G.R. Nos. 133570-71| January 15, 2002 | Panganiban, J.
| Soledad P200K in exchange of the information on the robbery case and killing of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. NERIO SUELA y HEMBRA, EDGAR
SUELA y HEMBRA and EDGARDO BATOCAN, appellants.
ISSUES
a) Whether the extrajudicial confession of the accused is admissible to prove their guilt
beyond resonable doubt of the crimes charged.
FACTS: (The very long facts are important in the case)
This is an automatic review on the RTC QC Jan. 26, 1998 Decision finding appellants guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and simple robbery as follows:
Criminal Case No. Q-96-64616 and Q-96-65071: accused Nerio, Edgar and Edgardo are
guilty beyond reasonable doubt (GBRD) of robbery with homicide (Par.1 , Art. 294 of RPC as
amended by RA 7659, with one aggravating circumstance, and no mitigating to offset it),
and each of them is sentenced to suffer death and indemnify the heirs of Geronimo Gabilo
y Hostellero.
Criminal Case No. Q-96-64618: accused Edgar was GBRDof simple robbery (Par 5, Art. 294
of RPCis to suffer indterminate peanlty of 6mos,1day of PC (min) and 4yrs, 2mos, 1day PC
(max).
Crim. Cases Nos. Q-96-64617 and Q-96-65072: Nerio, Eggar and Edgardo are
not guilty of Carnapping ( RA 6539, as amended by RA 7659, and acquits
them for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
Facts against Edgar Suela on CC No. Q-96-64616:
26 July 1995: The accused rob Hostallero at Melchor St. Xavierville Subd,
Loyola Heights by barging into the door of his house and once inside took,
robbed and carried away: Sony Trinitron, colored TV,3 cameras, assorted
jewelries and cash. Pursuant to theor conspiracy with intent to kill, they
stebbed with personal violence upon the person of Hostallero and inflicted
fatal wounds which were the immediate cause of the latter’s death.
Facts against Edgar Suela in CC No. Q-96-64618:
18 January 1996: In QC, Edgar with intent to gain rob Nilo Rosas Lanete.
Edgar called by phone to the Exec.Secrretary of Lanete and demanded for
Geronimo on July 26,1995.
24 September 1996: appelants with assistance of counsel, pleaded not
guilty, and were thus found guilty by the court a quo.
Version of the Prosecution (by the Solicitor General):
26 July 1995: Dir. Nilo Rosas at the masters bedroom of his residence at #95
B-5 A. Melchor Street, Xavierville Subd.,Loyola Heights, QC. He’s watching tv
with his adopted Norman and former co-teacher and friend Geronimo. Then,
3 persons with masks, bonnets and gloves, handguns and knife barged in
and shouted “dapa dapa.” The tallest malefactor(5’5”) turned off the
lights.The shortest (5’) poked a gun on Dir. Rosas’ chin, on his mouth, and
poked a knife on his neck. The second tallest (5’3”) threatened Rosas, “
Nakikita mo ba iyan? Nararamdaman mo ba iyan? To which he replied, “opo
opo.” The malefactors then demanded for the money. However, Dir. Rosas
did not order to bring out the money even Geronimo advised him. So
Geronimo took the money and handed it to the shortes malefactor. Forced
to reveal that he has money, Dir. Rosas told that the key to the closet is in his
wallet.Thereafter, the second tallest malefactor took the money in his wallet
and key. When the 2nd tallest opened the suitcase, he failed and ordered Dir.
Rosas but also failed because his hands were tied. Subsequently the suitcase
was opened by the 2nd tallest who took all the valuables (gold-plated Citizen
wristwatch, P300K,rings and bracelets). The malefactors also took with them
cameras and bottles of cologne. The malefactors then left leaving Dir. Rosas
lying on the floow, took Geronimo’s car key and dragged him downstairs. The
2nd talles warned Di.r Rosas and said, “ Mabait ka, mabait ka,” but warned
him not to follow them because, “puputok and granada sa daanan mo.” Dir.
Rosas was supposed to follow them but his adopted Norman said, “ Daddy,
daddy huwag kang sumunod, baka patayin ka nila.” Their Nissan Sentra car
with plate no. TEB-258 was carted away with their Sony Trinitron tv set.
When the malefactors left, they saw Geronimo dead on the floor in his
blood. Their neighbor who is a doctor was the first to assist them and they
brough Geronimo to QC Medical Center and was pronounce DOA.
27 July 1995: Upon receiving a report of the death of Geronimo, Capt.
Casanova, SPO3 Patriarca and SPO2 resurrection of Quirino District Police
Station,QC (QDPS) went to the crime scene. It was found that Geronimo died
due to 5 stab wounds and all persons present on the house were
summoned, and subjected to a lie detector test by the NBI, but the results
were negative. The Nissan Sentra was retrieved because it was abandoned
and a black bonnet was found inside.
15 January 1996: After 5 months there was no leads to the case, but on this
day a call was received by Dir. Rosas’ secretary Tubaga at his DECS office in
QC. The male person requested for the director and told the secretary that
he is willing to give information as to the identity and whereabouts of the
ones responsible for the death of his friend, Geronimo, in exhangeof P300K.
The director then is willing to give only P200K. Dir. Rosas accompanied by
Tubaga went to QDPSand planned with Capt. casanova to entrap the caller.
On 16 Janury 1996, the unidentified caller said that he is accepting his offer,
and instructed Dir. Rosas to meet at Ninoy Aquino Park, QC. He told Tubaga
to bring the P200K and flowers so he could identify her.
17 January 1996: at 10AM, Tubaga and the entrapment team waited for the
unidentified caller who later at 5PM told Tubaga that they’ll meet the next
day. The money was placed inside a Unilane FoodMart plastic bag. The next
day, the man approach Tubaga and while untying the plastic bag, the police
officers effected his arrest. The person was later identified as Egdar Suela.
The envelope handed by Edgar was opened by Capt.Casanova in his
presence whoch reads: 1. Nerio Suela ang utak nang pag-paslang; 2. TV
color
and ibedensia nasa bahay niya. Ang tunay na pangalan National ngayon ay
pinalitan nang Panasonic; 3. Ang knife na ginamit nasa bahay niya.
Edgar Suela admitted that he wrote the letter and revealed that Nerio Suela
is his brother and the driver of Dir. Rosas. Nerio was then arrested at Dir.
Rosas’ office, and confirmed the contents of Edgar’s letter. Nerio was
accompanied by the police officers to his residence in Kaibigan St., Kalayaan,
Brgy. Batasan Hils, QC and recovered the Sony trinitron tv and knife with a
wooden scabbard.
While under detention, the Suelas expressed their desire to give an extra-
judicial confession. On 19 January 1996, 4-5PM. SPO3 Patriarca with Capt.
Casanova and anothe police officer brought the Suelas to the IBP office. Atty.
Susano separately interviewed the Suela brothers, informed them of their
constitutional rights, and insured that they understood their confession,
physically examined them for any sign of maltreatment or force, and after
satisfying himself that the suspects’ intention was voluntary and it was his
legal assistance that they are willing to secure, he allowed the police to take
down their extra-judicial confessions. Atty. Susano was present all
throughout the time when the Suelas were individually propounded with
questions. Before the Asst. City Prosecutor, they affirmed their confessions
under oath in the presence of Atty. Susano.
20 January 1996: the Suelas were brougth before the Asst. Prosecutor
Ibuyan for inquest investigation where they again affirmed under oath the
contents of their extra-judicial confessions (EJC). In their EJC they mentioned
that their townmate Edgardo Batocan is a participant in the crime, so he was
included in the warrant of arrest.
2nd week of March: the team of SPO3 Patriaraca, Capt. Abalos, and SPO2
Casica, together with the father of Suela brothers, went to Jaro, Leyte to
serve the warrant of arrest of Batocan, and was effected. Batocan was
brought to Manila and was detained at QCPS9. The operatives was able to
recover the gold-plated Citizen watch of Rosas from Batocan’s girlfriend at
Brgy. San agustin Jaro, leyte. The brand-new Honda motorcycle was brought
o Manila also as his share from the loot of the robbery. While in police
custody, Batocan indicated hios desire to give EJC. On 31 March 1996,
3:30PM, Batocan was brought by SPO3 Resurrection to the same IBP office
and gave his EJC in the presence and with assistance of Atty. Rous, which
statement he subscribed before an Asst. Prosecutor and later re-affirmed
before an inquest Fiscal.
Version of the Defense (by the Public Attorneys office):
26 July 1995; Batocan was in his hometown in Jaro, Leyte as a farmer. In
March 1996 and while on board a motorcycle, Batocan was arrested. He
bought his motorcycle from his uncle and the money was given to him by his
sister, and no gold wristwatch was seized from him. He was brought to QDPS
and said that he had no knowledge nor particpation in the crime on 26 July
1995 at Dir. Rosas residence.He was only forced by the police officers to
admit and confes, and sign a typewritten EJC. No lawyer was present that
time and he only met Atty. Rous for the first time in court. He only saw but
did not talk to Atty. Rous in IBP office. The Asst.City prosecutor for inquest
did not explain to him the contents of his written statement and no copy was
given to him. He only reached 1 st year high school. He did not complain to
the fiscal nor any government agency about the coercion and threats except
to his lawyer, Atty. Tabanag and his brother Jimmy. The Suela’s only pointed
him because they thought the police will not pursue Batocan. They were
ones barriomates in Jaro, until he came to Manila to work in 1992 until 1994.
Nerio worked as driver of Dir. Rosas at DECS from 1993-1995. Geronimo
Gabilo was his former co-employee. In June and July 1995, Nerio was at
home recurperating from an appendectomy operation. He went back to
work on 20 July 1995 and learned the demise of Gerry Gabilo. The BI did not
investigate him until his arrest on 18 january 1996. He had no knowledge of
the killing of GerryGabilo nor in the robbery that occured in the residence of
Dir. Rosas. After his arrest, he was brought to Danarra Hotel where he was
boxed and his head was submerged in the toilet bowl. He was forced to sign
a piece of paper (supposed EJC) without reading it, and he also met his
brother Edgar. Then he was brought to his house where the police took his
tv, and knife. Dir. Rosas gave hin the tv after Gabilo;s death, and he did not
notice why the Sony barnd was replaced by National. He could not recall the
lawyer in the City Hall. The lawyer asked him if it is his signature on the
paper and did not ask further. He was not informed that the paper was his
alleged admission to the crimes for which he was arrested and detained. He
met Atty. Susano for the first time during the hearing and not on 19 January
1996. After such, he was brought before the Asst. City Prosecutor. Nerio
suffered hematomas (pasa) from the ishandling of the police but did not
show them to the Asst. Prosecutor and teh IBP Lawyers. He recanted his
confession in his counter-affidavit.Nerio knows Batocan since they grew up
together. On 26 July 1995, Nerio asserted that he was at home at Batasan
Hills playing chess with a neighbor Tancio at the time if teh incient.While
inside his prison cell, Nerio was convinced by his officemates in DECS-NCR
and by capt. Casanova to write Dir. Rosas a ltter merely dicateted to him by
the police.
Edgar admits calling Dir. Rosas and proposed a trade off of P200K in
exchange of the information of the identities and whereabouts of the
robbers, because he learned form Nerio that Dir. Rosas placed a reward
money for whoever can provide such information. He was apprehended and
changed the original note as forced and dictated by the police. During his
investigation, the police employed threats and physical force to ake him
admit to the crime and to sign a statementor confession, although he has no
knowledge of the killing of Gerry Gabilo nor about the robbers. On 26 July
1995, he was on duty as security guard of Hoctagon Security Agency at
Northridge Elementary School. He said that Batocan was his acquaintance
since childhood and the last time he saw him was in 1990 at Jaro, Leyte he
learned about Gerry Gabilo’s death when he came back to Manila after his
weddong in November 1995. Joselito Jacinto testified that nerio wanted him
to repair the tv which defect is only to the channeling. Dionesio Ador had
seen Batocan in Jaro, Leyte on 26 july 1995, and with his old red Honda
motorbike in December 1995. Ador doesn’t know the Suela brothers, and
said that Batocan never left their place.
Ruling of the Trial Court
The appellants ahd been ASSISTED by COMPETENT and INDEPENDENT COUNSEL during
the execution fo the extrajudicial confession. It gave credence to Atty. Sansano and the police
officers thus admitted in evidence the said confessions. The letter of Nerio to Dir. Rosas
asking for forgiveness, as well a sthe discovery of the stolen TV set and knife in the former’s
house, convinced the trial court of their guilt; and also found an aggravating circumstance of
disguise, with no mitigating circumstance to offset it. They were sentenced to death. Hence,
this automatic review.
HELD:
1) On the first issue - Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions, Section 12 of Article II of the
1987 Constitution provides that:
(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 writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will
shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incomunicado, or other similar forms
of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.

People v. Labtan: The right to counsel is fundamental, and not sufficient that a lawyer sits
beside the accuse.The lawyer must advise and assist his client from the first time the
confessant answers teh question of the investigating officer, until teh signing of the
extrajudicial confession. The lawyer must make sure that the confession was done voluntarily,
and the confessant understood the nature and consequence of his confession in relation to
his constitutional rights. The contrary rule against his constitutional right to remain silent, to
counsel, and to presumed innocent must not be allowed.
People v. Deniega: The counsel’s role in custodial investigation is meaningless if he merely
gives perfunctory advise, and if it is cursory as to be useless, there is no voluntariness. The
constitutional right of the accused is also impaired if the counsel is merely to witness the
signing of a pre-prepared document, against Section 12(1) of Art. III. This provision avoids the
practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the person being
interrogated, and ensures that the accused is informed of his waiver of his right to self-
incrimination.
With reagrd to Edgardo Batocan, his extrajudicial confession was obtained in violation
of his constitutional rights.He did not finish high school. Atty. Rous only interviewed
him for 5 minutes, and not sure if Batocan understood the consequences of such EJC;
and his attention was divided on the custodial investigation and another paper work.
The Court is not convinced that Atty. Rous fully explained to Batocan his constitutional
rights, and the nature and circumstances of his EJC- explanations that would enable
Batocan to make an informed judgment on whetehr to confess. There was no showing
that Atty. Rpus explained the choices or option of the appellant- a duty of any counsel
under the circumstances.
Atty. Susano was incapable or unwilling to advise appellants that remaining silent was a right
they could freely exercise without fear of untoward consequence. He could have stopped
clients from answering the propounded questions. The process of investigation could have
been obstructed should not have concerned him, because his duty was to his clients, and not
to the prosecution or police investigators. He did not even ask for the gist of the appellants’
proposed statements.
People v. dela Cruz: confessions characterized by deficiences in informing the accused of all
is rights is inadmissible, perforated, and by non-comliance with he procedural and substantive
safeguards of teh Bills of Rights, and statutory law.
Where the prosecution failed to discharged the State’s burden of proving with clear
and convincing evidence that the accused had enjoyed effective and vigilant counsel
before he extrajudicially admitted his guilt, the extrajudicial confession caanot be given
a probative value. Thus, the extrajudical confession of the three appelllants are this
inadmissible in evience.
OTHER ISSUES:
a) Admissibility of the Wristwatch and the Letter: The wristwatch was a fruit of a
poisonous tree. It was taken wiothout a search warrant and not as incident of a valid arrest.
The seizure was irregular. It was not shown if the girlfriend voluntarily and validly consented to
the taking. Lack of evidence, and no presumption of regularity. When the search os
counducted with irregularity, the Court cannot appreciate consent based on such
presumption. With reagrd to the letter, it was properly identified. Nerio was no longer under
custodial investigation when he wrote it. In open court, he admitted writing it. The fact that he
was assigned no counsel when he wrote it will not make it inadmissible in evidence. Rule son
custodial investigation does not apply to spontaneous statements, elicited not through
questioning by the authorities.
b) Liability for Robbery with Homicide: Batocan;s confession to Rosas who is not a police
officer is inadmissible in evidence. The Rules provides that the declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged or any offense included may be given in
evidence against him. Batocan’s verbal declaration are not covered by Sections 12(1) and (3)
of Article III, because they were not extracted while he was under custodial investigation. In
People v. Twat : Any person, otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the confession is
competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard. An oral confession need not be
repeated verbatim. The pieces of evidence sufficiently prove beyind reasonable doubt the
commission of the crime of robbery with homice.
c) Identities of Appellants as Malefactors: Batocan’s oral admission to Rosas that he
stabbed Gabilo 5 times give material points on the letter of Nerio. In turn, Nerio’s letter to
Rosas asking forgiveness meant he admitted his participation in the crime, together with the
recovery of the stolen materials on his house. Also, Batocan’s oral admission and written tip of
Edgar pointing him as mastermind prove beyond reasonable doubt his identity as malefactor.
Evidence as to the identity of Edgar is circumstantial in character.
It is basic that an accused may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial
evidence alone, provided that: (a) there is more than one circumstance, (b)
the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and (c) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.In the present case, all these requirements are
satisfied. These circumstances may be summarized, thus: (1) Edgar's intimate
personal knowledge of the details of the crime which he wrote down as tips;
(2) as a security guard, he possessed a gun on the night of the incident; (3)
he was the brother of one of the malefactors and a friend of the other; (4)
the interlocking admissions to Director Rosas of Batocan and his
brother Nerio point to Edgar as their cohort; (5) Rosas also identified him as
one of the malefactors. These are duly proven circumstances which
sufficiently establish beyond reasonable doubt his identity as one of the
malefactors.
d) Conspiracy: The acts of the appellants before, during and after the crime
indicated demonstrated the existence of a common design towards
accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose. All appelllants will be liable
as principals. They are liable to the joint and concerted action as principals
because of the existence of conspiracy. Whenever the complex crime of
robbery with homicide is proven, all who took part are liable as principals,
even though they did not take part in the killing.
e) Robbery: On the trial court’s sentence of robbery in CC No, Q-96-64618,
the Court agrees with the Solicitor General’s recommendation that Edgar
Suela should be acquitted. The prosecution failed to prove that Edgar
employed force or intimidation on Rosas. There was no showing that Edgar
exerted intimidation on him so as to leave him no choice but to give the
money. What is clear is that the giving of the money was done out of fear,
but because it was a choice Rosas opted because he wanted to get the
information. The elements of simple robbery have not been established,
hence Edgar should eb acquitted.
The Appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED and the appealed Decision is MODIFIED.
The Court affirmed the judgment in Ciminal Case No. Q-96-64616 and Q-96-
65071 but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. Criminal Case No. Q-
96-64618 for simple robbery, Edgar Suela is acquitted.