G.R. Nos. 92961-64 September 1, 1993 3. In Criminal Case No. 6438, finding accused Benjamin C.

Magpayo guilty beyond

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery and sentences him to an indeterminate
vs. penalty of one (1) year, seven (7) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional,
BENJAMIN C. MAGPAYO, accused-appellant. as minimum, to six (6) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days of prision mayor, as
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. maximum, to indemnify Jacquiline Yutuc Jaime in the amount of P1,000.00 and to pay
Fortunato F.L. Viray for accused-appellant. the costs; and
  4. In Criminal Case No. 6443, finding accused Benjamin C. Magpayo guilty beyond
BIDIN, J.: reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape, as defined
Appellant Benjamin C. Magpayo was charged with Rape, Robbery, Robbery with Hold-up and Forcible and penalized under Articles 335 and 342, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Abduction with Rape before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon in four (4) separate complaints and Code and sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify Mara
informations allegedly committed as follows: Chico in the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.
Criminal Case No. 6436 (RAPE) SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 98)
That on or about the 10th day of April, 1988, in the Municipality of Malabon, Metro Appellant appeals from the aforementioned joint decision of the court a quo and assigns the following as
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- errors:
named accused with lewd designs, and by means of force and intimidation, willfully, I
unlawfully, and feloniously did, then and there, have sexual intercourse with the THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
undersigned complainant, (Lilibeth Bobis) against her will, a minor who is under 11 REASONABLE DOUBT IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 6436-MN, 6347-MN, 6438-
years old. MN AND 6443-MN, DESPITE ABSENCE OF PROOF THAT HE IS THE
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Rollo, p. 8) PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIMES CHARGED.
Criminal Case No. 6437 (ROBBERY) II
That on or about the 10th day of April, 1988, in the Municipality of Malabon, Metro THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT OF ROBBERY IN
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable, the above-named CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 6437 AND 6438 NOTWITHSTANDING FAILURE OF
accused with intent to gain, by means of force, violence and intimidation and without THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE
the consent of the owner, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously OFFENSE, ASSUMING ARGUENDO, THAT APPELLANT IS THE
take, rob and divest one LILIBETH BOBIS y BUGAYONG of her cash money PERPETRATOR THEREOF.
amounting to P27.00; to the damage and prejudice of the said LILIBETH BOBIS y III
BUGAYONG in the aforementioned amount of P27.00. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPLYING SECTION 34, RULE 130 OF THE
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Rollo, p. 9) REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE IN CONVICTING APPELLANT.
Criminal Case No. 6438 (ROBBERY WITH HOLD-UP) IV
That on or about the month of February, 1988, in the Municipality of Malabon, Metro THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING MORAL DAMAGES AND COSTS
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- NOTWITHSTANDING ABSENCE OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF THAT
named accused, with intent to gain by means of force, violence and intimidation and HE IS GUILTY OR THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIMES CHARGED.
without the consent of the owner, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and (Appellant's Brief, p.11)
feloniously take, rob and divest one JACQUILINE YUTUC-JAIME of her gold erring The facts of the cases involved in this appeal are summarized by the Solicitor General as follows:
(sic) and gold ring, worth P1,000.00; to the damage and prejudice of the said Criminal Cases 6436 and 6437-MN
JACQUILINE YUTUC-JAIME. At 9:30 in the morning of April 10, 1988, the 10-year old complainant Lilibeth Bobis,
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Rollo, p.10) went to the Malabon market to get money from her parents to buy milk for her younger
Criminal Case No. 6443 (FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE) sister. After receiving P26.00 from them, she proceeded to the store near their house
That sometime during the month of November 1987, in the Municipality of Navotas, but before reaching it, she paused in front of Betsy's Restaurant near the municipal
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the building. There she was approached by appellant, who accused her of involvement in a
above-named accused, take the person of MARA N. CHICO, who is under 12 years of theft of coffee. Lilibeth denied the accusation but appellant told her that the thief had a
age, at knife point to a vacant lot where the said accused did, then the there, willfully, tattoo on the back (tsn, July 25, 1988, pp. 2-3). Appellant then demanded threateningly
unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation have carnal knowledge that she go with him as they would look at some boxes and broken bottles, and for her
with the undersigned complainant against her will and consent. to tell fully that she had nothing to do with the theft.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Rollo, p. 11) They proceeded to the San Bartolome Church, which they circled twice, and then
Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to all the charges. After trial, he was found guilty of entered the cemetery beside the church. Once inside, Lilibeth, upon the prodding of
all the offenses charged in a joint decision rendered by the trial court, the dispositive portion of which reads: appellant, raised her blouse to show that she had no tattoo. But appellant said: "Ano
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: ang gusto mo, kakantutin ka o makakauwi ka ng buhay." For fear of her life, Lilibeth
1. In Criminal Case No. 6436, finding accused Benjamin C. Magpayo guilty beyond pleaded with appellant not to kill her. Then appellant removed his shorts and inserted
reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and sentences him to suffer the penalty of his organ into her mouth while she was seated on the ground. He removed Lilibeth's
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify Lilibeth Bobis in the amount of P30,000.00 as moral shorts and panty and she was made to sit on a bench. Appellant parted her legs and
damages and to pay the costs; inserted his organ into hers while he was in a standing position.
2. In Criminal Case No. 6437, finding accused Benjamin C. Magpayo guilty beyond After his coitus with her, appellant took the P26.00 of Lilibeth and warned her to keep
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery and sentences him to an indeterminate quiet as he was not alone and that she should not leave until he has gotten out of the
penalty of one (1) year, seven (7) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, cemetery. Lilibeth told appellant to leave and that she would not complain to the police
as minimum, to six (6) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days of prision mayor, as (Ibid., pp. 4-7).
maximum, to indemnify Lilibeth Bobis in the amount of P26.00 and to pay the costs; When she was certain that appellant had already left, Lilibeth put on her clothing and
went back to her mother at the market, to whom she told that she was raped.
Thereafter, both of them informed her father of the matter and they all proceeded to the and panty, after which he removed his shorts and brief, placed himself on top of Mara,
police station, where they were advised to go to the National Bureau of Investigation and inserted his organ into hers. Mara cried out because of the pain. Thereafter,
(NBI) to have Lilibeth examined (Ibid., p. 8). appellant left the place (Ibid., pp. 3-5).
Upon examination by Dr. Roberto V. Garcia of the NBI at 1:05 PM on the same day, Mara and Daniel then ran towards a nearby motorshop where they told the owner that
the following findings were revealed: they were lost. The motorshop owner asked jeepney driver to take them back to the
Labia majora, gaping. Labia minora, coaptated. Fourchette, market, from where they were able to get home. Mara then told her mother what
tense. Vestibular mucosa, contused. Hymen originally annular, happened (Ibid., pp. 6-7), and both went to the police station of Malabon where they
moderately tall and thick, with healing complete laceration at were advised to go to the NBI for examination. The medical examination conducted by
3:00; deep laceration at 9:00; and superficial laceration at 7:00 Dr. Louella I. Mario at 4:00 PM of the same day revealed the following findings:
o'clock positions, edges of these are edematous, with fibrin Pubic hair, no growth. Labia Majora and minora, slightly gaping.
formation, and bleeding on slight manipulation. Hymenal Fourchette, tense. Vestibular mucosa, congested. Hymen, thin,
orifice, admits a tube, 2.0 cm. in diameter, with marked narrow, with fresh lacerations, complete at 2:00 o'clock and 9:00
resistance. Vaginal walls, tight. Rugosities, prominent. o'clock positions and compound at 6:00 o'clock position
CONCLUSIONS: extending to the fossa navicularis, edges bleeding profusely.
1. No evident sign of any extragenital physical injury noted on Hymenal orifice, originally annular, admits a tube, 2.5 cm. in
the body of the subject at the time of examination. diameter with moderate resistance. Vaginal walls, tight.
2. Healing hymenal lacerations present, consistent with sexual Rugosities, prominent.
intercourse about the time of commission. (Exhs. "D", "D"-2) CONCLUSIONS:
(Record, p. 47) 1. The above-described extragenital physical injury was noted on
Lilibeth also have a description of the rapist to the NBI artist, who, on the basis thereof, the body of the subject at the time of examination.
made a sketch (Record, p. 52) of the rapist's face, a copy of which was given by her 2. Genital findings compatible with sexual intercourse with man
father, Wilfredo Bobis, to the Malabon Police. on or about the alleged date of commission. (Record, p. 38)
On May 22, 1988, Mr. Bobis was informed that the alleged rapist had been arrested in Mara also gave a description of the rapist to an NBI artist who drew the suspect's face.
connection with another case and was being detained at the police station. Lilibeth and She likewise executed a sworn statement of the incident (Record, p. 36). On May 22,
her father immediately went to the station where she positively identified appellant as 1988, appellant was arrested in connection with another crime and, while being
her rapist, after referring to the shape of his nose as "matangos" and the eyes as detained at the Malabon Police Station, he was positively identified by Mara as the one
"singkit". On the same day, Lilibeth was also investigated and she executed a sworn who abused her (tsn, December 12, 1988, p. 8). (Appellee's Brief, pp. 5-13)
statement (Record, p. 44). In offenses involving rape, this Court has set three (3) basic guiding principles in reviewing such cases: (1) an
accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove, but more difficult for the person accused,
though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two (2)
Criminal Case No. 6438 (For Robbery Hold-Up) persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and
Sometime in February, 1988, private complainant Jacquiline Yutuc Jaime, then 8 years (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw
old, was walking alone on Rivera Street in Malabon, Metro Manila, when she was strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense (People v. Casinillo, 213 SCRA 777 [1992];
accosted by appellant who accused her of stealing a cart. Despite her denials, appellant People v. Calixtro, 193 SCRA 303 [1991]).
insisted that they go to the police station, and Jacquiline consented. Instead, she was In other words in resolving whether or not rape was committed, the evidence for conviction must be clear and
brought to the cemetery beside San Bartolome Church where she was divested of her convincing to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence (People v. Tiwaken, 213 SCRA 701
gold earrings and a ring with red stone, valued at P1,000.00, given by her father as a [1992]).
birthday gift. Thereafter, appellant told her to go home (tsn, January 16, 1989, pp. 2-4). Appellant vehemently questions the trial court's decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt because
Upon arriving home, she told her parents about the incident, after which they the prosecution witnesses allegedly failed to positively identify him. He avers that when he was arrested to
immediately went to the police authorities to report the matter. answer for an alleged wrongdoing on May 22, 1988, complainants were hesitant to point at him and kept on
On May 22, 1988, she and her mother Emmanuela Yutuc were fetched by the Malabon looking at their parents.
Police as appellant had just been arrested in connection with another robbery case. At Under the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the lingering shock caused by such harrowing
the police station, Jacquiline positively identified appellant as the one who took her experience at the hands of appellant could have caused the minor complainants to hesitate in directly
jewelry. On the same day, she executed a sworn statement (tsn, April 17, 1989, pp. 4-7; identifying him. Hence, the fact that complainants kept on looking at their parents is of no moment. They
Record, p. 41). were simply scared, looked at their parents for assurance, and such initial hesitation could by no means
Criminal Case No. 6443-MN (For Forcible Abduction with Rape) indicate that complainants were guilty of fabrication.
At 10:30 in the morning of November 20, 1987, then 11-year old Mara N. Chico, Although Lilibeth Bobis admitted that she was not able to immediately identify the appellant at the police
herein private complainant, was with her younger brother Daniel in front of King's station after his arrest, she declared that she thought it over very carefully if the appellant was indeed the
Store at the Malabon Central Market, upon instruction of their mother to buy "sago". offender (TSN, December 15, 1988, p. 11). The crime was committed on April 10, 1988 or one (1) month
At the said place, they were approached by appellant, who asked her if she was before Lilibeth Bobis was again confronted with the man who had sexually abused her.
involved in a theft of Nescafe coffee, and to which she answered in the negative. Appellant points out, however, that his actual physical features vary with the sketches prepared by the NBI
Appellant thereafter asked her if she knew someone by the name of Neneng, and when artists based on the description of the offender given by complainants Bobis and Chico (Exhs. 1 and 2). But
she answered in the affirmative, appellant suddenly poked a sharp instrument at her this is beside the point. Given the immaturity of complainants, it is of course natural that the sketches of
neck and forced her and Daniel to go with him (tsn, December 12, 1988, pp. 2-3). appellant based on the descriptions given by them would somehow differ with appellant's actual physical
The three then boarded a pedicab and alighted somewhere in Dagat-Dagatan, Navotas, features.
Metro Manila. They walked to a grassy portion where Daniel was told by appellant to What is important is that Bobis remembered the square shape of appellant's face, his eyes to be "singkit" and
stay at a corner, while appellant brought Mara to another portion with "talahib" growth, his nose as "matangos" (TSN, December 15, 1989, pp. 11-15). Indeed, familiarity with the physical features,
about four meters away. Appellant then laid her on the ground and removed her shorts
particularly those of the face, is actually the best way to identify the person (People v. Reception, 198 SCRA and was arrested near the said church on May 22, 1988 on account of having taken the wristwatch of an
670 [1991]). eleven year old girl (Ibid., pp. 7 & 9).
Appellant tries to convince Us that the respective testimonies of the three complainants identifying his as the It has been repeatedly held that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the appellant was
guilty party stemmed from their being influenced or conditioned by the police authorities to believe that he somewhere else when the crime was committed, but must likewise demonstrate that he could not have been
was the person guilty of the offenses charged; and thus making it appear that the authorities were able to have physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission (People v.
solved the crimes reported (Appellant's Brief, pp. 28-29). Ocimar, 212 SCRA 646 [1992]).
It is an oft-repeated rule that police officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly and in the Appellant also assails the application of the doctrine of res inter alios acta (Sec. 34, Rule 130 of the Revised
absence of any evidence to the contrary, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit (People v. Rules of Evidence) allegedly because the similarity of the acts involved (i.e., molestation) was not
Tubora, 212 SCRA 32 [1992]. There being not a scintilla of evidence to prove ill-motive on the part of the sufficiently established.
police officers in the instant cases, their testimonies are to be respected. After careful review of the records before us, we hold that the trial court committed no error in applying the
Appellant also argues that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of robbery since no exception to the above doctrine. The Rules provide:
evidence was offered by the prosecution to prove that violence or intimidation was inflicted upon Sec. 34. Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence that one did or did not a certain thing at
complainants. one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at
We disagree. While it is true that complainant Yutuc testified that the man who took her jewelry did not force another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity,
or hurt her and just asked for her earrings and ring (TSN, February 27, 1989, pp. 5-6), this does not preclude plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like (Emphasis supplied.)
the findings of the trial court that robbery with intimidation was committed. Intimidation is a relative term, As a rule, evidence is not admissible which shows or tends to show, that the accused in a criminal case has
just like force and violence, depending on the age, size and strength of the parties and their relationship with committed a crime wholly independent of the offense for which he is on trial. It is not competent to prove that
each other (People v. Alvarez, 213 SCRA 722 [1992]; People v. Natan, 193 SCRA 355 [1991]). The offended he committed other crimes of a like nature for the purpose of showing that he committed the crime charged in
parties in these cases are of tender ages — all below twelve years of age. the complaint or information.
In accordance with the findings of the court a quo appellant had imputed on Lilibeth Bobis and Jacquiline An exception to this rule is when such evidence tends directly to establish the particular crime, and it is
Yutuc, the commission of the crime of theft which must have inspired fear in their young minds, prompting usually competent to prove the motive, the intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or
them to obey the former and not to resist when the appellant deprived them of their personal property, plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to
particularly Lilibeth, who also lost her virginity to appellant (Rollo, p. 96; Joint Decision, p. 7). establish the other, or the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial.
With regard to the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape committed against the person of 11-year old Mara In the case at bar, evidence was introduced in Criminal Case No. 6443 (Forcible Abduction with Rape)
Chico, appellant claims that the testimony of complainant Chico should not have been considered by the trial committed by appellant against 11-year old Mara N. Chico on November 20, 1987, not as evidence of similar
court since it was not corroborated by Chico's younger brother and the pedicab driver. acts to prove that on April 10, 1988, the said appellant also committed a similar act of rape (and robbery)
We find appellant's contention unmeritorious. It is well settled that the testimony of a single witness, free against the person of 10-year old Lilibeth Bobis (Criminal Case No. 6436). These offenses are separate
from any signs of impropriety or falsehood, is sufficient to convict an accused, even if uncorroborated. In the crimes and are the subject of separate complaints and proofs though jointly tried. Hence, the evidence in one
instant case, the testimonies of eight-year old Daniel and the pedicab driver would have been merely was not offered and admitted to prove the other but only to show the plan, scheme or modus operandi of the
corroborative. Furthermore, there is no showing that the privilege to present Chico's brother and the pedicab offender.
driver was withheld from appellant. In any event, the prosecution has the prerogative to present as many As aptly noted by the trial court:
witnesses it deems proper and the non-presentation of some does not militate against the State for the number It is to be observed that in all the above-entitled cases, the modus operandi of the
of such witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the prosecuting officers. offender is that of approaching young girls of not more than twelve years of age, and
Thus, the testimony of Mara Chico, if positive, reasonable and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction taking advantage of their innocence, imputed to them the commission of a crime and
especially if her testimony bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and had been delivered spontaneously, brought them to an isolated place where the offenses charged were committed. These
naturally and in a straightforward manner (People v. Javier, 182 SCRA 830 [1990]). Corroborative evidence young girls narrated in detail in a clear and convincing manner what the offender did to
is necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his them and likewise positively identified said offender as herein accused during the
observation had been inaccurate (People v. Dela Cruz, 207 SCRA 632 [1992]). investigation at the Malabon Police Station on May 22, 1988 immediately after the
In the present case, such criteria were more than met by the testimony of the young and innocent victim who arrest of the accused, as well as during the trial. Thus, Section 34, Rule 130 of the
could not have possibly concocted her testimony. Where the victims are of tender years, "there is a marked Revised Rules of Evidence provides that evidence that one did or did not do a certain
receptivity on its (the Court's) part to lend credence to their version of what transpired," a matter that is not to thing at one time may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity,
be wondered at, since the State, as parens patriae, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage and the like. (Rollo, p. 28; Joint Decision,
those who, because of their minority are not yet able to fully protect themselves (People v. Cabodac, 208 p. 6)
SCRA 787 [1992] citing People v. Baylon, 57 SCRA 114 [1974]). Appellant concludes that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is well-
Indeed, it is inconceivable for a parent of a child of tender age to fabricate a rape charge, subject her daughter settled that for a conviction to occur, absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded. Only moral certainty as to
to physical examination and embarrassment of a public trial which, if not true, would taint her reputation for the presence of the elements constituting the offense, as well as to the identity of the offender, is required; in
the rest of her life. Moreover, no woman especially of tender age would concoct a story of defloration, allow short, what is needed is that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind (People v.
an examination of her private parts and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial if she Casinillo, supra). The conscience must be satisfied that upon the accused could be laid the responsibility for
was not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished (People v. Yambao, 193 the offense charged: that not only did he perpetrate the act but, that it amounted to a crime (People v. Ramos,
SCRA 571 [1991]). 162 SCRA 804 [1988]).
Just as unavailing is appellant's defense of alibi. He claims that he was at home at Pilapil, Tondo, Manila on In the present case, We see no cogent reason to depart from the ruling of the trial court. The prosecution has
November 20, 1987 with his common-law wife and her three minor children. During those days when the satisfactorily established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was the author of the crimes charged in the
crimes charged were committed, appellant denies having gone to Malabon. aforementioned informations. Appellant should not be allowed to escape the punishment he deserves for his
However, appellant failed to show that it was impossible for him to be in the crime scene at the time the said bestial acts. As this Court ruled in People v. Desuyo (164 SCRA 210 [1988]):
crimes were committed. In order to be given full faith and credit, alibi must be clearly established and must Defilers of woman are an especially despicable ilk of evil men, and more so those who
not leave any room for doubt as to its plausibility and verity (People v. Simon, 209 would inflict their lasciviousness upon innocent and defenseless children. They are
SCRA 148 [1992]). Indeed, appellant even admitted that he was familiar with San Bartolome Church in filthier than the slime where they belong. Whatever punishment is imposed on them
Malabon (TSN, September 4, 1989, p. 7) and further testified that he used to reside in Longos, Dagat-Dagatan
 can never expiate their loathsome offense, for which forgiveness itself from a mortal On the same morning at about the same time that the three minor children partook of the poisoned bread,
court, at least, would be a sin. three (3) puppies of Ceferino Velasco under the balcony also died of poisoning.
WHEREFORE the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant. Earlier that same morning at about 6:00 o'clock, Ceferino Velasco, father of the victims, was seen throwing
SO ORDERED. poisoned rats into a river near his house. Investigations were conducted by Cpl. Bucot and Pat. Arturo
Ventuso both of the Police Department of San Rafael, Bulacan. Upon their arrival, they saw the dead bodies
of Michael and Annabel in the house of Ceferino Velasco and the dead puppies under the balcony. They also
saw several pieces of sliced pan scattered in the sala of the house, near the balcony, and under the balcony.
They picked up some pieces of sliced bread under the balcony, wrapped them in a piece of paper and
submitted them to a chemist for examination. It was found that the bread contained endrin, a poisonous
insecticide. The two minor children, Michael and Annabel, were also autopsied and the necropsy reports
showed that both children died of poisoning by endrin. Samples of the blood and internal organs of both
Michael and Annabel were also examined by a chemist and it was found that they contained endrin.
The evidence of the prosecution and the defense conflict as to the source of the poisoned bread. The evidence
of the prosecution shows that the poisoned bread was given to the children by Alfonso Valero alias Pipe, a
deaf-mute brother of the defendant Lucila Valero, and that it was Lucila Valero who gave the bread to Pipe
for delivery to the minor children. On the other hand, the defendant Lucila Valero denies that she ever gave
bread to her deaf-mute brother, Pipe, for delivery to the minor children. The evidence for the defense tends to
show that the Velasco children might have eaten one of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in
poisoning rats in his garden.
It is not denied that Ceferino Velasco has a vegetable garden in his yard. He uses an insecticide called Polidol
to spray the vegetable and uses the same insecticide to kill rats. According to the testimony of the defendant,
which was never rebutted by Ceferino Velasco, Ceferino also planted vegetables in the yard of the defendant
whose house is just across the street from the house of Ceferino Velasco. She further testified that Ceferino
dipped sliced bread into an insecticide called endrin, dried them up and later used the poisoned bread as a bait
to kill rats in the yard located by the side of his house. 1
More of the controversial facts will be presented in the following discussion.
We first discuss and assess the evidence for the prosecution. Out of the nine witnesses for the prosecution
three witnesses, namely Rodolfo Quilang, Federico Jaime, and Ceferino Velasco were presented to prove that
the defendant Lucila Valero gave the poisoned bread to her deaf-mute brother Pipe with the alleged
instruction to deliver the bread to the Velasco children.
We now analyze the testimonies of these three witnesses:
1. Rodolfo Quilang
Only Rodolfo Quilang, among the nine prosecution witnesses testified that he saw the defendant Lucila
Valero deliver "something wrapped in a piece of paper" 2 to her deaf-mute brother Pipe with the alleged
instruction by sign language to deliver the same to the Velasco children. Quilang never saw what was inside
the piece of paper. At the time Quilang saw the delivery to Pipe of the wrapped object, the defendant and her
brother were in the balcony of their house, which was just near the gate of Ceferino Velasco's house where he
(Quilang) was standing. Upon receipt of the wrapped object, Pipe allegedly proceeded towards Velasco's
G.R. No. L-45283-84 March 19, 1982 house.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, According to Quilang, he was "in the act of leaving Velasco's gate when Pipe "was entering the gate of
vs. Ceferino Velasco". 3
LUCILA VALERO y VARILLA, defendant-appellant. Whether or not Quilang saw the delivery to the Velasco children of the "something wrapped in a piece of
  paper" is a question that involved this star prosecution witness into a series of self-contradictions, aptly called
ERICTA, J.: by the appellant's counsel as a "series of basic somersaults" which earned for Quilang a reprimand from the
Lucila Valero alias Rosing and Alfonsito Valero alias "Pipe" were accused in the Municipal Court of San trial Judge, who, surprisingly later, based the conviction mainly on the testimony of this flip-flopping witness.
Rafael, Bulacan in two separate complaints, one of double murder and the other of frustrated murder. In his affidavit, dated March 8, 1972 (Exhibit "4", p. 437, Record of murder case) or three (3) years after the
After the preliminary investigations, the complaints against Alfonsito Valero were dismissed "on the ground poisoning of the Velasco children, Quilang stated that he actually saw Pipe deliver the wrapped object to the
that he is a deaf-mute and, therefore, all the proceedings against him were beyond his comprehension". Lucila children. The statement reads as follows:
Valero remained as the sole defendant. After the trial in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan where the 3. Na nakita kong si Pipe ay nagpunta sa bahay nina Ceferino Velasco at dala-dala ang
records were later forwarded for appropriate proceedings, the trial Court convicted Lucila Valero of the inabot ni Lucilang nakabalot sa papel, at noong dumating sa may hagdanan ni
complex crime of double murder and frustrated murder and imposed upon her the extreme penalty of death. Ceferino, ay nakita kong iniabot ang nakabalot sa mga bata na anak ni Ceferino
Hence, this automatic review. Velasco.
The following facts are not disputed. In the morning of February 22, 1969 between 7:00 and 9:00 o'clock of Three years later during the trial on September 15, 1975, he declared on cross-examination, as follows:
Saturday, Michael, aged 9 months, and Annabel, aged 1 year and 9 months, both of whom are the children of Q. When you left the residence of
Ceferino Velasco, died of poisoning after eating bread containing endrin, a commercial insecticide. Likewise, Demetria and Severino (sic) Velasco, Pipe
Imelda, another minor child of Ceferino, tasted the poisoned bread and would have died as a consequence was just entering the gate of that house, is
were it not for the timely medical assistance given her. All these three minor children were in the balcony of it not?
their house at San Rafael, Bulacan, when they partook of the poisoned bread. A. Yes.
 Q. In other words, you did not see Pipe Convinced that Quilang was a lying witness, the trial Judge could not help but explode an expletive in
give that something wrapped in a piece of Tagalog during the cross-examination, as follows:
paper to anybody in the premises because Atty. Rodrigo:
you have already left? Q. Did you see that wrapped thing being
A. Really not. given or you were just guessing?
Q. Are you sure of that? A. I saw that he handed over.
A. I did not really see. 4 Q. But I thought, Mr. Quilang, that when
When confronted with the contradiction, Quilang reiterated that he did not see Pipe deliver the bread, in the Pipe was just entering the gate of Ceferino
following testimony: Velasco, and Demetria Velasco, you were
Q. You did not answer the question, you already departing from the place and that
stated in open court that you did not see you have already left, and this is the
Pipe give the bread to the children of reason why you did not see Pipe handed
Ceferino and Demetria Velasco is that over that something wrapped on a piece of
correct? paper?
A. I really said that. 5 A. I was not able to say that.
On being pressed further to explain the contradiction, Quilang made the absurd explanation that the self- Court:
10
contradictory statements were both correct. Thus: Ano ka ba? Narinig kong sinabi mo iyon ah!
Q. And you, of course, realized that you The tendency of Quilang to prevaricate is shown not only in his self-contradictory statements on the witness
said that under oath? stand but also in the other portions of the record. The first statement of Quilang (Exhibit "4", p. 437, Record
A. Yes. of the Murder case) is dated March 8, 1972. This date appears twice in the affidavit, first at the end of the
Q. Now, in your statement, dated March affidavit and second, in the jurat. In both places of the affidavit, the words "March" and "1972" are
8, 1969 (should be March 8, 1972) which typewritten by the same typewriter used in typing the entire affidavit. The date, however, was left blank so
was also under oath, you stated that you that originally what appeared at the end of the affidavit and in the jurat was practically "March — 1972 ".
saw Pipe give that thing wrapped in a Apparently, the affidavit must have been prepared in March of 1972. The date "8", presumably the date of the
piece of paper to the children of Severino swearing before the Fiscal, was typewritten with a different typewriter on the blank space.
(sic) and Demetria Velasco, are you On the witness stand, Quilang stated that he made an affidavit on February 23, 1969. 11 He must have made
telling that is also true? this statement to make it appear that he was not an "eleventh-hour witness" as alleged by the defense. When
A. Yes. 6 confronted with the discrepancies in the date appearing in his affidavit, to wit, March 8, 1972, and his
The judge must have been so flabbergasted with the inconsistencies that he, himself, propounded the testimony on the witness stand, he insisted that the correct date was February 23, 1969 and that either the
following question: Fiscal or the one acting in his behalf committed the error in indicating the date in his affidavit. 12 It is
Court: incredible that a Fiscal administering the oathtaking on February 23, 1969 and signs the jurat postdates the
Q. The Court will ask you, did you see oath-taking to March 8, 1972, three years later.
Pipe hand over to the deceased children There are other equally strong considerations indicating the lack of credibility of Quilang. He is what the
that something which was wrapped in a appellant's counsel calls an "eleventh-hour witness". When the complaint for frustrated murder and the
piece of paper? complaint for murder, both dated March 11, 1969, were filed with the Municipal Court of San Rafael,
A. Yes, sir. 7 Bulacan, Rodolfo Quilang was not listed as one of the several witnesses. Quilang never made any statement
The confusing inconsistencies prompted the Court to proceed further as follows: to the police who initially investigated the case nor to the Philippine Constabulary which made its own
Q. A while ago, you were asked by Atty. investigation. When the Municipal Court asked searching questions from several witnesses during the first
Rodrigo. You clearly state that you did stage of the preliminary investigation on March 12, 1969, only Ceferino Velasco, Concepcion Velasco,
not see Pipe hand over this wrapped thing Delfin Senorosa, Federico Jaime and Demetria Manalastas were investigated. Rodolfo Quilang was not one
in the paper, do you remember that? of them. 13
A. Yes, sir. Again, when the information for frustrated murder (pp. 87 to 88, Record of Frustrated Murder case) and the
Q. The Court is now confused, which of information for murder (p. 76, Records of Murder case) were filed in February 1971, the star witness,
these statements it will believe, do you Rodolfo Quilang, was not listed among the nine (9) prosecution witnesses. Then on September 15, 1975 or
realize that these two statements are six (6) years after the tragedy, Quilang was suddenly sprung as the star witness, the only witness who
contradictory to each other? 8 allegedly saw the delivery by the defendant to Pipe of "something wrapped in a piece of paper" with the
After some evasive answers in this attempt to extricate himself from this web of self-contradictions, the Court alleged instruction by sign language to deliver the same to the Velasco children. Without the testimony of
insisted as follows: Quilang, there would be no evidence to show that the poisoned bread which was allegedly delivered by Pipe
Q. You are not answering the question, in to the Velasco children came from the defendant. Realizing that there was a missing link, the prosecution
fact, I remember having asked you thought of presenting Quilang to provide the missing link six years after the occurrence of the tragedy.
whether or not you saw Pipe hand over This witness, Aniceto Decalos, a neighbor and old friend of Ciriaco Jimenez, like the
this something wrapped to the children alleged eyewitness Candido Autor did not figure in the list of witnesses for the
and you said that you did not see, and now prosecution, either in the criminal complaint filed by PC Capt. Golez or in the Fiscal's
you say you saw, can you explain these indictment. His name was not amongst those who gave affidavits to back up the
inconsistent statements? criminal charge. This gives the impression that Aniceto Decalos, the neighbor of the
A. The truth of the matter was that he deceased, was but an eleventh-hour witness. To take his testimony on its face value, we
handed over. 9 fear, is to rate truth so lightly. 14
2. Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco
On the other hand, both Ceferino Velasco and Federico Jaime did not see the delivery by the defendant to her demonstrated by seemingly eating
deaf-mute brother "something wrapped in a piece of paper". They never saw or heard her giving any something inside the house with his right
instruction to Pipe to deliver the wrapped object to the children. Both claimed that they learned or obtained hand and his left hand index finger
the information from Pipe after interviewing him by means of sign language. Which the trial Court accepted towards the front and then pointed
as competent, trustworthy and credible towards his left index finger).
The following testimony of Federico Jaime speaks for itself: Q. Towards what direction was Panchito
Q. Will you please stand up and pointing his index finger ?
demonstrate to this Honorable Court how A. To the sister, sir.
you talked to him (Pipe) through signs? Q. And who is that sister?
A. When I went down, I made this sign to A. Precila (sic), sir. Precila (sic) Valero. 15
him. (Witness was waiving his two hands There is nothing in the foregoing testimony pointing to the defendant Lucila Valero as the source of the
with his palms down and both hands poisoned bread. What is evident is nothing but confusion. What Jaime asked from Pipe was "Who gave the
horrizontal along the waist.) bread to the children?" The evidence of the prosecution already shows that Pipe gave the bread to the
Q. When you made that sign, what was children. In reply, it seems that Pipe pointed to the defendant who was standing nearby.
the meaning or Idea that you wanted to Here, the confusion is clear. Pipe could not have said that his sister handed over the poisoned bread to the
convey ? children because the evidence of the prosecution shows that Pipe himself, gave the bread to the children. It is
A. I was asking him as to what happened clear that Pipe did not understand the sign language of Jaime and vice-versa.
to the children and the sign made by him The testimony of Ceferino Velasco, father of the victims, did not help the prosecution much either. The
was like this. (Witness demonstrated by following is Ceferino's testimony:
one of his hands demonstrating some kind Witness:
of height and at the same time the left Upon seeing Ponsito I asked him what was that and he answered me that it was a piece
hand pointing upwards where the children of bread and he told me that she was the one who caused the giving of the bread, sir.
were.) (witness pointing to the accused Lucila Valero)
xxx xxx xxx Atty. Rodrigo, Jr.
Q. What do you mean by the sign when I would like to make of record that during the narration as to how he asked Alfonsito,
your right hand indicating some height the witness was only demonstrating by using his index finger moving up and down,
and your left hand pointing towards your Honor.
upward? Fiscal Calderon, Jr.
A. What I wanted to imply is, I was Q. When you first asked that question
asking Pipe as to who gave food to them, who gave the bread to you, how did
your Honor. Alfonsito answer?
Q. Why did it occur to you to go down A. After having given the bread, I asked him who gave the
and try to communicate with Pipe? bread, and he said that the bread came from her (witness
A. I saw him down below and he was demonstrated by swaying his right arm and pointing his
making signs and I asked the children as forefinger sidewise.)
to what happened and he told me that the Q. Where was Lucila Valero at the time that Alfonsito was
children were given bread. demonstrating to you his answer?
Q. What came into your mind when you A. She was there on the side of the street, sir. 16
saw Pipe demonstrating in the manner that There is nothing in the aforequoted testimony indicating that the deaf-mute, Pipe, pointed to her sister Lucila
you described ? Valero as the source of the poisoned bread. We have examined the entire transcript of the stenographic notes,
A. I just wanted to know as to who gave and, except the aforequoted portions of the testimony of Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco, there is
food to the children, your Honor. nothing in the record showing that Pipe communicated to the prosecution witnesses by comprehensible sign
Q. Did you catch any significance in those language that his sister was the source of the poisoned bread.
signs that you saw to Pipe? Aside from the foregoing observation, there are several compelling reasons that should have made the trial
A. Yes, your Honor. Court reject the testimony of both Jaime and Velasco.
Q. What significance that you had in Pipe who was the alleged source of the vital information for the prosecution was never presented as a witness
mind? either for the prosecution or for the defense. Jaime and Velasco were presented as prosecution witnesses to
A. Because the children said that it was convey to the Court what they learned from Pipe by sign language.
Pipe who gave bread, your Honor. The evidence is purely hearsay. 17 The presentation of such evidence likewise violates the principle of res
Court: inter alios acta. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. 18
Proceed. With particular reference to the testimony of Ceferino Velasco, its admission cannot be justified by claiming
Fiscal Calderon, Jr. that it is a part of the res gestae. When Pipe allegedly revealed to Ceferino Velasco that the source of the
Q. When you made that sign pointing one poisoned bread was the defendant, the children had not eaten or tasted it. Nobody was yet poisoned. Stated
hand upward, what was the answer of otherwise, there was no startling Occurrence yet. 19
Panchito? With reference to the testimony of Jaime, there is no showing that Pipe made the extrajudicial revelation
A. I inquired from him through signs as to spontaneously when he was still under the influence of a startling occurrence. Pipe made his extrajudicial
who gave bread to the children by revelation not spontaneously but after an interview through the complicated process of sign language.
demonstrating like this (witness
The failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent evidence, like hearsay Q. When Pipe pointed to Lucila and when
evidence or evidence that violates the rule of res inter alios acta, or his failure to ask for the striking out of you gave the meaning to that sign that it
the same does not give such evidence any probative value. The lack of objection may make any incompetent was Lucila who offered Pipe to give the
evidence admissible. 20 But admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay bread to the children, did you (Federico
evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value. 21 Jaime confront Lucila immediately?
To give weight to the testimonies of Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco, whether considered as hearsay A. No, sir.
evidence or as part of res gestae and make the same the basis for the imposition of the death penalty gravely Q. Did it not occur to you (Federico Jaime to confront, Lucila considering that you
violates the constitutional right of the defendant to meet the witnesses face to face and to subject Pipe to the already suspected that it was her (sic) who caused the poisoning of the children ?
rigid test of cross-examination, the only effective means to test the truthfulness, memory, intelligence, and in A. No, sir. I did not. 26
this particular case, the ability of the deaf-mute, Alfonso Valero alias Pipe, to communicate with the outside The natural reaction of Jaime who is the uncle of the mother of the victims 27, upon learning the killer of his
world. In conflict between a provision of the constitution giving the defendant a substantive right and mere relatives would have been a violent action or at least an angry confrontation. Neither did Ceferino Valero
technical rules of evidence, we have no choice but to give effect to the constitution. confront Lucila Valero upon allegedly learning that the latter poisoned his children.
The cross-examination of Pipe, the source of the vital information for the prosecution, would have shown Q. After allegedly knowing from Alfonsito that the bread was allegedly given to him
clearly his incompetence as a witness. During the preliminary investigation in the Municipal Court, experts by Lucila, did you (Ceferino Velasco) confront her?
on deaf-mutes like Belen Herreros who is the official interpreter of the only school for the deaf and the blind A. No, sir.
in the Philippines, assisted by Mrs. Felicidad Vinluan who is the principal of the school of the deaf and the Q. As a matter of fact, you never confronted her until you filed this case about the
blind, Mesdames Gilda Tatum and Salud Natividad, examined Alfonsito Valero alias Pipe and reported to the poisoning of your children?
Municipal Court that "questions addressed to him (Alfonso Valero) and answers given by him cannot be A. No, sir. I have been very patient with her since the beginning. 28
accurately interpreted". 22 Moreover, when Ceferino Velasco made a sworn statement on February 25, 1969 or three (3) days after the
As a result of the testimonies and the report made by the aforementioned experts, the Municipal Court poisoning of his children, he declared that he did not know who gave the poisoned bread to his children, thus:
dismissed the murder and frustrated murder cases against Alfonsito Valero, alias Pipe, who was then the co- T — Nalalaman ba ninyo kung mayroong nagbigay kay Pipe ng tinapay na ibinigay sa
accused of Lucila Valero, "on the ground that he (Pipe) is a deaf-mute and, therefore, all the proceedings inyong anak?
against him were beyond his comprehension". 23 S — Ang nalalaman ko lamang po ay sa kanila siya galing hindi
Even prosecution witnesses Ceferino Velasco and Federico Jaime admitted on cross-examination that their ko po alam kung sino ang nagbigay sa kanya. 29
interpretations of the sign language of Pipe were only guess work. But when he took the witness stand on July 23, 1975 or six years later, he declared that on that very morning
Thus, Ceferino admitted on cross-examination: of February 22, 1969, he learned from Pipe, when the latter was in the act of delivering the bread to the
Q. As a matter of fact, most of your interpretation would be only children, that the source of the bread was the defendant Lucila Valero. 30
guess work on your part, is it not? When confronted during the cross-examination with the previous affidavit (Exhibit "1-d"), Ceferino Velasco
A. Yes, sir. 24 admitted that he made the answers in the affidavit.
Jaime practically made a similar admission, as follows: Q. You also stated that Alfonsito, by means of sign, told you that
Q. When you were requested to demonstrate how you conveyed the bread came from his sister, Lucila, the accused in this case?
the Idea to Pipe about the giving of the bread to the children, you A. Yes, sir.
pointed to a height, is it not? Q. You are sure of that?
A. Yes, sir. A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you demonstrate to Pipe if you wanted to convey that Q. Let me now read to you portion of Exh.
what is to be taken is star-apple? "1"
Fiscal Calderon: T — Nalalaman ba ninyo kung mayroong
I object, your Honor. nagbigay kay Pipe ng tinapay na ibinigay
Court: sa inyong anak?
May answer. S — Ang nalalaman ko lamang po ay sa
A. Like that also, sir. (witness demonstrated to be putting kanila siya galing. Hindi ko po alam kung
something in his mouth.) sino ang nagbigay sa kanya". Do you
Q. In other words, anything which will be taken by mouth, you remember having given that answer?
just use the same sign language? A. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, the same sign, sir. Q. You affirm that answer under your
Q. So that it would be safe to conclude present oath?
that Pipe might have misunderstood your A. Yes, sir. 31
signs. He could have misunderstood it for This answer prompted the Court to remark: "There seems to be inconsistency". 32 We may add that the
rice, bibingka, star-apple or for anything inconsistency is on the very fact in issue, namely, the guilty participation of Lucila Valero.
else? When further repeatedly asked by the defense counsel why Ceferino did not state in his affidavit (Exh. 1-d)
A. witness gave no answer. 25 that he learned that Lucila was the source of the poisoned bread, he gave irresponsive and evasive answers. 33
Obviously the trial Court committed the grave error of accepting, and worse still, of giving weight to the When a witness makes two sworn statements and these two statements incur in the
testimonies of Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco interpreting the alleged extrajudicial information to them gravest contradictions, the Court cannot accept either statements as proof. 34
by sign language of Pipe, when the source of the information himself, Alfonsito Valero alias Pipe, would A witness who changes his name and statements, like a Chameleon changes color, does
have been an incompetent witness had he taken the witness stand. not inspire confidence. 35
When Jaime allegedly learned from Pipe that the latter's sister was the source of the poisoned bread, the Obviously, Ceferino Velasco is a lying witness. If Ceferino Velasco really learned from Pipe that Lucila
defendant was only at the gate of the Velascos near Jaime but he did not confront her. Valero poisoned his three children, he might have become violent. Surprisingly, he kept quiet. He did not
confront Lucila Valero. 36
The reason is that the first suspicion of Ceferino Velasco when his three children were still suffering from the throwing the blame to someone else not only to appease his own conscience but also to avoid embarassment
effects of the poison was that his children were "nausog" (victim of witchcraft). Thus, testified Onofre before his relatives, friends and neighbors.
Adriano, a 73-year old relative of Ceferino Velasco: The tragic poisoning of the three children is unfortunate. The tragedy was compounded when the trial Court
Q. On February 22, 1969 at around 9:00 imposed the death penalty on the accused although the evidence against her does not justify a conviction.
o'clock in the morning, do you remember Inspite of the self-contradictions of Rodolfo Quilang on very material points noticed by the trial Judge,
having seen Mr. Ceferino Velasco? himself, Quilang's obvious tendency to prevaricate and the fact that he is what the appellant's counsel calls an
A. I was fetched at home, sir. "eleventh-hour witness", which is true, and inspite of the incompetence of the testimonies of Federico Jaime
Q. Who fetched you in your house? and Ceferino Velasco whose testimonies are hearsay evidence, and the practical impossibility of interpreting
A. Ceferino Velasco, sir. correctly the sign language of Pipe, the trial Judge readily accepted their testimonies as basis for imposing the
Q. Why did he fetch you in your house? death penalty in gross violation of the hearsay rule and the constitutional right of the accused to meet the
A. Because according to him one of his witness face to face (in the instant case, the deaf-mute, Pipe), and to cross-examine Pipe in order to determine
children is sick and might have been his ability to communicate with the outside world.
"nausog". Realizing that there is completely no motive for the defendant to commit the heinous crime, the trial Judge
Q. Why did he fetch you for that purpose? conjured up something as the probable cause that might have impelled the defendant to commit the crime.
A. I have a knowledge in the curing of The conjecture of the Judge is stated, thus:
"nausog", sir. 37 There is something disquieting about those seemingly unfading smiles on the face of
Demetria Manalastas, mother of the victims, also testified: the accused; with her sharp, penetrating look, her unsolicited smiles are clues to her
Q. While you were at the market place of real personality; they forebode some out-of-the ordinary dispositions in the inner
Baliuag, what happened? recesses of her mind; perhaps, only a trained psychiatrist or an experienced
A. A son of mine came to call me, sir. psychologist could fathom or decipher the meaning of this characteristic of the
Q. What is the name of your son? accused; it is unfortunate that the prosecution and the defense have chosen not to delve
A. Francisco Velasco, sir. into the personality of the accused; however, because of these queer manifestations on
Q. Why did Francisco fetch you? the facial expressions of the accused, could she have intended to produce the gravity of
A. He said that the children were "nausog", sir. 38 her felonious act; had she a fore-knowledge that the poisons used to kill rats or insects
Aside from the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution, there are other considerations which negate the would also cause death to the children. Was her intention merely to cause some malady
guilt of the defendant. or discomfort to the children to shout and vent her hatred on the mother of the children.
There was no motive for Pipe and Lucila Valero to poison the three children. Both Pipe and Lucila Valero These are some questions that find no definite answer from the records of these cases;
loved the children. Ceferino Velasco admitted that even when Pipe was only a small boy, the latter frequented these questions notwithstanding, the court strongly feels that it is not entirely
his house to visit his children. 39 When the children were dying because of the poison, Pipe alternately fanned improbable for the accused to possess a violent or cruel disposition ... 45
Michael and Annabel. In effect, motive was not necessary to compel the defendant to commit the crime because according to the
The prosecution, however, claims that the motive of the poisoning was the quarrel in the morning of February observation of the Judge, she was suffering from some kind of psychiatric abnormality or mental disorder that
21, 1969 between Demetria Manalastas, mother of the victims, and the defendant Lucila Valero. The cause of can make her violent.
the quarrel was the interference of the defendant to protect the children from the scolding and maltreatment to It is most unfair for the trial Judge to unexpectedly spring the aforementioned observation in his decision
their own mother. The interference was resented by Manalastas prompting her to say to the defendant "Don't without having mentioned it in the course of the trial. Such a procedure is unfair to the accused, for she is
interfere in the matter because I am scolding these children of mine." 40 The defendant is not a relative of the thereby deprived of her chance to either deny or affirm the truth of such a very material finding which has
Velasco children. Her intervention in their behalf only shows her affectionate concern for them. The important bearing in the judgment. This procedure of the trial Judge practically denies the accused the right to
defendant quarrelled with Demetria Manalastas, not with the Velasco children. There is no motive due process.
whatsoever for the defendant to poison the children. Even Ceferino Velasco, father of the victims, stated that The surprising finding of the trial Judge goes far beyond mere observation on the manner a witness testified,
the cause of the quarrel was "Wala pong kabagay-bagay" meaning, "very trivial". 41 The quarrel was not a which admittedly may be considered subjectively by the Judge in evaluating the credibility of the witness.
sufficient cause to commit a heinous crime. The surprising finding of the Judge relates not only to the credibility of a witness but to the sanity of the
This leaves Us speculating as to the source of the poisoned bread. Rodolfo Quilang stated that he saw the defendant. Its aim is not only to weigh the testimony of the witness but to establish a motive for the crime
defendant give Pipe "something wrapped in a piece of paper." According to Ceferino Velasco in his Affidavit charged.
of February 25, 1969, Pipe gave to his children "isa pong pandesal". 42 He practically reiterated this statement WHEREFORE, finding that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the defendant, We hereby reverse
during his testimony on July 23, 1975 when he described what Pipe allegedly brought as "just one piece of the decision of the trial Court and instead render judgment of acquittal without cost.
wrapped bread". 43 SO ORDERED.
But when the police investigated the premises of the house of Ceferino Velasco in the morning of February Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro,
22, 1969, they found not only one pandesal but "several sliced pan" scatterred in the sala, near the balcony, Melencio-Herrera, Plana and Escolin JJ., concur.
and under the balcony. 44 According to the defendant, in her testimony not rebutted by the prosecution,  
Ceferino Velasco, who was her tenant, dipped sliced pieces of bread in endrin dried them up and used them as  
bait in his barn. As a matter of fact, at 6:00 o'clock in the morning of February 22, 1969, Ceferino Velasco Separate Opinions
threw into a nearby river a long string of poisoned rats. Three puppies died of poisoning under the balcony.  
The rats, the dogs, or maybe even his minor children must have found the poisoned slices of bread AQUINO, J., dissenting.:
somewhere in the barn or in the house, scattered them, and the children, not knowing the danger of the I dissent. The lower court's judgment of conviction was based on the following facts proven by the
poison, ate them. prosecution:
The thought that he might have poisoned his own children must have caused Ceferino Velasco some kind of The spouses Ceferino Velasco and Demetria Manalastas resided in the poblacion of San Rafael, Bulacan.
trauma. So galling to a father is the thought that he, himself, might have caused the death of his two children Across the street from their house was the house of their neighbor, Lucila Valero, whom they had known for
and the near death of a third child, albeit unintentionally, that his natural reaction is to escape from it by a long time. On February 21, 1969, Lucila and Demetria had a heated altercation when Demetria scolded and
maltreated her children and Lucila interfered. Demetria resented the interference of Lucila. A policeman I concur. But I must say that the failure of the prosecution to present Imelda as witness spoiled the cause of
pacified the two women. the prosecution. She could have clarified the whole issue of who gave the poisoned bread to him.
In the morning of the following day, February 22, Demetria went to the public market where she worked as a  
vendor. Her husband Velasco went to the farm. Left in their house were their five small children named  
Benilda, Concepcion, Imelda, Annabelle and Michael.
At about seven o'clock that morning, Rodolfo Quilang was at the gate of the house of the Velasco spouses
because he wanted to collect five pesos as the price of two chickens which he had sold to Demetria. While
waiting for her, Quilang saw Lucila and her deaf-mute brother Alfonsito in the balcony of their house. Separate Opinions
Quilang saw Lucila giving Alfonsito something wrapped in a piece of paper. Alfonsito crossed the street, AQUINO, J., dissenting.:
went up the house of the Velasco spouses and proceeded to the balcony where the Velasco children were I dissent. The lower court's judgment of conviction was based on the following facts proven by the
playing. Quilang noticed that Alfonsito gave to the children pieces of bread which had been wrapped in a prosecution:
piece of paper. The spouses Ceferino Velasco and Demetria Manalastas resided in the poblacion of San Rafael, Bulacan.
Quilang left the gate and while on his way to the house of Demetria's sister, he met Velasco coming from the Across the street from their house was the house of their neighbor, Lucila Valero, whom they had known for
farm. Velasco went to the corral and fed his carabao. He saw his children playing in the balcony. He also saw a long time. On February 21, 1969, Lucila and Demetria had a heated altercation when Demetria scolded and
Alfonsito offering a piece of bread, first, to Concepcion, 7, who refused it because she had already eaten her maltreated her children and Lucila interfered. Demetria resented the interference of Lucila. A policeman
breakfast. Then, Alfonsito offered it to Imelda who accepted it, tasted it and then dropped it on the floor. pacified the two women.
Annabelle, about twenty months old, picked it up, divided it and gave a part of the bread to the baby, In the morning of the following day, February 22, Demetria went to the public market where she worked as a
Michael, nine months old. The two ate the pieces of bread. After eating the bread, Benilda noticed that vendor. Her husband Velasco went to the farm. Left in their house were their five small children named
Annabelle and Michael turned pale. Their mouths frothed or had bubbles. Benilda instinctively felt that Benilda, Concepcion, Imelda, Annabelle and Michael.
something was wrong. She called her father who was at the foot of the stairs. At about seven o'clock that morning, Rodolfo Quilang was at the gate of the house of the Velasco spouses
Velasco went up and directed Benilda to take Annabelle to the hospital. Velasco panicked and cried for help. because he wanted to collect five pesos as the price of two chickens which he had sold to Demetria. While
Several persons came to his house. One of them, Federico Jaime, on learning the cause of the Velasco waiting for her, Quilang saw Lucila and her deaf-mute brother Alfonsito in the balcony of their house.
children's plight, confronted Alfonsito and, by means of sign language, Jaime learned that the bread given by Quilang saw Lucila giving Alfonsito something wrapped in a piece of paper. Alfonsito crossed the street,
Alfonsito to the children came from Lucila who at that time was in the balcony of her house witnessing the went up the house of the Velasco spouses and proceeded to the balcony where the Velasco children were
commotion in the house of Velasco. playing. Quilang noticed that Alfonsito gave to the children pieces of bread which had been wrapped in a
Annabelle was not admitted to the hospital because medical treatment would have been futile. She was piece of paper.
brought home almost dead and placed beside the baby Michael who was already dead. Quilang left the gate and while on his way to the house of Demetria's sister, he met Velasco coming from the
Imelda was brought to the clinic of Doctor Artemio Marcelo who was able to arrest the toxic effects of the farm. Velasco went to the corral and fed his carabao. He saw his children playing in the balcony. He also saw
poison. He treated her for about three months. Luckily, she survived. Doctor Marcelo testified that she would Alfonsito offering a piece of bread, first, to Concepcion, 7, who refused it because she had already eaten her
have died of toxemia had not timely medical treatment been administered to her. breakfast. Then, Alfonsito offered it to Imelda who accepted it, tasted it and then dropped it on the floor.
The investigation revealed that the same piece of bread which Alfonsito had given to the children was eaten Annabelle, about twenty months old, picked it up, divided it and gave a part of the bread to the baby,
by some dogs which also died of poisoning. Michael, nine months old. The two ate the pieces of bread. After eating the bread, Benilda noticed that
Doctor Ernesto Brion, a medico-legal officer, and Andres Santiago, a chemist, both of the National Bureau of Annabelle and Michael turned pale. Their mouths frothed or had bubbles. Benilda instinctively felt that
Investigation, examined the internal organs of Michael and Annabelle and found that they were poisoned as a something was wrong. She called her father who was at the foot of the stairs.
result of their having eaten pieces of bread containing endrine, an insecticide. Velasco went up and directed Benilda to take Annabelle to the hospital. Velasco panicked and cried for help.
Lucila denied any complicity in the poisoning of the Velasco children. She declared that she and her brother Several persons came to his house. One of them, Federico Jaime, on learning the cause of the Velasco
had no motive for killing the children who were very dear to them. Lucila said that Demetria was mad at her children's plight, confronted Alfonsito and, by means of sign language, Jaime learned that the bread given by
(Lucila) because Lucila charged interest on the money which Demetria had borrowed from Lucila's sister-in- Alfonsito to the children came from Lucila who at that time was in the balcony of her house witnessing the
law. commotion in the house of Velasco.
She testified that Velasco, who was her tenant on a parcel of land used as a vegetable garden, used endrine on Annabelle was not admitted to the hospital because medical treatment would have been futile. She was
bread which was then dried and later placed as a bait in the barn and that several rats were killed by means of brought home almost dead and placed beside the baby Michael who was already dead.
the bread dipped in the endrine solution. Imelda was brought to the clinic of Doctor Artemio Marcelo who was able to arrest the toxic effects of the
The trial judge noted that Lucila had a "sharp, penetrating look" and on the witness stand was always grinning poison. He treated her for about three months. Luckily, she survived. Doctor Marcelo testified that she would
(she had "unfading smiles"). The trial judge found that there was no doubt that Lucila gave the poisoned have died of toxemia had not timely medical treatment been administered to her.
bread to her deaf-mute brother who had no criminal intent and who did not know that the bread was poisoned. The investigation revealed that the same piece of bread which Alfonsito had given to the children was eaten
Alfonsito exhibited some compassion for the children after he noticed that something had happened to them. by some dogs which also died of poisoning.
On the other hand, Lucila did not make any effort to help the victims. Doctor Ernesto Brion, a medico-legal officer, and Andres Santiago, a chemist, both of the National Bureau of
The trial court did not err in concluding that Lucila's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Investigation, examined the internal organs of Michael and Annabelle and found that they were poisoned as a
The trial court and the Solicitor General regarded the two murders and the frustrated murder as a complex result of their having eaten pieces of bread containing endrine, an insecticide.
crime resulting from the single act of Lucila in giving the poisoned bread to Alfonsito with the instruction Lucila denied any complicity in the poisoning of the Velasco children. She declared that she and her brother
(made in sign language) that the same be fed to the Velasco children. Hence, the death penalty was imposed. had no motive for killing the children who were very dear to them. Lucila said that Demetria was mad at her
The single criminal impulse of Lucila to poison the Velasco children gave rise to a complex offense (See (Lucila) because Lucila charged interest on the money which Demetria had borrowed from Lucila's sister-in-
People vs. Peñas, 66 Phil. 682; People vs. Pincalin, L-38755, January 22, 1981, 102 SCRA 136). law.
I vote for the imposition of reclusion perpetua on the accused, Lucila Valero. The trial court did not award She testified that Velasco, who was her tenant on a parcel of land used as a vegetable garden, used endrine on
any indemnity. Lucila should be adjudged liable to pay an indemnity of P24,000 to the Velasco spouses for bread which was then dried and later placed as a bait in the barn and that several rats were killed by means of
the death of Annabelle and Michael and to pay an indemnity of P10,000 to Imelda Velasco. the bread dipped in the endrine solution.
BARREDO, J., concurring: The trial judge noted that Lucila had a "sharp, penetrating look" and on the witness stand was always grinning
(she had "unfading smiles"). The trial judge found that there was no doubt that Lucila gave the poisoned
bread to her deaf-mute brother who had no criminal intent and who did not know that the bread was poisoned.
Alfonsito exhibited some compassion for the children after he noticed that something had happened to them.
On the other hand, Lucila did not make any effort to help the victims.
The trial court did not err in concluding that Lucila's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial court and the Solicitor General regarded the two murders and the frustrated murder as a complex
crime resulting from the single act of Lucila in giving the poisoned bread to Alfonsito with the instruction
(made in sign language) that the same be fed to the Velasco children. Hence, the death penalty was imposed.
The single criminal impulse of Lucila to poison the Velasco children gave rise to a complex offense (See
People vs. Peñas, 66 Phil. 682; People vs. Pincalin, L-38755, January 22, 1981, 102 SCRA 136).
I vote for the imposition of reclusion perpetua on the accused, Lucila Valero. The trial court did not award
any indemnity. Lucila should be adjudged liable to pay an indemnity of P24,000 to the Velasco spouses for
the death of Annabelle and Michael and to pay an indemnity of P10,000 to Imelda Velasco.
BARREDO, J., concurring:
I concur. But I must say that the failure of the prosecution to present Imelda as witness spoiled the cause of
the prosecution. She could have clarified the whole issue of who gave the poisoned bread to him.

G.R. No. 93516 August 12, 1992

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BASILIO DAMASO @ Bernardo/BERNIE MENDOZA @ KA DADO, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
 
MEDIALDEA, J.:
The accused-appellant, Basilio Damaso, was originally charged in an information filed before the Regional
Trial Court of Dagupan City with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 in furtherance of, or incident to,
or in connection with the crime of subversion, together with Luzviminda Morados y Galang @ Ka Mel,
Teresita Calosa y Macabangon @ Ka Tessie, Ricardo Calosa y Perez @ Ka Ric, Marites Calosa y Evangelista
@ Ka Tess, Eric Tanciangco y Capira @ Ka Ric and Luz Tanciangco y Pencial @ Ka Luz (Records, p. 3).
Such information was later amended to exclude all the above-enumerated persons except the accused-
appellant from the criminal charge. The amended information reads:
That an or about the 19th day of June, 1988, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
Basilio DAMASO @ Bernardo/Bernie Mendoza @ KA DADO, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and criminally, have in his possession, custody and control one
 (1) M14 Rifle bearing Serial No. 1249935 with magazine and Fifty-Seven (57) live the house, the group found that it had already been vacated by the occupants. Since
ammunition, in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of Morados was hesitant to give the new address of Bernie Mendoza, the group looked for
subversion, filed against said accused in the above-entitled case for Violation of the Barangay Captain of the place and requested him to point out the new house rented
Republic Act 1700, as amended by Executive Order No. 276. by appellant. The group again required Morados to go with them. When they reached
Contrary to Third Paragraph of Sec. 1, P.D. 1866. (Records, p. 20) the house, the group saw Luz Tanciangco outside. They told her that they already knew
Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged (Records, p. 37). Trial on that she was a member of the NPA in the area. At first, she denied it, but when she saw
the merits ensued. The prosecution rested its case and offered its exhibits for admission. The counsel for Morados she requested the group to go inside the house. Upon entering the house, the
accused-appellant interposed his objections to the admissibility of the prosecution's evidence on grounds of group, as well as the Barangay Captain, saw radio sets, pamphlets entitled "Ang
its being hearsay, immaterial or irrelevant and illegal for lack of a search warrant. On these bases, he, Bayan," xerox copiers and a computer machine. They also found persons who were
thereafter, manifested that he was not presenting any evidence for the accused (TSN, December 28, 1989, p. companions of Luz Tanciangco (namely, Teresita Calosa, Ricardo Calosa, Maries
139). On January 17, 1990, the trial court rendered decision, the dispositive portion of which states: Calosa, Eric Tanciangco and Luzviminda Morados). The group requested the persons
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Basilio Damaso alias Bernardo/Bernie in the house to allow them to look around. When Luz Tanciangco opened one of the
Mendoza alias Ka Dado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Presidential rooms, they saw books used for subversive orientation, one M-14 rifle, bullets and
Decree Number 1866, and considering that the Violation is in furtherance of, or ammunitions, Kenwood radio, artificial beard, maps of the Philippines, Zambales,
incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion, pursuant to Section 1, Mindoro an(d) Laguna and other items. They confiscated the articles and brought them
Paragraph 3 of Presidential Decree Number 1866 hereby sentences the accused to to their headquarters for final inventory. They likewise brought the persons found in
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the costs of the proceedings. the house to the headquarters for investigation. Said persons revealed that appellant
The M14 Rifle bearing Serial Number 1249935 and live ammunition and all the was the lessee of the house and owned the items confiscated therefrom (pp. 8-12, tsn,
articles and/or items seized on June 19, 1988 in connection with this case and marked ibid; pp. 2-4, 6, 8-10, 31, tsn, October 31, 1989). (p. 5, Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee, p.
and submitted in court as evidence are ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the 91, Rollo)
government, the same to be turned over to the Philippine Constabulary Command at While We encourage and support law enforcement agencies in their drive against lawless elements in our
Lingayen, Pangasinan. society, We must, however, stress that the latter's efforts to this end must be done within the parameters of the
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 31) law. In the case at bar, not only did We find that there are serious flaws in the method used by the law officers
Thus, this present recourse with the following assignment of errors: in obtaining evidence against the accused-appellant but also that the evidence as presented against him is
A. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED APPELLANT GUILTY weak to justify conviction.
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION We reverse.
OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITIONS IN FURTHERANCE OF, OR INCIDENT The records of this case show that the accused-appellant was singled out as the sole violator of P.D. No. 1866,
TO, OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME OF SUBVERSION DESPITE THE in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion. Yet, there is no substantial and
WOEFULLY INADEQUATE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION. credible evidence to establish the fact that the appellant is allegedly the same person as the lessee of the house
B. THE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED WHEN THE where the M-14 rifle and other subversive items were found or the owner of the said items. The prosecution
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF SUBVERSION WAS NOT PROVEN BY presented two witnesses who attested to this fact, thus:
THE PROSECUTION. Lieutenant Candito Quijardo
C. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING AS EVIDENCE THE Fiscal
FIREARMS DOCUMENTS AND ITEMS LISTED IN EXHIBIT E AFTER THEY Q How about this Bernie Mendoza, who was the one renting the
WERE DECLARED INADMISSIBLE WITH FINALITY BY ANOTHER BRANCH house?
OF THE SAME COURT AND THE SAID EVIDENCE ARE THE FRUITS OF AN A He was not around at that time, but according to Luz
ILLEGAL SEARCH. (Tanciangco) who mentioned the name Bernie Mendoza (as) the
D. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTIONS TO QUASH FILED one who was renting the house and at the same time claiming
BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT BECAUSE THE SEPARATE CHARGE FOR that it was Bernie Mendoza who owns the said items. (TSN of
SUBVERSION AGAINST HIM ABSORBED THE CHARGE FOR ILLEGAL October 31, 1989, p. 40)
POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN FURTHERANCE OF OR INCIDENT TO, OR IN xxx xxx xxx
CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME OF SUBVERSION. (pp. 55-66, Rollo) Q I am showing you another picture which we request to be
The antecedent facts are set forth by the Solicitor General in his Brief, as follows: marked as Exhibit "K-2," tell us if it has any connection to the
On June 18, 1988, Lt. Candido Quijardo, a Philippine Constabulary officer connected house?
with the 152nd PC Company at Lingayen, Pangasinan, and some companions were A The same house, sir.
sent to verify the presence of CPP/NPA members in Barangay Catacdang, Arellano- Q Now, this person who according to you allegedly occupied the
Bani, Dagupan City. In said place, the group apprehended Gregorio Flameniano, house at Bonuan Gueset, by the name of Bernie Mendoza, in
Berlina Aritumba, Revelina Gamboa and Deogracias Mayaoa. When interrogated, the your capacity as a Military officer, did you find out the identity?
persons apprehended revealed that there was an underground safehouse at Gracia A I am not the proper (person) to tell the real identity of Bernie
Village in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. After coordinating with the Station Commander of de Guzman.
Urdaneta, the group proceeded to the house in Gracia Village. They found subversive Q Can you tell the Honorable Court the proper person who could
documents, a radio, a 1 x 7 caliber .45 firearm and other items (pp. 4, 6-7, tsn, October tell the true identity of Bernie Mendoza?
23, 1989). A The Intelligence of the Pangasinan PC Command.
After the raid, the group proceeded to Bonuan, Dagupan City, and put under Q Can you name these officers?
surveillance the rented apartment of Rosemarie Aritumba, sister of Berlina Aritumba A Captain Roberto Rosales and his assistant, First Lt. Federico
whom they earlier arrested. They interviewed Luzviminda Morados, a visitor of Castro. (ibid, pp. 54-55)
Rosemarie Aritumba. She stated that she worked with Bernie Mendoza, herein M/Sqt. Artemio Gomez
appellant. She guided the group to the house rented by appellant. When they reached
 Q That underground house, do you know who was the principal principles of government (Rodriguez v. Evangelista, 65 Phil. 230, 235). As a consequence, the search
occupant of that house? conducted by the authorities was illegal. It would have been different if the situation here demanded urgency
xxx xxx xxx which could have prompted the authorities to dispense with a search warrant. But the record is silent on this
A During our conversation with the occupants, they revealed point. The fact that they came to the house of the appellant at nighttime (Exh. J, p. 7, Records), does not grant
that a certain Ka Bernie is the one occupying the house, Bernie them the license to go inside his house. In Alih v. Castro, We ruled that:
Mendoza alias Basilio Damaso. The respondents cannot even plead the urgency of the raid because it was in fact not
. . . (TSN, December 27, 1989, pp. 126-128) urgent. They knew where the petitioners were. They had every opportunity to get a
Clearly, the aforequoted testimonies are hearsay because the witnesses testified on matters not on their own search warrant before making the raid. If they were worried that the weapons inside the
personal knowledge. The Solicitor General, however, argues that while the testimonies may be hearsay, the compound would be spirited away, they could have surrounded the premises in the
same are admissible because of the failure of counsel for appellant to object thereto. meantime, as a preventive measure. There was absolutely no reason at all why they
It is true that the lack of objection to a hearsay testimony results in its being admitted as evidence. But, one should disregard the orderly processes required by the Constitution and instead insist
should not be misled into thinking that since these testimonies are admitted as evidence, they now have on arbitrarily forcing their way into the petitioner's premises with all the menace of a
probative value. Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence. In People vs. military invasion. (G.R. No. 69401, June 23, 1987, 151 SCRA 279, 286)
Valero, We emphatically declared that: Another factor which illustrates the weakness of the case against the accused-appellant is in the identification
The failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent of the gun which he was charged to have illegally possessed. In the amended information (supra, pp. 1-2), the
evidence, like hearsay evidence or evidence that violates the rule of res inter alios acta, gun was described as an M-14 rifle with serial no. 1249935. Yet, the gun presented at the trial bore a different
or his failure to ask for the striking out of the same does not give such evidence any serial number thus:
probative value. The lack of objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible. FISCAL
But admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay Q Will you kindly restate again the items that you found inside
evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value. the house?
(L-45283-84, March 19, 1982, 112 SCRA 675, emphasis supplied) Lt. Quijardo:
It is unfortunate that the prosecution failed to present as witnesses the persons who knew the A When she opened the doors of the rooms that we requested
appellant as the lessee and owner of the M-14 rifle. In this way, the appellant could have exercised for, we immediately saw different kinds of books of which we
his constitutional right to confront the witnesses and to cross-examine them for their truthfulness. believed to be used for subversive orientation and the M-14 rifle.
Likewise, the records do not show any other evidence which could have identified the appellant as Q In what portion of the house did you find this M-14 rifle
the lessee of the house and the owner of the subversive items. To give probative value to these which you mentioned?
hearsay statements and convict the appellant on this basis alone would be to render his A In the same room of which the subversive documents were
constitutional rights useless and without meaning. placed.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the appellant is the lessee of the house, the case against him still Q If this firearm would be shown to you would you be able to
will not prosper, the reason being that the law enforcers failed to comply with the requirements of a valid identify the same?
search and seizure proceedings. A Yes, sir.
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is enshrined in the Constitution (Article III, Section 2). Q I am showing to you a rifle bearing a serial number 1249985
The purpose of the law is to prevent violations of private security in person and property, and unlawful which for purposes of identification, may we request your
invasions of the sanctity of the home by officers of the law acting under legislative or judicial sanction and to Honor, that this rifle be marked as Exhibit "D."
give remedy against such usurpations when attempted (see Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637, 646). However, COURT:
such right is not absolute. There are instances when a warrantless search and seizure becomes valid, namely: Mark it.
(1) search incidental to an arrest; (2) search of a moving vehicle; and (3) seizure of evidence in plain view FISCAL:
(Manipon, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, L-58889, July 31, 1986, 143 SCRA 267, 276). None of these exceptions is Q Kindly examine the said firearm and tell the Honorable Court
present in this case. the relation of that firearm to the firearm which according to you
The Solicitor General argues otherwise. He claims that the group of Lt. Quijardo entered the appellant's house you found inside the room allegedly occupied by one Bernie
upon invitation of Luz Tanciangco and Luzviminda Morados, helper of the appellant; that when Luz Mendoza?
Tanciangco opened one of the rooms, they saw a copier machine, computer, M-14 rifle, bullets and A This is the same rifle which was discovered during our raid in
ammunitions, radio set and more subversive items; that technically speaking, there was no search as the group the same house. (TSN, October 31, 1989, pp. 36-38, emphasis
was voluntarily shown the articles used in subversion; that besides, a search may be validly conducted supplied).
without search warrant with the consent of the person searched in this case, appellant's helper and Luz The Solicitor General contends that the discrepancy is merely a typographical error.
Tanciangco allowed them to enter and to look around the appellant's house; and that since the evidence seized We do not think so. This glaring error goes into the substance of the charge. Its correction or lack of it could
was in plain view of the authorities, the same may be seized without a warrant. spell the difference between freedom and incarceration of the accused-appellant.
We are not persuaded. The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures, being personal In crimes of illegal possession of firearm as in this case, the prosecution has the burden to prove the existence
one, cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly of the firearm and that the accused who possessed or owned the firearm does not have the corresponding
authorized to do so in his or her behalf (De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689, 695). In the case at bar, the records license for it. Since the gun as identified at the trial differs from the gun described in the amended
show that appellant was not in his house at that time Luz Tanciangco and Luz Morados, his alleged helper, information, the corpus delicti (the substance of the crime, the fact that a crime has actually been committed)
allowed the authorities to enter it (TSN, October 31, 1989, p. 10). We Find no evidence that would establish has not been fully established. This circumstance coupled with dubious claims of appellant's connection to the
the fact that Luz Morados was indeed the appellant's helper or if it was true that she was his helper, that the house (where the gun was found) have totally emasculated the prosecution's case.
appellant had given her authority to open his house in his absence. The prosecution likewise failed to show if But even as We find for the accused-appellant, We, take exception to the argument raised by the defense that
Luz Tanciangco has such an authority. Without this evidence, the authorities' intrusion into the appellant's the crime of subversion absorbs the crime of illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of or incident to or in
dwelling cannot be given any color of legality. While the power to search and seize is necessary to the public connection with the crime of subversion. It appears that the accused-appellant is facing a separate charge of
welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the subversion. The defense submits that the trial court should have peremptorily dismissed this case in view of
citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic
the subversion charge. In People of the Philippines v. Asuncion, et al., We set forth in no uncertain terms the Nonetheless, the evidence in hand is too weak to convict the accused-appellant of the charge of illegal
futility of such argument. We quote: possession of firearm in furtherance of, or incident to or in connection with the crime of subversion, We are
If We are to espouse the theory of the respondents that force and violence are the very therefore, left with no option, but to acquit the accused on reasonable doubt.
essence of subversion, then it loses its distinction from rebellion. In People v. Liwanag ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and the appellant is ACQUITTED with
(G.R. No. 27683, 1976, 73 SCRA 473, 480 [1976]), the Court categorically costs de oficio.
distinguished subversion from rebellion, and held: SO ORDERED.
Violation of Republic Act No. 1700, or subversion, as it is more
commonly called, is a crime distinct from that of actual
rebellion. The crime of rebellion is committed by rising publicly
and taking up arms against the Government for any of the
purposes specified in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code;
while the Anti-Subversion Act (Republic Act No. 1700)
punishes affiliation or membership in a subversive organization
as defined therein. In rebellion, there must be a public uprising
and taking of arms against the Government; whereas, in
subversion, mere membership in a subversive association is
sufficient and the taking up of arms by a member of a subversive
organization against the Government is but a circumstance
which raises the penalty to be imposed upon the offender.
(Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, in the case of Buscayno v. Military Commission (G.R. 58284, 109 289
(1981]), this Court said that subversion, like treason, is a crime against national
security, while rebellion is a crime against public order. Rising publicly and taking
arms against the Government is the very element of the crime on rebellion. On the
other hand, R.A. 1700 was enacted to outlaw the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP) , other similar associations and its successors because their existence and
activities constitute a clear, present and grave danger to national security.
The first Whereas clause of R.A. 1700 states that the CPP is an organized conspiracy to
overthrow the Government, not only by force and violence but also by deceit,
subversion, and other illegal means. This is a recognition that subversive acts do not
only constitute force and violence (contrary to the arguments of private respondents),
but may partake of other forms as well. One may in fact be guilty of subversion by
authoring subversive materials, where force and violence is neither necessary or
indispensable.
Private respondents contended that the Court in Misolas v. Panga impliedly ruled that
if an accused is simultaneously charged with violation of P.D. 1866 and subversion, the
doctrine of absorption of common crimes as applied in rebellion would have found
application therein. The respondents relied on the opinion of this Court when it said:
. . . in the present case, petitioner is being charged specifically
for the qualified offense of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition under PD 1866. HE IS NOT BEING CHARGED
WITH THE COMPLEX CRIME OF SUBVERSION WITH
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS. NEITHER IS HE
BEING SEPARATELY CHARGED FOR SUBVERSION AND
FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS. Thus, the
rulings of the Court in Hernandez, Geronimo and Rodriguez find
no application in this case.
This is however a mere obiter. In the above case, the Court upheld the validity of the
charge under the third paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. 1866. The Court opined that the
dictum in the Hernandez case is not applicable in that case, considering that the
legislature deemed it fit to provide for two distinct offenses: (1) illegal possession of
firearms qualified by subversion (P.D. 1866) and (2) subversion qualified by the taking
up of arms against the Government (R.A. 1700). The practical result of this may be
harsh or it may pose grave difficulty on an accused in instances similar to those that
obtain in the present case, but the wisdom of the legislature in the lawful exercise of its
power to enact laws is something that the Court cannot inquire into . . . (G.R. Nos.
83837-42, April 22, 1992).
 Respondent judge argued that the findings of complainant judge in his 9 August 1993 order is his opinion-
argument and contended that "the proper remedy for a seemingly weak probable cause finding is a
reinvestigation." 5
On 17 November 1993, Judge Antonino A. Aquilizan, Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Cagayan, Branch 10 denied with finality the motion filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Melencio
Unciano for reconsideration of the 9 August 1993 order of then Presiding Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili and
dismissed the aforestated criminal case provisionally on grounds of absence of probable cause against the
accused. 6
In its report and evaluation dated 26 April 1995, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that
respondent be admonished to be more careful in the determination of the existence of probable cause before
issuing a warrant of arrest. Thus, opined the Office of the Court Administrator:
Close perusal of the records disclosed that the complaining witnesses do not have
personal knowledge of the facts which became the basis of the filing of the crime
charged and of the issuance of the warrant of arrest. From the affidavits of the affiants
alone (Rollo, pp. 6-7), it is very clear that they learned the killing of victim Virgilio
Capa from a certain Wilma Anama. Respondent Judge, however, on the basis of the
said affidavits, issued an Order dated October 8, 1992 directing the issuance of a
warrant of arrest for the temporary confinement of the accused. Thereafter, the warrant
of arrest was issued on the same day.
Respondent Judge in issuing the warrant of arrest failed to observe the elementary
requirement that the complainant and his witnesses should have personal knowledge of
the commission of the offense charged. Just like in the issuance of search warrants,
mere hearsay evidence, cannot, standing alone, justify the issuance of a warrant of
arrest (See Quintero vs. National Bureau of Investigation, G.R. 35149, June 23, 1988,
A.M. No. MTJ-94-979 October 25, 1995 Padilla J). Respondent Judge should be reminded that under Section 36, Rule 130,
JUDGE EMERITO M. AGCAOILI, RTC-BRANCH 10, APARRI, CAGAYAN, complainant, Revised Rules on Evidence, "A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows
vs. of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, . . .
JUDGE ADOLFO B. MOLINA, MCTC, GONZAGA-STA. TERESITA, CAGAYAN, respondent. (309)".
  We concur with the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator.
KAPUNAN, J.: Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the New Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a warrant of arrest shall be
The members of the bench are, undoubtedly, expected to be knowledgeable in the law, its basic tenets and issued only when the "municipal trial judge conducting the preliminary investigation is satisfied after an
principles. examination in writing in the form of searching questions and answers, that a probable cause exists and that
Unfortunately, respondent judge fell short of the norm. there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of
The instant case was brought to this Court in connection with the order 1 of complainant Judge justice." This is in conformity with the constitutional mandate that no "warrant of arrest shall issue except
Emerito M. Agcaoili dated 9 August 1993 charging Judge Adolfo B. Molina with grave ignorance upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
of the law in relation to Criminal Case No. 10-435, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Rolando the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. 7
Anama," for homicide. A directive was contained in said order to furnish this Court with a copy In turn, probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as such facts and
thereof "for its information and appropriate action." circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
In the aforecited order, complainant judge alleged that respondent, in conducting the preliminary committed by the person sought to be arrested. 8
investigation of the above-mentioned criminal case, failed to exercise utmost care in the issuance of a warrant Although the foregoing provisions seemingly grant judges wide latitude and unbridled discretion in
of arrest against the accused, Rolando Anama, based as it was, merely on the statements of two (2) witnesses determining probable cause, an elementary legal principle must not be compromised — hearsay evidence
who had no personal knowledge of the commission of the offense charged. cannot be the basis of probable cause. The rules on evidence are explicit. A witness can testify only to those
Such action, complainant judge averred, was a clear violation of section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception. 9
which requires that before a warrant of arrest is issued, "the judge must personally determine the existence of Hearsay evidence, therefore, has no probative value whatsoever. 10 Yet, in the case at bench, respondent judge
probable cause from an examination under oath of the complainant and his witnesses." 2 found probable cause and even issued an arrest warrant on the basis of the testimonies of Mencelacion
Mere hearsay evidence cannot be the basis that probable cause exists, stated complainant judge. There must Padamada and Rosita Castillo which were obviously hearsay. Consider the preliminary investigation
be something more concrete. conducted by respondent judge:
Consequently, in the same order, complainant judge recalled the warrant of arrest and the order directing its xxx xxx xxx
issuance and directed the National Bureau of Investigation, through Regional Office No. 2, Ilagan, Isabela, to Q: You said that you are Mencelacion Padamada, is this
conduct an investigation in order to avoid a possible miscarriage of justice. Mencelacion Padamada the same as Mencelacion Castillo Capa?
In his Comment, respondent admitted that he was the inquest judge in the preliminary investigation of the A: Yes, sir.
above entitled case and finding the existence of probable cause, he ordered the issuance of the warrant of Q: Do you know Virgilio Capa?
arrest against the accused and as the case was cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, it was forwarded to the A: Yes, sir.
Provincial Prosecutor's Office in Aparri, Cagayan. 3 Q: Why do you know him?
Respondent explained that since the case was cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, the Provincial A: He is my son.
Prosecutor's Office, which has the final say and disposition on the existence of probable cause on cases Q: You said you are Mrs. Padamada, how come that the family
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, should carry the brunt of the responsibility for "erroneous" finding of name of your son is Capa?
probable cause. 4 A: He is my child in my first nuptial.
 Q: Was your first husband still alive? Q: What was that news items that reached you?
A: He died already. A: Wilma Anama told me that Virgilio Capa was killed by
Q: Are you legally married with your husband. Rogelio Anama.
A: No, sir, he is only common law husband. Q: Who is this Wilma Anama how is she related to the accused?
Q: You said that Virgilio Capa is your son, do you know where A: They are brother and sister.
is your son now? Q: When Wilma Anama related to you that Virgilio Capa was
A: He was already dead and buried at the cemetery of Sta. Ana, killed by Rolando Anama, what did you do?
Cagayan. A: I informed the mother of Virgilio Capa.
Q: Do you know the cause of his death? Q: Who is the mother of Virgilio Capa?
A: Yes, sir, they killed him. A: Mencelacion Capa.
Q: You said that they killed him do you know the person who Q: When you informed the mother of Virgilio Capa was killed
killed him? by Rolando Anama, what did you do?
A: I do not know his name but his sister came to me and A: I informed the mother of Virgilio Capa.
reported the incident. Q: Who is the mother of Virgilio Capa?
Q: Will you please tell the name of the person who killed your A: Mencelacion Capa.
son Virgilio Capa? A: When you informed the mother of Virgilio Capa about the
A: Rolando Anama. killing incident of her son what did you do if there be any?
Q: How did Rolando Anama, killed your son, if you know? A: I informed Mencelacion Padamada, about the killing of her
A: They stabbed him to death. son and further instructed her to go and see her son.
Q: What kind of weapon did he use in killing your son? Q: Is the court made to understand that you were not present
A: I do not know sir, all I know he was killed by Rolando during the killing incident happened?
Anama. A: No, sir.
Q: So is the court made to understand that you were not present Q: And you do not know the day when Rogelio Anama killed
during the killing of your son, isn't it? Virgilio Capa isn't it?
A: Yes, sir, I was not present because I was at home. A: Yes, sir.
Q: So it is understood that you were only informed about the Q: You were only informed by Wilma Anama the sister of the
death of your son? herein accused about the killing of Virgilio Capa isn't it?
A: Yes, sir, because his sister Wilma Anama, came to me and A: Yes, sir.
reported the incident regarding the death of my son Virgilio Q: Aside from that report made by Wilma Anama what else did
Capa. Wilma Anama tell you if there be any?
Q: What is the name of his sister? A: No more sir, those were only the things told to me by Wilma
A: Wilma Anama. Anama, but she even revealed that Virgilio Capa, was buried by
Q: What did you do when Wilma Anama came to your house her brother Rogelio Anama after killing him.
and reported the killing incident of your son Virgilio Capa? Q: Did he tell the place where he was buried?
A: We went to see. A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did you do at that time when you were informed about Q: To whom did Wilma Anama reveal that Virgilio Capa was
the killing of your son? buried after he was killed by Rolando Anama?
A: I went to see and verify it. A: I, sir.
Q: Where? Q: How about the mother of Virgilio Capa was she present at
A: At San Vicente, Sta. Ana, Cagayan, to the house of Rolando that time when Wilma Anama reported the incident to you?
Anama. A: The mother was not present.
Q: What did you find out when you reach the house of Rolando Q: So it was you to whom Wilma Anama related the killing of
Anama? Virgilio Capa by Rolando Anama?
A: I found out that my son, is already buried. A: Yes, sir. 11 (Emphasis ours)
Q: How did you come to know that your son was buried? xxx xxx xxx
A: Wilma Anama reported to me sir. We are as perplexed as complainant judge Agcaoili why Wilma Anama, who apparently witnessed the
COURT: That is all. (Emphasis ours) alleged crime or has personal knowledge thereof, was not summoned by respondent for investigation. She
xxx xxx xxx could have been the key to determining whether or not Rolando Anama was the probable perpetrator of the
Q: Please state your name and other personal circumstances? grisly killing.
A: Rosita Castillo, 52 years old, married, housekeeper and Respondent cannot pass the blame and burden to the provincial prosecutor. The determination of probable
resident of Parada-Batu, Sta. Ana, Cagayan. cause is a function of the judge and is not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. Only the judge
COURT: and the judge alone makes this determination. 12
Q: On June 15, 1992 in the morning, can you still recall where Liberty, in any part of the civilized world is a basic human right, the curtailment of which must be in strict
were you? conformity with the procedure laid down by law. It is, therefore, this constant reminder which compels us to
A: I was in your house sir. remain ever vigilant.
Q: While you were inside your house can you recall some WHEREFORE, respondent judge is hereby REPRIMANDED for his failure to comply with the pertinent
(newbits) that reached you? rules on the issuance of a warrant of arrest, with a warning that repetition of the same or similar acts will be
A: Yes, sir. dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this resolution be entered in his record.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.