People v Lucero 244 SCRA 425 (1995)

Facts: Accused-appellant was convicted for robbery with homicide. While he was
in custodial investigation the accused cannot afford a lawyer thus one was provided for him in
the person of Atty. Peralta as his counsel. Counsel explained to the accused his constitutional
rights but Atty. Peralta observed no reaction from the accused. He left to attend the wake of a
friend and the police authorities started to take statements from the accused. Apparently during
the custodial investigation no counsel was around while accused gave his extrajudicial
confession which was used against him as evidence in court and merit his conviction.
Issue: Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the accused may be admissible during the
trial.
Held: Appellant's

conviction

cannot

be

based

on

his

extrajudicial

confession.

The constitution requires that a person under investigation for the commission of a crime
should be provided with a counsel. This is a constitutional guarantee to protect the accused
against the hostility and duress from the authorities during custodial investigation. Any
confession or statement made without the presence of a counsel during the investigation is
deemed to be inadmissible as evidence in court. It appears that when the accused was taken with
his statements his counsel was not around. Therefore his extrajudicial confession cannot be used
as evidence against the accused during his trial. The court erred in admitting it as evidence and
as a basis of conviction therefore the accused is acquitted.

G.R. No. 95939; June 17, 1996

FACTS:
On October 6, 1987, appellant Florentino Bracamonte, together with Manuel Sapon and Ernie
Cabral, stood charged with the crime of Robbery with Double Homicide after they were positively
identified by Violeta Parnala, the owner of the house and the mother of one of the victims.

Parnala and her husband arrived home from the Kingdom of Jehovahs Witnesses and were
confounded when their housemaid refused to heed their call from the outside. Parnala was surprised
to see three men emerge from inside the house. The three men then dashed off.

Found inside the house were the bodies of 6-year old Jay Vee and the Paranalas housemaid,
Rosalina. Some items, amounting to P1,100, were also found to have been missing. Thus, the
charges.
Cabral was tried and convicted of the crime in 1989 while Sapon and Bracamonte were at large until
the latters arrest in October of the same year. Appellant Bracamonte denied the charges and

interposed the defense of alibi. Appellant also contended that there was no circumstantial evidence
that will link him in the crime and that Parnala couldnt possible know him to merit identification.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bracamontes defense of alibi and Parnalas lack of personal affiliation with
Bracamonte are worth discharging the appellant of the crime.
RULING:
It has been said that the defense of alibi is inherently weak since it is very easy to concoct. In order
that this defense may prosper, it must be established clearly and convincingly not only that the
accused is elsewhere at the time of the commission of the crime, but that likewise it would have been
physically impossible for him to be at the vicinity thereof. In the instant case, appellant Bracamonte
tragically failed to show, by clear and convincing proof, that it was physically impossible for him to be
at the victims house at the time the crime was committed.

Positive identification by an independent witness who has not been shown to have any reason or
motive to testify falsely must prevail over simple denials and the unacceptable alibi of the accused.
Appellant himself admitted that he was not aware of any reason or motive why Parnala should testify
against him. There is also nothing in law and jurisprudence which requires that in order for there to
be a positive identification by a prosecution witness of a felon, he must know the latter personally. If
this were the case, the prosecution would rarely get any conviction since, in most instances, the
perpetrator of the crime is unrelated to the victim. The witness degree of closeness or familiarity with
the accused, although may be helpful, is by no means an indispensable requirement for purposes of
positive identification.
The Court noted that appellant, together with his two (2) other co-accused, were charged and
convicted of robbery with double homicide. The charge and the corresponding conviction should
have been for robbery with homicide only although two persons were killed. In this complex crime,
the penalty prescribed in Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code is not affected by the number of
killings accompanying the robbery. The multiplicity of the victims slain, though, is appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance.

Confessions
Art.3 Sec.17, 1987 Constitution
Rule130 Sec33
Rule 115(e)
1) People vs Encipido
2) People vs Endino
3) People vs Abulencia

146 SCRA 478

352 SCRA 307
363 SCRA 496