evd_people vs maqueda

7/25/2019 EVD_People vs Maqueda

1/21

People vs Maqueda 1995

FACTS:

Britisher Horace William Barker, a consultant of the World Bank, and his Filipino wife,

Teresita Mendoza chose to live in the rugged and mountainous terrain of Tuba,Benguet

earl morning of !" #ugust $%: Horace was brutall slain and Teresita badl batteredwith lead pipes on the occasion of a robberin their house

su&cientprima facie evidence pointed toRene Salvamante, the victims'former

housebo, as one of the perpetrators

%$ (ovember %$$%, information for robbery wit omi!ide and serious

pysi!al in"uries)led before *T+ a Trinidad, Benguet-o prosecution initiall included one Ri!ard Mali# y Severinoin info

o !! .anuar %$$!: onl *ichard Mali# was arrested

o prior to Malig/s arraignment, prosecution )led motion to amend

information to implead as !o$a!!used %e!tor Maquedaalias Putolo hearing of the motion the following da, 0rosecutor further asked accused

*ichard Malig be droppedfrom the information because further evaluation ofthe evidence disclosed no su&cient evidence against him

o motion to drop Malig was granted and warrants for te arrest of a!!usedSalvamante and Maquedawere issued

o 1 March %$$!, Maqueda arrested

o $ #pril %$$!, Maqueda )led appli!ation for bail, !ate#ori!ally stated

therein that 2he is willing and volunteering to be a 3tate witness in the above4entitled case, it appearing that he is the least guilt among the accused in thiscase5

!! #pril %$$!, prosecution )led Amended &nformationswith onl 3alvamante and

Ma6ueda as the accused7 8ts accusator portion reads as follows:

Rene Salvamante !ontinues to elude arrestand has remained at lar#e, trialproceeded

!! #pril %$$!: Ma6ueda entered a plea of not guilt

9% #ugust %$$9,RTC 'a Trinidad( Ma6ueda #uiltybeond reasonable doubt of the

crime ofrobbery wit omi!ide and serious pysi!al &n"uries) penalt ofreclusion perpetua and to indemnif the victim, Teresita M, Barker40;k for death ofWilliam Horace Barker, 01%,penses, 0%;;k as moraldamages and to pa costs

prosec witnesses:

o evidence in chief

Mrs7 Teresita Mendoza Barker

househelps (orie ?acara and .ulieta @illanueva

Mike Taaban

?r7 Francisco Hernandez, .r7,

Francisco +abotaAe

prosecutor ?aniel arate,*a ?ean 3alvosa,

Clen Dnri6uez,

30E% *odolfo Tabadero, and

0olicarpio +ambod

o rebuttal

Fredesminda +astrence

30;9 #rmando Molleno

defense witnesses:


2/21

o #ccused Hector Ma6ueda

o 30E% #urelio 3agun, .r7 in his evidence in chief

o Mrna Ma6ueda atindig as his sour4rebuttal witness

version of te prose!ution26 August 1991: Between %;:9; and %%pm, Barker spouses repaired to bedroom after

Teresita had checked main doors27 August 1991

*am, (orie ?acara, a househelp of the Barkers who shared a room with her cousin

and fellow househelp, .ulieta @illanueva, got up, went to lavator, opened the door ofthe toilet and switched on the light, she saw *ene 3alvamante G3alvamante ver wellbecause he and his sister Melanie were the former househelps who ac6uainted heron her chores

o 3alvamante strangled her, so she fought back, turned her face and saw whom

she later identi)ed at the trial as Ma6uedao broke free, ran to garage, shouted, and 3alvamante chased, pulled back to

house

.ulieta @illanueva, awakened b the shouts, went out then saw tall man whom she

later pointed to at trial, accused Ma6ueda

o closed door, held on to doorknob and shouted for help shouts awakened Teresita Mendoza Barker, left husband still asleep, headed to dining

roomo saw 3alvante and companion who was stranger to her- two rushed towards

her and beat her up with lead pipes, later loss consciousnesso at trial, also pointed to Ma6ueda as the companion

3alvamante also hit (orie with the lead pipe- (orie feel but upon recover, hid under

car, then rushed to door of garage, called for .ulieta who opened the door- both wentto their room I closed the door

o braced themselves against the door to prevent anone from entering

o heard the moans of Mrs7 Barker and the shouts of Mr7 Barker: 2That's enough

that's enough that's enough72 When the noise stopped, (orie and .ulietaheard the sound of water Jowing from the toilet and the barking of dogs

+am, Mike Tabaan and Mark 0acio were resting in a waiting shed, onl a kilometer

awa from the house of the Barkerso saw two men approaching them from a curve

o Mark noticed that the taller of the two had an amputated left hand and a right

hand with a missing thumb and inde> )ngero 3peaking in Tagalog, taller man asked them whether road the were following

would lead to (aguilian, a Knion7 Mike replied that it did not7

o Five minutes later, passenger Aeepne bound for Baguio arrived and the two

men boarded it, Mike again noticed that the taller man had the defectsbecause the latter used his right hand with onl three )ngers to hold on to thebar of the Aeepne7

o 8n the 8nvestigation conducted b the Tuba 0olice, Mike identi)ed through a

picture the shorter man as 3alvamante, and at the hearing, he pointed toMa6ueda as the taller man

9am, (orie and .ulieta, gathered courage and went out, saw Barkers bathed in their

own blood in the dining room, ran to .anet #lbon and re6uested latter to call thepolice


3/21

3oon after, securit guards of the Baguio +ollege Foundation LB+F arrived

o team from Baguio +it 0olice 3tation, headed b 0olice E&cer 0olicarpio

+ambod, and which included ?r7 0erfecto Micu of the +it Health ?epartment,also arrived

o team conducted an initial investigation

o went around the house and found a lead pipe at the toilet, a black T4shirt and

a green hand towel- also discovered another lead pipe at the back of the doorof the house

o interviewed the two househelps who provided him with descriptions of the

assailants

o team left, leaving behind B+F 3ecurit E&cer Clen Dnri6uez and a securit

guard

Dnri6uez conducted his own investigation

o masterNs bedroom, saw several pieces of Aewelr scattered on Joor and empt

inner cabinet

o Kpon his re6uest, a securit guard of the B+F, Ddgar ?alit, was sent to the

Barker house to secure the premises- Dnri6uez then left upon ?alit/s arrival

5pm, members of the Tuba 0olice 3tation arrived at the'Barker house to conduct their

investigation

o pipes, T4shirt, I green hand towel recovered b the Baguio +it 0olice 4O 0(0

+rime aborator 3ervice at +amp ?angwa, a Trinidad 4O court

o bod of William Horace Barker 4O Baguio Funeral Homes at (aguilian *oad,

Baguio +it, where it was e>amined b ?r7 Francisco 07 +abotaAe,Municipal'Health E&cer of Tuba, Benguet- twent4seven inAuries, which couldhave been caused b a blunt instrument, determined the cause of death ashemorrhagic shock, and then issued a death certi)cate

o wounded Teresita Barker 4O Baguio Ceneral Hospital and Medical +enter

where she was treated and con)ned for eight das- attending phsician, ?r7Francisco 7 Hernandez, .r7, )rst saw her at around %% a7m7 of !" #ugust %$$%73he was in a comatose state- she sustained multiple lacerations primaril an

the left side of the occipital area, bleeding in the left ear, and bruises on thearm7 Ene of the muscles adAoining ees was paralzed7 3he regainedconsciousness onl after ! das7 ?r7 Hernandez opined that Mrs7 BarkerNsinAuries were caused b a blunt instrument, like a lead pipe, and concludedthat if her inAuries had been left unattended, she would have died b noontimeof !" #ugust %$$% due to bleeding or hemorrhagic shock7

1 !eptember 1991: police team from the Tuba 0olice 3tation came to the hospital bed of Mrs7Barker- was showed pictures, asked her to identif the persons who had assaulted her


4/21

pointed to a person who turned out to be *ichard Malig

?r7 Hernandez told them it was improper to conduct it without )rst consulting him-e

Mrs7 Barker had not et full recovered consciousness- her eesight had not etimproved, her visual acuit was impaired, and she had double vision

" !eptember 1991: remains of Mr7 Barker were cremated- Mrs7 Barker was discharged- upongetting home, tried to determine the items lost during the robber

re6uested Dnri6uez to get back pieces of Aewelr from Tuba 0olice

discovered that her +anon camera, radio cassette recorder and some pieces of

Aewelr missing- aggregate value: 0!;1,!;7;;

then e>ecuted a&davit of these missing items

29 #ovember 1991: *a ?ean 3alvosa, D>ecutive @ice 0resident of the B+F, orderedDnri6uez to go to Cuinangan, Puezon, to coordinate with police in determining

whereabouts of 3alvamante

baranga captain, Basilio *e6ueron saw 3alvamante together with a certain 2Putol2 in

3eptember %$$%- but has alread left the place

$ March 1992: *e6ueronNs daughter called up Dnri6uez to inform him that 0utol,2 who isnone other than accused Hector Ma6ueda, had been arrested in Cuinangan

Cuinangan 0olice 3tation turned over Ma6ueda to Tuba 0(0 +hief MaA7 #nagaran

who then brought Ma6ueda to the Benguet 0rovincial .ail

Before MaA7 #nagaranNs arrival at Cuinangan, Maqueda ad been ta,en to te-

eadquarters of te ./5t P0P Mobile For!e Company at Sta- Maria)Calaua#) ue2on7 commanding o&cer, MaA7 @irgilio F7 Rendon) dire!ted SP3/Armando Molleno to #et Maqueda4s statement7 He did so and according to himhe informed Ma%ueda of his rights under the &onstitution7 Ma6ueda thereaftersi#ned a Sinumpaang Salaysaywherein he narrated his participation in the crimeat the Barker house on !" #ugust %$$%

9 April 1992: while under detention, Ma6ueda )led a Motion to Crant Bail, stated willingnesst be 3tate witnesses

0rosecutor arate then had a talk with Ma6ueda regarding such statement and asked

him if he was in the compan of 3alvamante on !" #ugust %$$% in entering the

house of the Barkers7 #fter he received an armative answer, 0rosecutor aratetold Ma6ueda that he would oppose the motion for bail since he, Ma6ueda, was theonl accused on trial

*a ?ean 3alvosa arrived, also had a talk with him

o Maqueda narrated to Salvosathat 3alvamante brought him to Baguio +it

in order to )nd a Aob as a peanut vendor- 3alvamante then brought him to theBarker house and it was onl when the were at the vicinit thereof that


5/21

3alvamante revealed to him that his zeal purpose in going to Baguio +it wasto rob the Barkers- he initiall obAected to the plan, but later on agreed to it-Gkwento how the commited crime as stated kanina dagdag lang: afterboarding Aeep bound for Baguio, alighted somewhere along #lbano 3treet inBaguio +it and walked until the reached the 0hilippine *abbit Bus stationwhere the boarded a bus for Manila

G?K*8(C T*8##ccused Hector Ma6ueda put up the defense of denial and alibi:

basicall he said na he(s been )or*ing as care ta*er in polvoron factor since +ul1991 in Muntinlupa Manila, tapos he spent vacation in -uinangan .ue/on sa) attimes si !alvante )ho )as his childhood plamate accompanied the latter to sell tohis aunt a cassette plaer from 0aguio, tapos )ent bac* ulit to )or*, and thenecember brea* spent ulit sa -uinangan )hen he accompanied ocemate to gobac* to their province but then he )as arrested na da)

Mar , %$$!: Ma6ueda was detained

prosecution rebutted te testimony of Maqueda, presented Fredesminda

+astience, the owner of the polvoron factor, testi)ed that she started erbusiness only on /3 Au#ust 1991, imposible to have hired Ma6ueda in .ul

o also presented SP3/ Mollenowho declared that he informed Maqueda of

is !onstitutional ri#ts before Maqueda was investi#ated and tatMaqueda voluntarily and freely #ave is Sinumpaang Salaysay

trial !ourthad doubts on the identi)cation of Ma6ueda b prosecution witnesses

Teresita Mendoza Barker, (orie ?acara, and .ulieta @illanueva and thus disregardedtheir testimonies on this matter, it de!reed a !onvi!tion 6based on te!onfession and te proof of !orpus deli!ti2

3#ote:trial court distinguished bet7 an e>traAudicial confession Q the !inumpaang!alasa Q and an e>traAudicial admission Q the, verbal admissions to 0rosecutor arateand *a ?ean 3alvosa- 3ections !< and 99, *ule %9; of the *ules of +ourt which read asfollows:

3ec7 !>> >>> >>>

3ec7 997 &onfession7 Q The declaration of an a!!used a!,nowled#in# is

#uilt of the oRense charged, or of an oRense necessaril included therein,ma be given in evidence against him7

&SS78(

%7 WE( the !inumpaang !alasa was an e>traAudicial confessionS

!7 WON accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt (YES, by circumstantial evidence)


6/21

RAT&(

(o7

# perusal of the 3inumpaang 3alasa fails to convince us that it is an e>traAudicial

confession7 8t is onl an e>traAudicial admission7 8n a confession, there is an acknowledgment

of guilt7 The term admission is usuall applied in criminal cases to statements of fact b the

accused which do not directl involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of the criminal

intent to commit the oRense with which he is charged7 # confession is an acknowledgment

in e>press terms, b a part in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged, while an

admission is a statement b the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue

and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt7 8n other words, an

admission is something less than a confession, and is but an acknowledgment of some fact

or circumstance which in itself is insu&cient to authorize a conviction and which tends onl

to establish the ultimate fact of guilt7 The trial court admitted the 3inumpaang 3alasa of

accused Ma6ueda although it was taken without the assistance of counsel because it was of

the opinion that since an information had alread bene)ted in court against him and he wasarrested pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued b the court, the 3inumpaang 3alasa was

not, therefore, taken during custodial investigation7

Hence, 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitutio investigation for the commission of

an oRense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have

competent and independent counsel preferabl of his own choice7 8f the person cannot

aRord the services of counsel, he must be provided with one7 These rights cannot be waived

e>cept in within the ambit of a custodial investigation72 8t heavil relied on 0eople vs7 #son

where this +ourt elucidated on the rights of a person under custodial investigation and the

rights of an accused after a case is )led in court7

The trial court then held that the admissibilit of the 3inumpaang 3alasa should

not be tested under the afore6uoted 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution, but on the

voluntariness of its e>ecution7 3ince voluntariness is presumed, Ma6ueda had the burden of

proving otherwise, which he failed to do and, hence, the 3inumpaang 3alasa was

admissible against him7

#s to !inumpaang !alasa of Ma6ueda taken b 30;! Molleno

taken in palpable violation of is ri#tsunder 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the

+onstitution

Ma6ueda was not even told of any of is !onstitutional ri#tsunder the said

section statement was also taken in the absen!e of !ounsel4O wolly inadmissible

pursuant to paragraph 9, 3ection %!, #rticle 888 Le>clusionar rule

#s to the e>traAudicial admissions of Ma6ueda to 0rosecutor arate and to *a ?ean 3alvosa

not governed b the e>clusionar rules under the Bill of *ights

Ma6ueda voluntarily and freelymade them to 0rosecutor arate not in te

!ourse of an investi#ation, but in connection with Ma6uedaNs plea to be utili2edas a state witness


7/21

as to *a ?ean 3alvosa, it was given to a private person- provisions of the Bill of

*ights are primaril limitations on government

e:tra"udi!ial admissions $; ABAMA&T8 Dat lar#eE) A!!used) %8CTRMA78


8/21

?#@8?D, .*7, .7:

#s against a bustling cit life, Britisher Horace William Barker, a consultant of the WorldBank, and his Filipino wife, Teresita Mendoza, chose the peace and 6uiet of a countr home

not an near the metropolis of Manila or its environs, but in the rugged and mountainousterrain of Tuba, Benguet7 0erhaps the thought the were in a veritable paradise, beond thereach of worldl distractions and trouble when in the earl morning of !" #ugust $%, in the,sanctit of their own home, Horace was brutall slain and Teresita badl battered with leadpipes on the occasion of a robber7 3u&cient prima facie evidence pointed to *ene3alvamante, the victims'former housebo, as one of the perpetrators of the That illusion wasshattered ghastl crime7

#s to *eneNs co4conspirator, the, prosecution initiall included one *ichard Malig 3everinoin the information for robber with homicide and serious phsical inAuries % )led on %$(ovember %$$% with Branch %; of the *egional Trial +ourt L*T+ of Benguet at a Trinidad,Benguet7

Enl *ichard Malig was arrested En !! .anuar %$$!, prior to the arraignment of *ichardMalig, the prosecution )led a motion to amend the information ! to implead as co4accusedHector Ma6ueda alias 0utol because the evaluation Ef the evidence subse6uentl submittedestablished his complicit in the crime, and at the hearing of the motion the following da,the 0rosecutor further asked that accused *ichard Malig be dropped from the informationbecause further evaluation of the evidence disclosed no su&cient evidence against him7 9

The motion to drop Malig was granted and warrants for the arrest of accused 3alvamanteand Ma6ueda were issued7 Ma6ueda was subse6uentl arrested on 1 March %$$!, and on $#pril %$$!, he )led an application for bail7 1 He categoricall stated therein that 2he is willingand volunteering to be a 3tate witness in the above4entitled case, it appearing that he is theleast guilt among the accused in this case72

En !! #pril %$$!, the prosecution )led an #mended 8nformations with onl 3alvamanteand Ma6ueda as the accused7 8ts accusator portion reads as follows:

That on or about the !"th Ef #ugust, %$$%, at Tagadi- Kpper Tadiangan Municipalit of Tuba,0rovince Ef Benguet, 0hilippines, and within the Aurisdiction of this Honorable +ourt, the,above4named accused, +onspiring, confederating and mutuall aiding one another, armedwith lead pipes, and with intent of gain and against the will and consent of the ownersthereof, did then and there willfull, unlawfull and feloniousl enter the house of 3pouses

TD*D38T# and W88#M HE*#+D B#*D* and with violence against and intimidation of thepersons therein ransack the place and take and carr awa the following articles, to ,it:

G#n enumeration and description of the articles follow

all having a total value of TWE HK(?*D? FEK* THEK3#(? TWE HK(?*D? F8FT 0D3E3L0!;17!;7;;, 0hilippine +urrenc, belonging to, the said Teresita and William HoraceBarker- that on the occasion and b reason of the said robber- both accused willfull,unlawfull and feloniousl repeatedl strike Teresita Barker and William Horace Barker withlead pipes on the diRerent 0arts of their bod, leading to the death of William Horace Barkerand inJicting various phsical inAuries on the former which re6uired medical attendance for aperiod of more than thirt L9; das and have likewise incapacitated her from theperformance of her, customar labor for the same period of time7

+ontrar to aw7


9/21

3ince *ene 3alvamante continues to elude arrest and has remained at large, trial proceededentered a plea of not guilt on !! #pril %$$!7 hibit 2..2 showing its location7N The went around the houseand found a lead pipe LD>hibit 2##2 at the toilet, a black T4shirt LD>hibit 2++2, and a greenhand towel LD>hibit 2??27 He also discovered another lead pipe LD>hibit 2BB2 at the back ofthe door of the house7 He then interviewed the two househelps who provided him withdescriptions of the assailants7 The team then left, leaving behind B+F 3ecurit E&cer ClenDnri6uez and a securit guard7 +ambod prepared a report of his initial investigation LD>hibit227

Dnri6uez conducted his own investigation7 #t the masterNs bedroom, he saw several piecesof Aewelr scattered on the Joor and an empt inner cabinet7 He noticed footprints at theback of the house, particularl at the riprap wall, and observed that the grass below it wasparted as if someone had passed through and created a trail amidst the grass down towardthe #sin road of Tuba, Benguet7 Kpon his re6uest, a securit guard of the B+F, Ddgar ?alit,was sent to the Barker house to secure the premises7 Dnri6uez then left after ?alitNs arrival7


11/21

#t :;; p7m7 of that same da, members of the Tuba 0olice 3tation arrived at the'Barkerhouse to conduct their investigation7 Dnri6uez, who in the meantime was called b ?alit,returned to the Barker house7

The lead pipes, black T4shirt, and the green hand towel recovered from the Barker house bthe Baguio +it 0olice were )rst brought to the 0(0 +rime aborator 3ervice at +amp

?angwa, a Trinidad, Benguet, and then to the court7

The bod of William Horace Barker was taken to the Baguio Funeral Homes at (aguilian*oad, Baguio +it, where it was e>amined b ?r7 Francisco 07 +abotaAe, Municipal'HealthE&cer of Tuba, Benguet7 H, found in it twent4seven inAuries, which could have been causedb a blunt instrument, determined the cause of death as hemorrhagic shock, and thenissued a death certi)cate LD>hibits 20,2 2E,2 and 2*27

The wounded Teresita Barker was brought to the Baguio Ceneral Hospital and Medical +enterwhere she was treated and con)ned for eight das7 The attending phsician, ?r7 Francisco 7Hernandez, .r7, )rst saw her at around %%:;; a7m7 of !" #ugust %$$%7 3he was in a comatosestate7 ?r7 Hernandez found that she sustained multiple lacerations primaril an the left sideof the occipital area, bleeding in the left ear, and bruises on the arm7 Ene of the musclesadAoining her ees was paralzed7 3he regained consciousness onl after two das7 ?r7Hernandez opined that Mrs7 BarkerNs inAuries were caused b a blunt instrument, like a leadpipe, and concluded that if her inAuries had been left unattended, she would have died bnoontime of !" #ugust %$$% due to bleeding or hemorrhagic shock7

En % 3eptember %$$%, a police team from the Tuba 0olice 3tation, Benguet, came to thehospital bed of Mrs7 Barker, showed her pictures of several persons, and asked her toidentif the persons who had assaulted her7 3he pointed to a person who turned out to be*ichard Malig7 When informed of the investigation, ?r7 Hernandez told the members of theteam that it was improper for them to conduct it without )rst consulting him since Mrs7Barker had not et full recovered consciousness7 Moreover, her eesight had not etimproved, her visual acuit was impaired, and she had double vision7

En 9 3eptember %$$%, the remains of Mr7 Barker were cremated7 Mrs7 Barker was thendischarged from the hospital and upon getting home, tried to determine the items lostduring the robber7 3he re6uested Clen Dnri6uez to get back the pieces of Aewelr taken bthe Tuba 0(0 LD>hibit 2K27 The Tuba 0(0 gave them to Dnri6uez LD>hibit 2@27 Mrs7 Barkerdiscovered that her +anon camera, radio cassette recorder LD>hibit 2W492, and some piecesof Aewelr LD>hibit 2W4!2 were missing7 The aggregate value of the missing items was0!;1,!;7;;7 3he then e>ecuted an a&davit on these missing items LD>hibit 2U77

Mrs7 Barker underwent a +T 3can at the 3t7 ukeNs Hospital in Puezon +it7 8t was revealedthat she sustained a damaged arter on her left ee which could cause blindness7 she thensought treatment at the 3t7 ukeNs *oosevelt Hospital in (ew ork LD>hibit 22 where sheunderwent an unsuccessful operation7 3he likewise received treatment at the (ew orkMedical +enter LD>hibit 2M27

En !$ (ovember %$$%, *a ?ean 3alvosa, D>ecutive @ice 0resident of the B+F, ordered ClenDnri6uez to go to Cuinangan, Puezon, to coordinate with the police in determining the,whereabouts of accused *ene 3alvamante7 8n Cuinangan, Dnri6uez was able to obtaininformation from the baranga captain, Basilio *e6ueron, that he saw 3alvamante togetherwith a certain 20utol2 in 3eptember %$$%- however, the alread left the place7

En !% ?ecember %$$%, Dnri6uez, Melanie Mendoza, and three others went back toCuinangan to )nd out whether 3alvamante and 20utol2 had returned7 Kpon being informed


12/21

b Baranga +aptain *e6ueron that the two had not, Dnri6uez re6uested *e6ueron to notifhim immediatel once 3alvamante or 20utol2 returned to Cuinangan,

En 1 March %$$!, *e6ueronNs daughter called up Dnri6uez to inform him that 0utol,2 who isnone other than accused Hector Ma6ueda, had been arrested in Cuinangan7 Dnri6uez andMaA7 *odolfo #nagaran, +hief of the Tuba 0olice 3tation, together with another policeman,

0roceeded to Cuinangan7 The Cuinangan 0olice 3tation turned over Ma6ueda to MaA7#nagaran who then brought Ma6ueda to the Benguet 0rovincial .ail7

Before MaA7 #nagaranNs arrival at Cuinangan, Ma6ueda had been taken to the7 head6uartersof the !9th 0(0 Mobile Force +ompan at 3ta7 Maria, +alauag, Puezon7 8ts commandingo&cer, MaA7 @irgilio F7 *endon, directed 30;9 #rmando Molleno to get Ma6uedaNs statement7He did so and according to him, he informed Ma6ueda of his rights under the +onstitution7Ma6ueda thereafter signed a 3inumpaang 3alasa LD>hibit 22 wherein he narrated hisparticipation in the crime at the Barker house on !" #ugust %$$%7

En $ #pril %$$!, while he was under detention, Ma6ueda )led a Motion to Crant Bail LD>hibit2CC4


13/21

dut to supervise the emploees in the factor and whenever his emploer was not around,he was in charge of the sales7 He and his = co4emploees all 3leep inside the factor7

En #ugust !


14/21

8n order to establish the guilt of the accused through circumstantia% evidence, the followingre6uisites must be present: % there must be more than Ene circumstance- ! the facts fromwhich the inferences are derived are proved- and 9 the combination of all the circumstancesis such as to produce a conviction beond reasonable doubt L0eople vs7 0aAarit, C7*7 (o7=!"";, Ectober %$, %$$!, !%1 3+*# traAudicial confession referred to is the 3inumpaang 3alasa LD>hibit: 22 ofMa6ueda taken b 30;! Molleno immediatel after Ma6ueda was arrested7


15/21

Ma6ueda seasonabl appealed to us his conviction7 8n his %14page brief, he pleads that weac6uit him because the trial court committed this lone error:

7 7 7 8( F8(?8(C THD #++K3D?4#00D#(T CK8T BDE(? *D#3E(#BD ?EKBT EF THD+*8MD +H#*CD?7 %!

Enl three pages of the brief, tped double space, are devoted to his arguments which areanchored on his alibi that at the time the crime Was committed he was not in Benguet but in3ukat, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, ad the failure of the star witnesses for the 0rosecution toidentif him7 He alleges that Mrs7 Barker, when investigated at the hospital, 0ointed to*ichard Malig as the companion of *ene 3alvamante, and that when initiall investigated,the two housemaids gave a description of 3alvamanteNs companion that )tted *ichard Malig7

We )nd no merit in this appeal7 #s hereinafter shown, the defense of alibi is unconvincing7

The accusedNs arguments which stress the incredibilit of the testimonies of Mrs7 Barker andthe househelps identifing Ma6ueda are misdirected and misplaced because the trial courthad ruled that Mrs7 Teresita Mendoza Barker and the two housemaids, (orie ?acara and

.ulieta @illanueva, were not able to positivel identif Magueda, The trial court based hisconviction on his e>traAudicial confession and the proof of corpus delicti, as well as oncircumstantial evidence7 He should have focused his attention and arguments on these7

From its ratiocinations, the trial court made a distinction between an e>traAudicial confessionQ the 3inumpaang 3alasa Q and an e>traAudicial admission Q the, verbal admissions to0rosecutor arate and *a ?ean 3alvosa7 # perusal of the 3inumpaang 3alasa fails toconvince us that it is an e>traAudicial confession7 8t is onl an e>traAudicial admission7 Thereis a distinction between7 the former and the latter as clearl shown in 3ections !< and 99,*ule %9; of the *ules of +ourt which read as follows:

3ec7 !>> >>> >>>

3ec7 997 +onfession7 Q The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of theoRense charged, or of an oRense necessaril included therein, ma be given in evidenceagainst him7

8n a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt7 The term admission is usuall appliedin criminal cases to statements of fact b the accused which do not directl involve anacknowledgment of his guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the oRense with which he ischarged7 %9 Wharton distinguishes a confession from an admission as follows:

# confession is an acknowledgment in e>press terms, b a part in a criminal case, of hisguilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement b the accused, direct or

implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection with proof of other facts,to prove his guilt7 8n other words, an admission is something less than a confession, and isbut an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is insu&cient toauthorize a conviction and which tends onl to establish the ultimate fact of guilt7 %1

#nd under 3ection 9 of *ule %99, an e>traAudicial confession made b the accused is notsu&cient for conviction unless corroborated b evidence of corpus delicti7


16/21

The trial court admitted the 3inumpaang 3alasa of accused Ma6ueda although it wastaken without the assistance of counsel because it was of the opinion that since aninformation had alread bene)ted in court against him and he was arrested pursuant to awarrant of arrest issued b the court, the 3inumpaang 3alasa was not, therefore, takenduring custodial investigation7 Hence, 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution providingas follows:

3ec7 %!7 L% #n person under investigation for the commission of an oRense shallhave the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent andindependent counsel preferabl of his own choice7 8f the person cannot aRord the services ofcounsel, he must be provided with one7 These rights cannot be waived e>cept in writing andin the presence of counsel7

is not appli!able, % i7e7, the police investigation was 2 no longer within the ambit of acustodial investigation72 8t heavil relied on 0eople vs7 #son %< where this +ourt elucidatedon the rights of a person under custodial investigation and the rights of an accused after acase is )led in court7 The trial court went on to state:

#t the time of the confession, the accused was alread facing charges in court7 He no longerhad the right to remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to refuse to be a witnessand not to have an preAudice whatsoever result to him b such refusal7 #nd et, despite hisknowing full well that a case had alread been )led in court, he still confessed when he didnot have to do so7 %"

The trial court then held that the admissibilit of the 3inumpaang 3alasa should not betested under the afore6uoted 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution, but on thevoluntariness of its e>ecution7 3ince voluntariness is presumed, Ma6ueda had the burden ofproving otherwise, which he failed to do and, hence, the 3inumpaang 3alasa wasadmissible against him7

#s to the admissions made b Ma6ueda to 0rosecutor arate and *a ?ean 3alvosa, the trialcourt admitted their testimon thereon onl to prove the tenor of their conversation but notto prove the truth of the admission because such testimon was obAected to as hearsa7 8tsaid:

8n an case, it is settled that when testimon is presented to establish not the truth but thetenor of the statement or the fact that such statement was made, it is not hearsa L0eoplevs7 Fule, C7*7 (o7 =9;!", Februar !=, %$$!, !;< 3+*# ercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution are not con)ned to that period prior to the )lingof a criminal complaint or information but are available at that stage when a person is2under investigation for the commission of an oRense72 The direct and primar source of this


17/21

3ection %!L% is the second paragraph of 3ection !;, #rticle 88 of the %$"9 +onstitution whichreads:

#n person under investigation for the commission of an oRense shall have the right toremain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right 7 7 7

The )rst sentence to which it immediatel follows refers to the right against self4incrimination reading:

(o person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself7

which is now 3ection %", #rticle 888 of the %$=" +onstitution7 The incorporation of the secondparagraph of 3ection !; in the Bill of *ights of the %$"9 constitution was an acceptance ofthe landmark doctrine laid down b the united 3tates 3upreme +ourt in Miranda vs7 #rizona7%$ 8n that case, the +ourt e>plicitl stated that the holding therein 2is not an innovation inour Aurisprudence, but is an application of principles long recognized and applied in othersettings72 8t went on to state its ruling:

Eur holding will be spelled out with some speci)cit in the pages which follow but brieJstated, it is this: the prosecution ma not use statements, whether e>culpator orinculpator, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstratesthe use of procedural safeguards eRective to secure the privilege against self4incrimination7B custodial interrogation, we mean 6uestioning initiated b law enforcement o&cers after aperson has been taken into custod or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in ansigni)cant wa7 #s for the procedural safeguards to be emploed, unless other full eRectivemeans are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure acontinuous opportunit to e>ercise it, the following measures are re6uired7 0rior to an6uestioning the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that anstatement he does make ma be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right tothe presence of an attorne, either retained or appointed7The defendant ma waiveeRectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntaril, knowingl andintelligentl7 8f, however, he indicates in an manner and at an stage of the process that hewishes to consult with an attorne before speaking there can be no 6uestioning7 ikewise, ifthe individual is alone and indicates in an manner that he does not wish to be interrogated,the police ma not 6uestion him7 The mere fact that he ma have answered some 6uestionor volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain fromanswering an further in6uiries until he has consulted with an attorne and thereafterconsents to a 6uestioned7 !;

8t ma be pointed out though that as formulated in the second paragraph of theaforementioned 3ection !;, the word custudial, which was used in Miranda with reference tothe investigation, was e>cluded7 8n view thereof, in Calman vs7 0amaran, !% this +ourt aptlobserved:

Te fa!t tat te framers of our Constitution did not !oose to use te term6!ustodial6 by avin# it inserted between te words 6under6 and 6investi#ation)6

as in fa!t te senten!e opens wit te prase 6any person6 #oes to prove tattey did not adopt in toto te entire fabri! of te Miranda do!trine-

+learl then, the second paragraph of 3ection !; has even broadened the application ofMiranda b making it applicable to the investigation for the commission of an oRense of aperson and in custod7 !! #ccordingl, as so formulated, the second paragraph of 3ection !;changed the rule adopted in 0eople vs7 .ose !9 that the rights of the accused onl beginupon arraignment, #ppling the second paragraph of 3ection !;, this +ourt laid down thisrule in Morales vs, Dnrile: !1


18/21

"7 #t the time a person is arrested, it shall be the dut of the arresting o&cer to informhim of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if an7 He shallbe informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that anstatement he might make could be used against him7 The person arrested shall have theright to communicate with his lawer, a relative, or anone he chooses b the most

e>pedient means Q b telephone if possible Q or b letter or messenger7 8t shall be theresponsibilit of the arresting o&cer to see to it that this is accomplished7 (o custodialinvestigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged b theperson arrested, b an person on his behalf, or appointed b the court upon petition eitherof the detainee himself or b anone on his behalf7 The right to counsel ma be waived butthe waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel7 #n statementobtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether e>culpator or inculpator,in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence7

(ote that the )rst sentence re6uires the arresting o&cer to inform the person to be arrestedof the reason for the arrest and show him 2the warrant of arrest, if an72 The underscoredphrase simpl means that a case had been )led against him in a court of either preliminaror original Aurisdiction and that the court had issued the corresponding warrant of arrest7From the foregoing, it is clear that the right to remain silent and to counsel and to beinformed thereof under the second paragraph of 3ection !; are available to a person at antime before arraignment whenever he is investigated for the commission of an oRense7 Thisparagraph was incorporated into 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the present +onstitution with thefollowing additional safeguards: La the counsel must be competent and independent,preferabl of his own choice, Lb if the part cannot aRord the services of such counsel, hemust be provided with one, and Lc the rights therein cannot be waived e>cept in writing andin the presence of counsel7

Then, too, the right to be heard would be a farce if it did not include the right to counsel7 !Thus, 3ection %!L!, #rticle 888 of the present +onstitution provides that in all criminalprosecutions the accused shall enAo the right to be heard b himself and counsel72 8n 0eoplevs7 Holgado, !< this +ourt emphaticall declared:

Ene of the great principles of Austice guaranteed b our +onstitution is that 2no person shallbe4held to answer for a criminal oRense without due process of law2, and that all accused2shall enAo the right to be heard b himself and counsel72 8n criminal cases there can be nofair hearing unless the accused be given an opportunit to be heard b counsel7 The right tobe heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard b counsel7 Dventhe most intelligent or educated man ma have no skill in the science of the law, particularlin the rules of procedure, and, without counsel, he ma be convicted not because he is guiltbut because he does not know how to establish his innocence7 #nd this can happen moreeasil to persons who are ignorant or uneducated7 8t is for this reason that the right to beassisted b counsel is deemed so important that it has become a constitutional right and itis so implemented that under our rules of procedure it is not enough for the +ourt to apprisean accused of his right to have an attorne, it is not enough to ask him whether he desiresthe aid of an attorne, but it is essential that the court should assign one de o&cio for him if

he so desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorne of hisown7

8t was, therefore, wrong for the trial court to hold that 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the+onstitution is strictl limited to custodial investigation and that it does not appl to aperson against whom a criminal complaint or information has alread been )led becauseafter its )ling he loses his right to remain silent and to counsel7 8f we follow the theor of thetrial court, then police authorities and other law enforcement agencies would have a hedain e>tracting confessions or admissions from accused persons after the had been arrested


19/21

but before the are arraigned because at such stage the accused persons are supposedlnot entitled to the enAoment of the rights to remain silent and to counsel7

Ence a criminal complaint or information is )led in court and the accused is thereafterarrested b virtue of a warrant of arrest, he must be delivered to the nearest police stationor Aail and the arresting o&cer must make a return of the warrant to the issuing Audge, !"

and since the court has alread ac6uired Aurisdiction over his person, it would be improperfor an public o&cer Er law enforcement agenc to investigate him in connection with thecommission of the oRense for which he is charged7 8f, nevertheless, he is subAected to suchNinvestigation, then 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution and the Aurisprudence thereonmust be faithfull complied with7

The 3inumpaang 3alasa of Ma6ueda taken b 30;! Molleno after the formerNs arrest wastaken in palpable violation of his rights under 3ection %!L%, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution7 #sdisclosed b a reading thereof, Ma6ueda was not even told of an of his constitutional rightsunder the said section7 The statement was also taken in the absence of counsel7 3uchuncounselled 3inumpaang 3alasa is wholl inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 9, 3ection%!, #rticle 888 of the +onstitution which reads:

L9 #n confession or admission obtained in violation of this or 3ection %" hereof shall beinadmissible in evidence against him7

%owever) te e:tra"udi!ial admissions of Maqueda to Prose!utor arate and toRay ist without governmentalgrant, that ma not be taken awa b government and that government has the dut toprotect- != or restriction on the power of government found 2not in the particular speci)ctpes of action prohibited, but in the general principle that keeps alive in the public mind thedoctrine that governmental power is not unlimited7 !$ The are the fundamental safeguardsagainst aggressions of arbitrar power, 9; or state trann and abuse of authorit7 8n laingdown the principles of the government and fundamental liberties of the people, the+onstitution did not govern the relationships between individuals7 9%

A!!ordin#ly) Maqueda4s admissions to Ray pressl acknowledging his guilt of the oRense ma be given in evidence against him andan person, otherwise competent to testif as a witness, who heard the confession, iscompetent to testif as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it7 Thesaid witness need not repeat verbatim the oral confession- it su&ces if he gives itssubstance7 B analog, that rule applies to oral e>traAudicial admissions7

To be added to Ma6uedaNs e>traAudicial admission is his Krgent Motion for Bail wherein hee>plicitl 7stated that 2he is willing and volunteering to be a state witness in the aboveentitled case, it appearing that he is the least guilt among the accused in this case72

8n the light of his admissions to 0rosecutor arate and *a ?ean 3alvosa and his willingnessto be a state witness, Ma6uedaNs participation in the commission of the crime charged wasestablished beond moral certaint7 His defense of alibi was futile because b his ownadmission he was not onl at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, he alsoadmitted his participation therein7 Dven if we disregard his e>traAudicial admissions to


20/21

0rosecutor arate and 3alvosa, his guilt was, as correctl ruled b the trial court, establishedbeond doubt b circumstantial evidence7The following circumstances were dul proved inthis case:

L% He and a companion were seen a kilometer awa from the Barker house an hour afterthe crime in 6uestion was committed there-

L! *ene 3alvamante, who is still at large, was positivel identi)ed b Mrs7 Barker, (orie?acara, and .ulieta @illanueva as one of two persons who committed the crime-

L9 He and co4accused *ene 3alvamante are friends-

L1 He and *ene 3alvamante were together in Cuinangan, Puezon, and both left theplace sometime in 3eptember %$$%-

L He was arrested in Cuinangan, Puezon, on 1 March %$$!- and

Lclusion of all others, as the guilt person, i7e7 the circumstances proved must beconsistent with each other, consistent with the hpothesis that the accused is guilt, and atthe same time inconsistent with an other hpothesis e>cept that of guilt7 99 We do nothesitate to rule that all the re6uisites of 3ection !, *ule %99 of the *ules of +ourt are presentin this case7

This conclusion having been reached, the defense of alibi put up b the appellant must fail7The trial court correctl reAected such defense7 The rule is settled that for the defense of alibito prosper, the re6uirements of time and place must be strictl met7 8t is not enough toprove that the accused was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he mustdemonstrate that it was phsicall impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crimeat the time of its commission7 91 Through the unrebutted testimon of Mike Taaban, which

Ma6ueda does not controvert in his brief, it was positivel established that Ma6ueda and acompanion were seen at ":;; a7m7 of !" #ugust %$$% at the waiting shed in #guad, Tuba,Benguet, a place barel a kilometer awa from the house of the Barkers7 8t was not thenimpossible for Ma6ueda and his companion to have been at the Barker house at the time thecrime was committed7 Moreover, Fredisminda +astrence categoricall declared thatMa6ueda started working in her polvoron factor in 3ukat onl on " Ectober %$$%, therebbeling his, testimon that he started working on .ul %$$% and continuousl until !"#ugust %$$%7


21/21

WHD*DFE*D, in of the foregoing, the instant appeal is ?83M833D? and the appealed decisionEf Branch %; of the *egional Trial +ourt Ef Benguet in +riminal +ase, (o7$%4+*4%!;< is#FF8*MD? in toto7

+osts against accused4appellant HD+TE* M#PKD?# 0KTE7

3E E*?D*D?,

evd_people vs maqueda

Documents