PEOPLE v. MUIT, ET AL. GR No.
GR No. 181043 The next day, Ferraer, Pancho, Jr and Pancho Sr saw on the news the Pajero riddled
Oct 8, 2008 Tinga, J.
SUMMARY: Appellants were charged with kidnapping for ransom with homicide
and carnapping. Pancho and Dequillo executed extrajudicial confessions, assisted
by counsel. Muit executed 2, likewise assisted by counsel. Ferraer was discharged
as a state witness. During trial, appellants claim that they were tortured and forced
to execute the EJCs. RTC did not give credence to their claim and convicted them
of the crimes charged. CA and SC affirmed.
DOCTRINE: One of the indicia of voluntariness in the execution of extrajudicial
statements is that each contains many details and facts which the investigating
officers could not have known and could not have supplied, without the knowledge
and information given by appellants. || The rule that an extrajudicial confession
is evidence only against the person making it recognizes various exceptions.
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS:
FACTS:
Appellants were charged with kidnapping for ransom with homicide and carnapping.
One of the accused, Ferraer, was discharged and utilized as a state witness.
In Nov 11, 1997, Julaton, a relative of Ferraer, arrived at his house in Nasugbu,
Batangas, together with Pancho, Jr and 4 others on board a gray Mitsubishi. Pancho
told him that they wanted to use his house as a safehouse for their “visitor”. He
hesitated at first but later on conceded when assured that the money will be divided
equally among them. Later, 5 other men came and were introduced as Muit, Morales,
and David. Morales handed Ferraer a folded carton wrapped with masking tape and
a green backpack, which contained guns.
On Dec 2, Seraspe, driver of the victim, drove a blue Pajero to the site where the
victim Engr. Ong, Jr conducted an inspection, together with the engineers. Romeo,
an informant, called the group to inform them that the victim was at the construction
site. After the inspection, Seraspe saw that the engineers suddenly lay prostrate on
the ground, and an unidentified man near them. 3 more armed med surrounded the
Pajero, one of whom poked a gun at him and ordered him and Chavez to lie on the
ground. The assailants then dragged the victim to the pajero and forced him to give
them the keys to the Pajero. They then drove away in the Pajero.
At 2:30PM, Lipa City Deputy Chief of Police Supt. Mission received a radio message
of the kidnapping and that the kidnappers, on board a Pajero, were heading towards
Lipa City. Thus, he ordered 2 teams to put up a barricade. The Pajero was then
spotted and flagged down. While 2 policemen approached the Pajero, the driver and
the front passenger started firing at the policemen. A crossfire ensued which lasted
for 4 mins. All occupants, except for the driver and front passenger who managed to
escape, died. One of the escapees, Muit, was later on apprehended.
Page 1 of 2
with bullets/ The Panchos left the house. Later that night, he saw on TV Patrol a
footage showing the cadavers of the assailants and Muit in handcuffs.
Prosecution presented its witnesses whose accounts were corroborated by the
prosecution’s documentary evidence, such as the extrajudicial confessions of Pancho
Jr and Dequillo, which were executed with the assistance of Atty. Mallare. Muit
executed 2 EJC, assisted by Atty. Vergara and Atty. De Jesus.
Dequillo claimed that he was tortured and was forced to sign a statement without
being allowed to read it. Pancho Jr claimed that he was also tortured and forced to
sign the written confession of his participation. Muit claimed that he was near the
place of the shootout, having just attended a gathering of the Rizalistas when the
police arrested him. He denied having knowledge of the crime, of knowing the people
whose names appeared in his EJCs, that the same were supplied by the police and
that he was not assisted by counsel during the custodial investigation.
RTC found appellants guilty, not giving credence to their claims that their EJCs were
procured through torture, as these were belied by the testimony of Atty Mallare and
appellants’ medical certificates. Moreover, even without the EJCs, there was still
sufficient evidence on record to hold them guilty. CA affirmed.
ISSUE(S): WoN the RTC erred in giving credence to their EJCs and to Ferraer’s
sworn statement and testimony – NO.
HELD:
There is nothing in the record to support appellants’ claim that they were coerced
and tortured into executing their extrajudicial confessions. One of the indicia of
voluntariness in the execution of appellants’ extrajudicial statements is that each
contains many details and facts which the investigating officers could not have known
and could not have supplied, without the knowledge and information given by
appellants.
Moreover, the appellants were assisted by their lawyers when they executed their
statements. Atty. Mallare testified that Pancho, Jr. and Dequillo executed their
statements voluntarily and affixed their signatures after he talked with them alone
and informed them of their constitutional rights. Muit, on the other hand, was
assisted by counsels in each instance when he executed his two extrajudicial
confessions; his second statement was even witnessed by his uncle, Bonifacio, and his
brother, Dominador. Muit cannot just conveniently disclaim any knowledge of the
contents of his extrajudicial confession. Nevertheless, in Muit’s case, he was also
positively identified by Seraspe and Chavez as the one who pointed a gun at them
during the kidnapping and ordered them to lay prostrate on the ground.
Appellants’ claims of torture are not supported by medical certificates from the
physical examinations done on them. These claims of torture were mere
afterthoughts as they were raised for the first time during trial. Appellants did not
even inform their family members who visited them while they were imprisoned
about the alleged tortures.

The extrajudicial confessions of Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Muit also strengthened
the prosecution’s case against Romeo. The rule that an extrajudicial confession is
evidence only against the person making it recognizes various exceptions. One such
exception is where several extrajudicial statements had been made by several persons
charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said
several confessions, the fact that the statements are in all material respects identical
is confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendants and is admissible against other
persons implicated therein. They are also admissible as circumstantial evidence
against the person implicated therein to show the probability of the latter’s actual
participation in the commission of the crime and may likewise serve as corroborative
evidence if it is clear from other facts and circumstances that other persons had
participated in the perpetration of the crime charged and proved. These are known
as “interlocking confessions”. Nonetheless, the RTC, in convicting Romeo, relied not
only on the aforesaid extrajudicial statements but also on Ferraer’s testimony that
Romeo was introduced to him in his house as the informant when they were planning
the kidnapping.

Page 2 of 2