?
A. None
sir.
Q. Did
you inform him that robbery with murder
is punishable with life imprisonment?
A. No,
sir.
x x x
COURT
Now, you said that they
signed their sworn statements, before whom did they sign?
A. They
signed their statements before us with the witnesses.
COURT
Why? Did you have the
authority to let affiant sign before you?
A. None
your honor.1
In the same extrajudicial confession, it is clearly stated that
the examination was in connection with the murder of a certain Fernando
Pitlongay (and not with the rape with murder of Paula Sagamla):
“APPRAISAL:
Mr. Kidagan,
you are hereby informed that you are
under investigation in connection with the
murder of Fernando Pitlongay at sitio Inuman,
Kayan, Tadian, Mountain Province in the afternoon of July 19, 1983. You are also informed that under our
constitution you have the right to remain silent and to be assisted by a lawyer
of your own choice. x x x
Q. Are
you therefore so willing to speak or
talk about the circumstances surrounding the
killing of Fernando Pitlongay along the National
Road at sitio Inuman, Kayam, Tadian near Aluling, Cervantes, Ilocos Sur last
July 19, 1983 even without the assistance of a lawyer?
A. Yes
sir.”1
Patrolman Dennen testified on direct examination:
“Q. Will you tell also your procedure in taking down the written
investigation of Anthony Kidagan?
A. I
informed him that this is an investigation
in connection with killing the Fernando
Pitlongay of sitio Inuman, Kayam, Tadian, Mountain Province,
x x x “2
In the course of the investigation, however, the investigator
suddenly shifted to the subject matter of the instant case. Thus:
“Q. But you knew before hand that it was Miguel Ya-aw who escorted
Fernando together with his carabao to Tue, Tadian?
A. Yes,
because Bulay-og told me sir.
Q. Let
us divert our topic to the Cagubatan
murder case wherein Paula Sagamla was
killed and that her boyfriend Victor Gabaen
was wounded. Are you
aware of this incident?
A. Yes sir.”1
It is obvious from the foregoing testimonies that accused Anthony
Kidagan was not assisted by counsel before and during the investigation. Neither was his waiver of his right to
counsel made with the assistance of counsel. Of equal importance is the fact that the investigation was for the
murder of a certain Fernando Pitlongay, and not on the rape and murder of Paula
Sagamla. It is evident that the accused
was manipulated into giving his extrajudicial statements on the case at
bar. The accused was definitely not
apprised of his constitutional rights as the previous apprisal was in
connection with the murder of Fernando Pitlongay and not with the subject
matter of the present case. Thus, he
was not sufficiently informed of his rights during custodial investigation. It
is Our considered view, therefore, that the accused’s extrajudicial confession
should not have been admitted for having been obtained in clear violation of
the constitution.
The Court has enunciated in a number of decisions 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. The right
to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the
assistance of counsel. Any statement
obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.”1
That principle is now enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, which
explicitly mandates that the waiver of the right to counsel must be in writing
and made in the presence of counsel, otherwise the extrajudicial confession is
inadmissible.2
It is manifest that the trial court’s judgment of conviction is
based solely on such extrajudicial confession which We find to be
inadmissible. It is basically on this
ground that the Solicitor General has recommended to Us the acquittal of the
accused-appellant. We find no plausible
reason to deny the said recommendation as the guilt of the accused has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
It may be disputed that apart from the extrajudicial confession
of the accused, there is also the testimony of Victor Gabaen who allegedly
witnessed the rape and killing of Paula Sagamla.
We likewise find this testimony of no value at all. First, it is clear that the trial court’s
judgment was not based on said testimony but solely on the accused’s alleged
extrajudicial confession. Second, it is
clear from the records that before the extrajudicial confession was taken and
before the instant case was filed, Victor Gabaen made a sworn statement
positively identifying a certain Sario Ladangan as the culprit (Exhibit “1-B”). A criminal complaint was in fact filed
against said Sario Ladangan docketed as Criminal Case No. 608. Pertinent portions of Victor Gabaen’s sworn
statement are quoted hereunder:
“Q. What prompted you to this office this day?
A. I
came to file complaint sir.
Q. Against whom are you filing your complaint?
A. I am filing my complaint against Sario Ladangan
of Cagubatan, Tadian, Mt. Province.
Q. Why are you filing complaint against Sario
Ladangan?
A. I am filing my complaint against him because he
hacked me and killed my girlfriend Paula Sagamla.
Q. When and where did that incident happen?
A. At about 6:00 o’clock on the evening of
December 4, 1982 at Cagubatan, Tadian, Mt, Province.” 1
The above-quoted sworn statement is corroborated by an affidavit
executed by a certain Patrolman Melecio Bulaga attesting to the fact that as
early as December 5, 1983 (one day after the incident) Victor Gabaen already
pointed to Sario Ladangan as the perpetrator of the crime at bar.
As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General, it was only after
the extrajudicial confession of the accused that the earlier criminal complaint
(Criminal Case No. 608) was withdrawn, and Victor Gabaen started pointing a
finger at accused Anthony Kidagan. Gabaen
was never able to explain his earlier statement that Sario Ladangan was the
culprit and his (Gabaen’s) sudden change of mind, this time pointing to Anthony
Kidagan as the one who hacked him and killed his girlfriend Paula. This issue was raised by the
accused-appellant but the trial court did not even bother to pass upon said
issue.
Evidently, Victor Gabaen failed to identify beyond doubt the
perpetrator of the crime. The
prosecution has failed to show that accused-appellant Anthony Kidagan is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime with which he was charged and convicted of.
Consequently, the principle that the
accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved must prevail.
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment convicting Anthony Kidagan is
hereby REVERSED and he is ACQUITTED of the crime charged, with costs de
oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Sarmiento, J., on leave.
1
p. 237, Rollo
2
ibid.
1
tsn, April 2, 1986, pp. 65-66
2
ibid., pp. 66-70
1
Exhibit A, Post-Mortem Examination Report, pp. 240-241, Rollo
1
Decision, p. 4; Rollo, p. 158
1
Rollo, p. 244
1
tsn, July 23, 1986, pp. 78-90
1
Exhibit H, underscoring supplied
2 tsn, March 19, 1985, p. 39, underscoring supplied
1 Exhibit H-2, underscoring supplied
1 Morales vs. Enrile, 121 SCRA 538; People vs.
Galit, 135 SCRA 465; People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1; People vs.
Albofera, 152 SCRA 128
2 Section 12 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution
1 Exhibit 1-B, underscoring supplied