VOL.

385, JULY 30, 2002 353

People vs. Ochate

*
G.R. No.127154. July 30, 2002.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. ROLDAN A. OCHATE alias “Boy,” accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Rape with Homicide; Evidence; Requisites to

sustain a conviction of an accused based on circumstantial
evidence; Basic guidelines in the appreciation of circumstantial
evidence.—The requisites to sustain a conviction of an accused
based on circumstantial evidence are: (1) there must be more than
one circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on proven facts;
and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. And in the
appreciation of circumstantial evidence, there are four basic
guidelines: (1) it should be acted upon with caution; (2) all the
essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; (3)
the facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt; and (4)
the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused as
to convince the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused is the one who committed the offense.
Same; Same; Same; Quantum of Proof; Mere suspicion, no
matter how strong it may be, is not sufficient to sustain conviction;
Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is the right of the accused to be
presumed innocent until

_______________

* EN BANC.

354

354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Ochate

the contrary is proved, and to overcome the presumption nothing
but proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established by the
prosecution.—But then, mere suspicion, no matter how strong it
may be, is not sufficient to sustain conviction. Law and
jurisprudence demand proof beyond reasonable doubt before any
person may be deprived of his life, liberty, or even property.
Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is the right of the accused to be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and to overcome
the presumption nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must
be established by the prosecution. The constitutional presumption
of innocence requires courts to take “a more than casual
consideration” of every circumstances or doubt proving the
innocence of the accused.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Where the circumstances obtaining
in a case are capable of two inferences, one of which is consistent
with the presumption of innocence while the other may be
compatible with the finding of guilt, the court must acquit the
accused.—Jurisprudence instructs that where the circumstances
obtaining in a case are capable of two inferences, one of which is
consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other may
be compatible with the finding of guilt, the court must acquit the
accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and, therefore, is insufficient to support a judgment of
conviction.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A finding of guilt must rest on the
strength of the prosecution’s own evidence and not on the weakness
or absence of evidence for the defense.—Doubtless, accused-
appellant’s defenses of alibi and denial are weak. Nevertheless, it
is a settled principle in criminal law that a finding of guilt must
rest on the strength of the prosecution’s own evidence and not on
the weakness or absence of evidence for the defense. In the
present case, the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
Constitutional Law; Confessions; Accused-appellant confessed
his guilt in the absence of a counsel and without being informed of
his constitutional rights; His confessions are inadmissible in
evidence having been obtained in violation of the provisions of
Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.—Custodial
investigation, as defined in Miranda vs. Arizona is any
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person
has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom
of action in any significant way. Pantallano and Cawley are law
enforcement officers, the former being a CAFGU member and the
latter, an NBI officer. With respect to Pantallano, accused-
appellant’s confession was made when the former was pointing
his gun at the latter; thus, effectively depriving ac-
 355

VOL. 385, JULY 30, 2002 355

People vs. Ochate

cused-appellant of his freedom of action. On the other hand,

accused-appellant’s confession to Dr. Cawley was made when the
former is already under detention. Both Pantallano and Cawley
elicited questions that prompted accused-appellant to confess his
guilt in the absence of a counsel and without being informed of his
constitutional rights. Hence, it is clear that his confessions are
inadmissible in evidence having been obtained in violation of the
provisions of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
Same; Same; The confession made by the accused-appellant to
the barangay captain is inadmissible because it appeared that the
conversation between the two was part of the ongoing police
investigation.—While it is true that the barangay captain is not a
police officer or a law enforcement agent, it is clear from the
records that he asked his question in the course of police
interrogation without the accused-appellant being informed of his
rights under the constitution. In People vs. Morada, this Court
held that the confession made by the accused-appellant to the
barangay captain is inadmissible because it appeared that the
conversation between the two was part of the then ongoing police
investigation.

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of the decision of the Regional

Trial Court of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, Br. 11.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

On automatic review is the decision of the Regional Trial

Court of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte (Branch 11)
dated September 20, 1996 in Criminal Case No. S-2504
finding accused Roldan A. Ochate guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of rape with homicide, sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of death and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of
the victim the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00).
The facts of the case:
Around 5:15 in the afternoon of September 26, 1994,
Rowena Albiso and her older brother Roseller were walking
together on their way home from school at Tampilisan,
Zamboanga del Norte. Upon reaching the house of the
barangay captain, which is about
356

356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Ochate

twenty (20) meters from their school, Rowena stopped and

went to the communal water pump to wash her food
container and
1
her slippers. Roseller went home ahead of
her sister. On his way home, he passed by the hut of
accused Roldan Ochate where he 2saw the latter in the yard
tucking a scythe on his waist. When Roseller arrived
home, their father, Romulo, asked for the whereabouts of
Rowena. Roseller told Romulo that his sister was not yet
home. Romulo then went to meet Rowena. However, he was
unable to find her. Romulo and Roseller thereafter went to
the house of the accused who is their neighbor but finding
no one there, they proceeded to report the incident to
barangay councilman 3
and acting barangay captain
Crisanto Montano. Montano, in turn, sought the assistance
of some of the men in the barangay in order to find
Rowena. The search was conducted the whole evening of
September 26, 1994 to no avail. It was only around eight
o’clock the following morning that the group found Rowena
4
in a ricefield about fifty meters from Ochate’s house. She
was already dead. The medico-legal officer who later
examined the cadaver reported that the cause of death was
hemorrhagic shock due to deep 5and penetrating incised
wounds in the neck and abdomen. Suspecting that Ochate
was the culprit, police officers as well as other members of
the barangay went to see Ochate at his house but they
were not able to find him. It was only on September 29,
1994 that a certain Bienvenido Pantallano, a member of
the CAFGU, was able to locate Ochate and he took Ochate
in his custody6
and brought him to the Chief of Police of
Tampilisan.
On January 9, 1995, an Information for Rape with
Homicide was filed against Ochate, to wit:

“The undersigned, Provincial Prosecutor, accuses ROLDAN A.

OCHATE @ Boy of the crime of RAPE WITH HOMICIDE,
committed as follows:

_______________
 1 TSN, April 28, 1995, p. 4.
2 Ibid., p. 5.
3 Ibid., p. 6.
4 TSN, July 7, 1995, p. 5.
5 Exhibit “C,” Original Records, p. 55.
6 TSN, September 1, 1995, p. 4.

357

VOL. 385, JULY 30, 2002 357

People vs. Ochate

“That, in the afternoon, on or about the 26th day of September,

1994, in the municipality of Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte,
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused
armed with a scythe, moved by lewd and unchaste design, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of
force, violence and intimidation, have carnal knowledge with one
ROWENA ALBISO, 8 year old child, against her will and without
her consent; that in the pursuance of his evil motive and to better
accomplish his evil purpose the said accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack said
ROWENA ALBISO, thereby inflicting upon her injuries on the
vital parts of her body which caused her instantaneous death;
that as a result of the commission of the crime the heirs of the
herein victim suffered the following damages, viz.:

a) Indemnity for victim’s death ....................... P50,000.00

b) Loss of earning capacity ............................... P20,000.00
P70,000.00
7
“CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Ochate entered a plea of “not guilty.”

After trial, the lower court found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide and
meted the penalty of death.
Hence, this automatic review.
Accused-appellant raises the following Assignment of
Errors:

“I

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED

ON ALLEGED INCRIMINATORY CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.

“II
 “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN TAKING AGAINST THE
ACCUSED VERBAL ADMISSIONS ALLEGEDLY MADE
DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION IN VIOLATION OF
HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO COUNSEL.

_______________

7 OR, pp. 24-25.

358

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Ochate

“III

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED

GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
8
DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF
RAPE WITH HOMICIDE.”

Appellant contends that he knew nothing about the rape

and the killing of Rowena Albiso; that around three o’clock
in the afternoon of September 26, 1994, he was at his
residence, sleeping; that upon waking up at three-thirty in
the same afternoon he went to gather tuba then proceeded
to his copra drier which is approximately 100 meters from
his house; that he went back home at four o’clock and later
went to sleep at six o’clock in the evening; that he did not
notice any unusual incident on the night of September 26,
1994; that on September 29, 1994, he was arrested without
warrant for reasons he was not aware of; that it was only
after he was brought to the public market where he was
informed that he was the suspect in the killing of a certain
person, the identity of whom he only knew when he was
already brought to the municipal building.
As to the first assigned error, we agree with accused-
appellant that the trial court erred in convicting him based
on circumstantial evidence. The requisites to sustain a
conviction of an accused based on circumstantial evidence
are: (1) there must be more than one circumstance; (2) the
inference must be based on proven facts; and (3) the
combination of all circumstances produces a conviction
9
beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. And in
the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, there are four
basic guidelines: (1) it should be acted upon with caution;
(2) all the essential facts must be consistent with the
hypothesis of guilt; (3) the facts must exclude every other
theory but that of guilt; and (4) the facts must establish
such a certainty of guilt of the accused as to convince the
judgment beyond a reasonable doubt 10
that the accused is
the one who committed the offense.
Prosecution evidence established the following
circumstances: (1) in the afternoon of September 26, 1994,
when the victim was

_______________

8 Rollo, p. 47.
9 People vs. Albacin, 340 SCRA 249, 263.
10 People vs. Orcula, Sr., 335 SCRA 129, 136.

359

VOL. 385, JULY 30, 2002 359

People vs. Ochate

last seen alive by her brother Roseller, appellant was seen

near his house located along the road
11
where the victim and
Roseller pass on their way home; (2) the road passing
through accused-appellant’s house is the only path coming 12
from the school going to the house of the victim’s family;
(3) appellant
13
was the only person seen by Roseller on his
way home; (4) appellant, who was alone at that time, 14
appeared to Roseller as if he was waiting for somebody; (5)
upon waking up in the morning of September 27, 1994 and
noticing that people in their barangay were gathering and
looking for somebody, appellant did not 15
bother to inquire
about the reason for such activity; (6) he 16 did not
participate in the search for the missing girl; (7) the
victim’s cadaver 17
was found about 50 meters from
appellant’s hut; (8) when he was informed by his wife that
the victim’s cadaver was found 18
near their house, he showed
no surprise and he did nothing; (9) on two occasions, when
he was informed by the police that someone was killed in
their barangay and that he is a suspect19in the killing, he
did not bother to ask who the victim was.
After a careful review of the entire evidence presented,
we find that a combination of the foregoing circumstances
is insufficient to convict appellant of rape with homicide.
Said circumstances do not lead to a fair and reasonable
conclusion that accused-appellant, to the exclusion of all
others, is the person guilty of the offense charged.
Appellant’s indifference to the events that happened in
their barangay beginning September 26, 1994 up to the
time of his arrest on September 29, 1994 may lend support
to the suspicion of the barangay and police authorities that
he is the author of the crime. But then, mere suspicion, no
matter how strong it may be, is

_______________

11 TSN, April 28, 1995, p. 5.

12 Ibid., p. 6.
13 Id.
14 Ibid., p. 9.
15 TSN, May 10, 1996, pp. 9-10.
16 TSN, July 7, 1995, p. 12.
17 Ibid., p. 5.
18 TSN, May 10, 1996, pp. 10, 12.
19 Ibid., p. 5.

360

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Ochate

20
not sufficient to sustain conviction. Law and
jurisprudence demand proof beyond reasonable doubt
before any person
21
may be deprived of his life, liberty, or
even property. Enshrined in the Bill of Rights is the right
of the accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary
is proved, and to overcome the presumption nothing but
proof beyond22 reasonable doubt must be established by the
prosecution. The constitutional presumption of innocence
requires courts to take “a more than casual consideration”
of every circumstances
23
or doubt proving the innocence of
the accused.
In his testimony, Crisanto Montano admitted that
accused-appellant was considered a suspect24
because he did
not join the search for the missing girl. Appellant testified
that he did not participate
25
in the search because he was
busy drying copra. It cannot be contradicted that such
passive reaction is susceptible to different interpretations.
Indeed, it may be construed as an indication of guilt; but, it
may also be interpreted as mere indifference or even
downright insensibility.
Moreover, there was no evidence presented to show that
after Roseller left his sister to wash her food container and
slippers at the communal water pump, appellant was seen
with her. Furthermore, the testimony of Roseller that he
saw appellant along the road on his way home is not
sufficient to support the conclusion that it was appellant
who committed the crime. At best, it is mere conjecture or
speculation which the Court will not subscribe to.
 Jurisprudence instructs that where the circumstances
obtaining in a case are capable of two inferences, one of
which is consistent with the presumption of innocence
while the other may be compatible with the finding of guilt,
the court must acquit the accused

_______________

20 People vs. Abillar, 346 SCRA 433, 440; People vs. Decillo, 341 SCRA
591, 598-599; People vs. Gargar, 300 SCRA 542, 552; People vs. Quidato,
Jr., 297 SCRA 1, 10; Abad vs. Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 56, 65; People
vs. Dela Rosa, 284 SCRA 158, 172.
21 People vs. Morada, 307 SCRA 362, 379-380.
22 People vs. San Juan, 326 SCRA 786, 801.
23 People vs. Ratunil, 334 SCRA 721, 737.
24 TSN, Hearing of July 7, 1995, p. 6.
25 TSN, Hearing of May 10, 1996, pp. 10-11.

361

VOL. 385, JULY 30, 2002 361

People vs. Ochate

because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral

certainty and, therefore,
26
is insufficient to support a
judgment of conviction.
Doubtless, accused-appellant’s defenses of alibi and
denial are weak. Nevertheless, it is a settled principle in
criminal law that a finding of guilt must rest on the
strength of the prosecution’s own evidence and not 27
on the
weakness or absence of evidence for the defense. In the
present case, the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
As to the second assignment of error, we agree with
appellant that his confessions to Bienvenido Pantallano,
Dr. Henry Cawley, and before the barangay captain may
not be used in evidence against him as they are in violation
of his constitutional right to remain silent and to counsel
while under custodial investigation.
Custodial
28
investigation, as defined in Miranda vs.
Arizona is any questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way.
Pantallano and Cawley are law enforcement officers, the
former being a CAFGU member and the latter, an NBI
officer. With respect to Pantallano, accused-appellant’s
confession was29
made when the former was pointing his gun
at the latter; thus, effectively depriving accused-appellant
of his freedom of action. On the other hand, accused-
appellant’s confession to Dr. Cawley 30
was made when the
former is already under detention. Both Pantallano and
Cawley elicited questions that prompted accused-appellant
to confess his guilt in the absence of a counsel and without
being informed of his constitutional rights. Hence, it is
clear that his con-

_______________

26 People vs. Malbog, 342 SCRA 620, 641; People vs. Gonzales, 341
SCRA 688, 706; People vs. Sevilla, 339 SCRA 625, 647; People vs.
Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267, 307; People vs. Ferras, 289 SCRA 94, 108.
27 People vs. Batidor, 303 SCRA 335, 350.
28 384 U.S. 436.
29 Testimony of Bienvenido Pantallano, TSN, Hearing of September 1,
1995, pp. 4 and 8.
30 Testimony of Dr. Henry Cawley, TSN, Hearing of March 15, 1996,
pp. 4-5.

362

362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Ochate

fessions are inadmissible in evidence having been obtained

in violation of the provisions of Section 12, Article III of the
1987 Constitution, to wit:

“Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the

commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford
the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These
rights cannot be waived except in the presence of counsel.
“x x x     x x x     x x x
“(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
“x x x     x x x     x x x.”

Likewise, appellant’s admission of guilt before the

barangay captain is inadmissible in evidence. Montano
testified that at the time he heard appellant admit that he
committed the crime because he was possessed by the
devil, it was actually in response to the query of the
barangay captain as to why he committed the crime
charged. The question and answer transpired in the
presence of the chief of police. Appellant had already been
singled out as a suspect, arrested, taken
31
into custody and
was being investigated by the police. While it is true that
the barangay captain is not a police officer or a law
enforcement agent, it is clear from the records that he
asked his question in the course of police interrogation
without the accused-appellant
32
being informed 33
of his rights
under the constitution. In People vs. Morada, this Court
held that the confession made by the accused-appellant to
the barangay captain is inadmissible because it appeared
that the conversation between the two was part of the then
ongoing police investigation.
The rape and killing of eight-year old Rowena Albiso is
beyond question, a dastardly act that every sensible and
God-fearing human being abhors. The assault on the child
is tragic and we condemn in the strongest possible terms
the beastly act committed

_______________

31 TSN, Hearing of July 7, 1995, p. 11.

32 Ibid.
33 Supra.

363

VOL. 385, JULY 30, 2002 363

People vs. Ochate

against her. However, we must uphold the primacy of the

presumption of innocence in favor of the accused-appellant
when the evidence at hand falls 34
short of the quantum
required to support conviction. Here, the prosecution
failed to present evidence sufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the decision under automatic review is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and accused-appellant
Roldan A. Ochate alias “Boy” is hereby ACQUITTED on the
ground of reasonable doubt. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is directed to cause the immediate release of
accused-appellant unless he is being lawfully held for
another cause, and to inform this Court of the date of his
release, or the ground for his continued confinement,
within ten (10) days from notice of herein decision.
SO ORDERED.
      Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio and Corona, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and set aside, accused-appellant

acquitted.

Note.—Confessions extracted without the assistance of

counsel are taboo and useless in a court of law. (People vs.
Muleta, 309 SCRA 148 [1999])

——o0o——

_______________

34 People vs. Bravo, 318 SCRA 812, 825.

364

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.