4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

ENBANC

[G.R.No.147786.January20,2004]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ERIC GUILLERMO y GARCIA,

appellant.
DECISION
QUISUMBING,J.:

Forautomaticreviewisthejudgment[1]oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofAntipoloCity,
Branch 73, dated March 7, 2001, in Criminal Case No. 9814724, finding appellant Eric
GuillermoyGarciaguiltyofmurderandsentencinghimtosufferthepenaltyofdeath.
InanInformationdatedMarch23,1998,appellantwaschargedbyStateProsecutorJaime
Augusto B. Valencia, Jr., of murdering his employer, Victor Francisco Keyser, committed as
follows:
Thatonoraboutthe22nddayofMarch1998,intheMunicipalityofAntipolo,ProvinceofRizal,
PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,armedwitha
pieceofwoodandasaw,withintenttokill,bymeansoftreacheryandwithevidentpremeditation,did
thenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyattack,assaultandhitwithapieceofwoodand
thereafter,cutintopiecesusingsaidsawoneVictorF.Keyser,therebyinflictinguponthelattermortal
injurieswhichdirectlycausedhisdeath.
CONTRARYTOLAW.[2]
When arraigned on April 3, 1998, the appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded
guiltytothecharge.[3]
OnApril23,1998,however,appellantmovedtowithdrawhispleaofguiltyandprayedfora
rearraignment.ThetrialcourtgrantedthemotionandonApril28,1998,hewasrearraigned.
Assisted by counsel de parte, he entered a plea of not guilty.[4] The case then proceeded to
trial.
Thefacts,asgleanedfromtherecords,areasfollows.
The victim, Victor Francisco Keyser, was the owner and manager of Keyser Plastic
Manufacturing Corp. (Keyser Plastics for brevity), with principal place of business at Sitio
Halang, Lornaville, San Roque, Antipolo City. [5] Keyser Plastics shared its building with
Greatmore Corporation, a manufacturer of faucets.[6] Separating the respective spaces being
utilizedbythetwofirmsintheiroperationswasawall,thelowerportionofwhichwasmadeof
concrete hollow blocks, while the upper portion was of lawanit boards.[7] The part of the wall
madeoflawanithadtwolargeholes,whichcouldallowapersonononesideofthewalltosee
whatwasontheotherside.[8]
OnMarch22,1998,prosecutionwitnessRomualdoCampos,asecurityguardassignedto
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

1/14

4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

Greatmore was on duty. At around 8:00 a.m., he saw appellant Eric G. Guillermo enter the
premises of Keyser Plastics. Campos ignored Guillermo, as he knew him to be one of the
trusted employees of Keyser Plastics. An hour later, he saw Victor F. Keyser arrive. Keyser
checkedthepumpmotorofthedeepwell,whichwaslocatedintheareaofGreatmore,after
whichhealsowentinsidethepartofthebuildingoccupiedbyKeyserPlastics.[9]Campospaid
scantattentiontoKeyser.
Later, at around 10:00 a.m., Campos was making some entries in his logbook, when he
heard some loud noises (kalabugan) coming from the Keyser Plastics area. He stopped to
listen,butthinkingthatthenoisewascomingfromthemachinesusedtomakeplastics,hedid
notpaymuchattentiontothesound.[10]
At around noontime, Campos was suddenly interrupted in the performance of his duties
whenhesawappellantGuillermolookthroughoneoftheholesinthedividingwall.According
to Campos, appellant calmly told him that he had killed Victor Keyser and needed Campos
assistance to help him carry the corpse to the garbage dump where he could burn it.[11]
Shockedbythisrevelation,Camposimmediatelydashedofftotelephonethepolice.Thepolice
toldhimtoimmediatelysecurethepremisesandnotletthesuspectescape,[12]whileareaction
teamwasbeingdispatchedtothescene.
Ten minutes later, a team composed of SPO4 Felix Bautista, SPO1 Carlito Reyes, and
PoliceAide Jovenal Dizon, Jr., all from theAntipolo Philippine National Police (PNP) Station,
arrived at the crime scene. With them was Felix Marcelo, an official police photographer.[13]
TheywereimmediatelymetbyCampos,whoinformedthemthatGuillermowasstillinsidethe
building.ThelawenforcerstriedtoenterthepremisesofKeyserPlastics,butfoundthegates
securelylocked.TheofficersthentalkedtoGuillermoandaftersomeminutes,persuadedhim
togivethemthekeys.Thisenabledthepolicetoopenthegate.Onceinside,SPO4Bautista
andSPO1ReyesimmediatelyaccostedGuillermowhotoldthem,Sir,hindiakolalaban,susuko
ako, haharapin ko ito. (Sir, I shall not fight you, I am surrendering, and I shall face the
consequences.)[14]Guillermowascladonlyinapairofshorts,nakedfromthewaistup.SPO1
Reyes then asked him where the body of the victim was and Guillermo pointed to some
cardboardboxes.Onopeningtheboxes,thepolicefoundthedismemberedlimbsandchopped
torsoofVictorF.Keyser.Thevictimsheadwasfoundstuffedinsideacementbag.[15]
Whenthepoliceaskedhowhedidit,accordingtotheprosecutionwitness,Guillermosaid
that he bashed the victim on the head with a piece of wood, and after Keyser fell, he
dismemberedthebodywithacarpenterssaw.Hethenmoppedupthebloodonthefloorwitha
plastic foam. Guillermo then turned over to the police a bloodstained, twofoot long piece of
coconut lumber and a carpenters saw.[16] Photographs were taken of the suspect, the
dismemberedcorpse,andtheimplementsusedincommittingthecrime.Whenaskedastohis
motive for the killing, Guillermo replied that Keyser had been maltreating him and his co
employees.[17]Heexpressednoregretwhatsoeverabouthisactions.[18]
The police then brought Guillermo to the Antipolo PNP Station for further investigation.
SPO1 Carlos conducted the investigation, without apprising the appellant about his
constitutional rights and without providing him with the services of counsel. SPO1 Carlos
requestedtheNationalBureauofInvestigation(NBI)toconductapostmortemexaminationon
Keysers remains. The Antipolo police then turned over the bloodstained piece of wood and
saw,recoveredfromthelocusdelicti,tothePNPCrimeLaboratoryfortesting.
Dr.RavellRonaldR.Baluyot,amedicolegalofficeroftheNBI,autopsiedKeysersremains.
Hefoundthatthecadaverhadbeencutintoseven(7)pieces.[19]Hefoundthattheheadhad
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

2/14

4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

sustained thirteen (13) contusions, abrasions, and other traumatic injuries,[20]allofwhichhad

beencausedbyforciblecontactwithhardbluntobject,[21]suchasaleadpipe,baseballbat,or
a piece of wood.[22] He found the cause of death to be traumatic head injury.[23] Dr. Baluyot
declared that since the amputated body parts had irregular edges on the soft tissues, it was
mostlikelythata sharpedged,toothedinstrument,likeasaw,hadbeenusedtomutilatethe
corpse.[24] He further declared that it was possible that the victim was dead when sawn into
pieces, due to cyanosis or the presence of stagnant blood in the body,[25] but on cross
examination, he admitted that he could not discount the possibility that the victim might still
havebeenalivewhenmutilated.[26]
Dr. Olga Bausa, medicolegal pathologist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, testified that she
subjectedthebloodstainedpieceofcocolumberaswellasthesawrecoveredfromthecrime
scenetoabiochemicalexaminationtodetermineifthebloodstainswereofhumanorigin.Both
tested positive for the presence of human blood.[27] However, she could not determine if the
bloodwasofthesametypeasthatofthevictimowingtotheinsufficientamountofbloodstains
ontheitemstested.[28]
Keysers death shocked the nation. Appellant Guillermo, who was then in police custody,
wasinterviewedonseparateoccasionsbytwoTVreporters,namely:AugustoGusAbelgasof
ABSCBN News and Kara David of GMA Channel 7. Both interviews were subsequently
broadcastnationwide.AppellantadmittedtoDavidthathecommittedthecrimeandnevergave
it second thought.[29] He disclosed to David the details of the crime, including how he struck
Keyserontheheadandcutuphisbodyintopieces,whichheplacedinsacksandcartons.[30]
When asked why he killed his employer, Guillermo stated that Keyser had not paid him for
years, did not feed him properly, and treated him like an animal.[31] BothAbelgas and David
said that Guillermo expressed absolutely no remorse over his alleged misdeed during the
courseoftheirrespectiveinterviewswithhim.[32]
Atthetrial,appellantGuillermosdefenseconsistedofoutrightdenial.Heallegedhewasa
victimofpoliceframeup.HetestifiedthathehadbeenanemployeeofKeyserformorethana
year prior to the latters death. On the date of the incident, he was all alone at the Keyser
Plasticsfactorycompoundasastayinemployee.Otheremployeeshaveleftallegedlydueto
Keysersmaltreatmentofthem.[33]
In the morning of March 22, 1998, appellant said Keyser instructed him to report for
overtime work in the afternoon. He proceeded to the factory premises at one oclock in the
afternoon, but since his employer was not around, he said, he just sat and waited till he fell
asleep.[34] He was awakened sometime later when he heard people calling him from outside.
Hethenlookedoutandsawpersonswithfirearms,whotoldhimthattheywantedtoenterthe
factory.Onceinside,theyimmediatelyhandcuffedhimandlookedaroundthepremises.When
theyreturned,theywerecarryingboxesandsacks.Hesaidhewasthenbroughttothepolice
station where he was advised to admit having killed his employer since there was no other
person to be blamed.[35] When he was made to face the media reporters, he said the police
instructed him what to say.[36] He claimed that he could no longer recall what he told the
reporters. The appellant denied having any grudge or ill feelings against his employer or his
family.
On crossexamination, appellant admitted that he was the shirtless person in the
photographs taken at the crime scene, while the persons with him in the photographs were
policemenwearinguniforms.[37]Helikewiseadmittedthatthecartonsandsacksfoundbythe
police inside the factory premises contained the mutilated remains of his employer.[38] He
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

3/14

4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

claimed,however,thathewassurprisedbythecontentsofsaidcartonsandsacks.[39]Appellant
admittedthatabloodstainedpieceofwoodandasawwerealsorecoveredbythepolice,but
heinsistedthatthepolicemadehimholdthesawwhentheytookphotographs.[40]
The trial court disbelieved appellants version of the incident, but found the prosecutions
evidenceagainsthimweightyandworthyofcredence.Itconvictedtheappellant,thus:
Theguiltoftheaccusedhasbeenprovenbeyondreasonabledoubttothecrimeofmurderaschargedin
[the]information.WHEREFORE,theaccusedismetedthemaximumpenaltyandisherebysentencedto
diebylethalinjection.
Theaccusedisalsoherebyorderedtopaythemotherofthevictim,VictorKeyser,thefollowing
amounts:
1.DeathIndemnityP50,000.00
2.FuneralExpensesP50,000.00
3.CompensatoryDamagesP500,000.00
4.MoralDamagesP500,000.00
5.ExemplaryDamagesP300,000.00
6.AttorneysFeesP100,000.00plusP3,000.00perCourtappearance.
SOORDERED.[41]
Hence,thecaseisnowbeforeusforautomaticreview.
Inhisbrief,appellantassignsthefollowingerrors:
I

THECOURTAQUOGRAVELYERREDINFINDINGTHATTHEGUILTOFTHEACCUSED
APPELLANTFORTHECRIMEOFMURDERHASBEENPROVENBEYONDREASONABLE
DOUBT.
II

THECOURTAQUOERREDINIMPOSINGTHEEXTREMEPENALTYOFDEATH.
III

THECOURTAQUOGRAVELYERREDINAWARDINGTHEFOLLOWINGDAMAGES:DEATH
INDEMNITYP50,000.00FUNERALEXPENSESP50,000.00COMPENSATORYDAMAGES
P500,000.00MORALDAMAGESP500,000.00EXEMPLARYDAMAGESP300,000.00AND
ATTORNEYSFEESOFP100,000.00PLUSP3,000PERCOURTAPPEARANCE.[42]
Briefly stated, the issues for resolution concern: (1) the sufficiency of the prosecutions
evidencetoprovetheappellantsguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt(2)theproprietyofthedeath
penaltyimposedonappellantand(3)thecorrectnessoftheawardofdamages.
Appellantcontendsthathisconvictionwasbasedoninadmissibleevidence.Hepointsout
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

4/14

4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

thatthereisnoclearshowingthathewasinformedofhisconstitutionalrightsnorwashemade
tounderstandthesamebythepoliceinvestigators.Infact,hesays,hewasonlymadetoread
saidrightsinprintedformposedonthewallatthepoliceprecinct.Hewasnotprovidedwiththe
servicesofcounselduringthecustodialinvestigation,asadmittedbySPO1Reyes.Inviewof
no showing on record that he had waived his constitutional rights, appellant argues that any
evidencegatheredfromhim,includinghisallegedconfession,mustbedeemedinadmissible.
FortheState,theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)countersthattheevidenceclearly
showsthattheappellantadmittedcommittingthecrimeinseveralinstances,notjustduringthe
custodial investigation. First, he admitted having killed his employer to the security guard,
Campos,andevensoughtCamposhelpindisposingofKeysersbody.Thisadmissionmaybe
treatedaspartoftheresgestaeanddoesnotpartakeofuncounselledextrajudicialconfession,
accordingtotheOSG.Thus,OSGcontendssaidstatementisadmissibleasevidenceagainst
the appellant. Second, the appellants statements before members of the media are likewise
admissibleinevidence,accordingtotheOSG,asthesestatementsweremadeinresponseto
questionsbynewsreporters,notbypoliceorotherinvestigatingofficer.TheOSGstressesthat
appellantwasinterviewedbymediaontwoseparateoccasions,andeachtimehemadefree
and voluntary statements admitting his guilt before the news reporters. He even supplied the
details on how he committed the crime. Third, the OSG points out that appellant voluntarily
confessedtothekillingevenbeforethepolicecouldenterthepremisesandevenbeforeany
question could be posed to him. Furthermore, after the police investigators had entered the
factory,theappellantpointedtotheplacewhereKeyserscorpsewasfound.TheOSGsubmits
that at these points in time, appellant was not yet under custodial investigation. Rather his
statements to the police at the crime scene were spontaneous and voluntary, not elicited
throughquestioning,andhencemustbetreatedaspartoftheresgestae and thus, says the
OSG,admissibleinevidence.
The OSG contends that not every statement made to the police by a suspect in a crime
falls within the ambit of constitutional protection. Hence, if not made under custodial
investigation or under investigation for the commission of an offense, the statement is not
protectedbytheBillofRights.
However,inourview,theconfessionappellantmadewhilehewasunderinvestigationby
SPO1 Carlito Reyes for the killing of Keyser at the Antipolo PNP Station, falls short of the
protective standards laid down by the Constitution. Under Article III of the Constitution, [43] a
confession to be admissible must satisfy the following requisites: (a) the confession must be
voluntary(b)theconfessionmustbemadewiththeassistanceofcompetentandindependent
counsel(c)theconfessionmustbeexpressand(d)theconfessionmustbeinwriting.[44]Inthe
instant case, the testimony of SPO1 Reyes on crossexamination clearly shows the cavalier
treatmentbythepoliceofsaidconstitutionalguarantees.Thiscanreadilybegleanedfromthe
transcriptofReyestestimony,whichweexcerpt:
Q:Whatdidyoudonextuponarrivingatthepolicestation?
A:Whenwearrivedatthepolicestation,Ipointedtohimandaskedhimtoreadwhatwaswritten
onthewallwhichwashisconstitutionalrights.
Q:Didhereadthesame?
A:Yes,mam.
Q:Didyouasktheaccusedifhedidunderstandwhatheread?
A:Yes,mam.
Q:SoMr.Witness,youdidcontinueyourinvestigationatthepolicestation?
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

5/14

4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

A:Yes,mam.
COURT:
What did the accused say when you asked him if he understood what was written on the wall
whichwashisconstitutionalrights?
A:Hesaidheunderstoodwhatwaswrittenonthewallandhehasnoregrets.
COURT:
Proceed.
DEFENSECOUNSEL:
Whowerepresentatthepolicestationduringyourinvestigation?
A:ThereweremanypeoplearoundwhenIconductedtheinvestigationatthepolicestation.My
companionsweretherebutIdonotknowtheotherpersonswhowerepresent.
Q:Howwastheinvestigationthatyouconductedatthepolicestation?
A:IinquiredagainfromEricGuillermowhyhedidit,thereasonwhyhedidit.
Q:Andwasyourinvestigationbeingrecordedinthepolicestation?
A:No,mam.
Q:Letmejustclarify,Ididnotmeanlikeataperecorder.Wasitwritten?
A:Ionlyaskedhimbutitwasnotwrittendownorrecorded.
Q: During the investigation, was there any lawyer or counsel that was called during the
investigation?
A:None,mam.
Q:Didyouinformtheaccusedthathehastherighttogetacounselduringtheinvestigation?
A:Yes,mam.
Q:Whatdidtheaccusedsay,Mr.Witness?
A:Hedidnotutteranyword.
Q:Duringtheinvestigationatthepolicestation,didyouexertefforttoprovidehimwithcounsel
beforeyouaskedhimquestions?
A:No,mam.
Q:Why?
A: Because during that time, it was Sunday afternoon and there was no counsel around and
becausehealreadyadmittedthatheperpetratedthecrimeandthatwasexplainedtohim,
hisconstitutionalrightswhichwasonthewall.Wedidnotprovideanymoreacounsel.
Q:Iwouldjustliketoaskthereasonwhyyoumadetheaccusedreadthewrittenrightsthatwas
postedonthewallofyourpolicestation?
A:Sothathewouldbeapprisedofhisconstitutionalrights.
Q:So,youmeanthatyoumadehimunderstandhisrights?
A:Yes,mam.
Q:So,youmeantosaybeforeyouaskedhimtoreadhisrights,youpresumedthathedoesnot
understandwhathisconstitutionalrightsare?
A:Ithinkheknowshisconstitutionalrightsbecauseheadmittedthecrime.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

6/14

4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

Q:Anddidtheaccusedunderstandhisrights?
A:Ibelieveheunderstoodbecauseheanswered,walaakongdapatpagsisihan.(Ihavenothing
toregret.).[45]

AppellantsallegedconfessionatthepolicestationlacksthesafeguardsrequiredbytheBill
ofRights.Theinvestigatingofficermadenoseriousefforttomakeappellantawareofhisbasic
rightsundercustodialinvestigation.Whiletheinvestigatingofficerwasawareoftheappellants
righttoberepresentedbycounsel,theofficerexertednoefforttoprovidehimwithoneonthe
flimsyexcusethatitwasaSunday.Despitetheabsenceofcounsel,theofficerproceededwith
saidinvestigation.Moreover, the record is bare of any showing that appellant had waived his
constitutionalrightsinwritingandinthepresenceofcounsel.AswellsaidinPeoplev.Dano,
even if the admission or confession of an accused is gospel truth, if it was made without the
assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or
evenifithadbeenvoluntarilygiven.[46]
Therightofapersonunderinterrogationtobeinformedimpliesacorrelativeobligationon
thepartofthepoliceinvestigatortoexplainandcontemplatesaneffectivecommunicationthat
resultsinanunderstandingofwhatisconveyed.[47]Absentthatunderstanding,thereisadenial
oftherighttobeinformed,asitcannotbesaidthatthepersonhasbeentrulyinformedofhis
rights.Ceremonialshortcutsinthecommunicationofabstractconstitutionalprinciplesoughtnot
beallowedforitdiminishesthelibertyofthepersonfacingcustodialinvestigation.
Bethatasitmay,however,theinadmissibilityoftheappellantsconfessiontoSPO1Reyes
at the Antipolo PNP Station as evidence does not necessarily lead to his acquittal. For
constitutionalsafeguardsoncustodialinvestigation(known,alsoastheMirandaprinciples)do
not apply to spontaneous statements, or those not elicited through questioning by law
enforcementauthoritiesbutgiveninanordinarymannerwherebytheappellantverballyadmits
tohavingcommittedtheoffense.TherightsenumeratedintheConstitution,ArticleIII,Section
12, are meant to preclude the slightest use of the States coercive power as would lead an
accused to admit something false. But it is not intended to prevent him from freely and
voluntarilyadmittingthetruthoutsidethesphereofsuchpower.
Thefactsinthiscaseclearlyshowthatappellantadmittedthecommissionofthecrimenot
justtothepolicebutalsotoprivateindividuals.Accordingtothetestimonyofthesecurityguard,
Romualdo Campos, on the very day of the killing the appellant called him to say that he had
killedhisemployerandneededassistancetodisposeofthecadaver.Campostestimonywas
not rebutted by the defense. As the Solicitor General points out, appellants statements to
Campos are admissible for being part of the res gestae. Under the Rules of Court,[48] a
declarationisdeemedpartoftheresgestaeandadmissibleinevidenceasanexceptiontothe
hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae is a
startlingoccurrence(2)thestatementsweremadebeforethedeclaranthadtimetocontriveor
devise and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attendingcircumstances.[49]Alltheserequisitesarepresentintheinstantcase.Appellanthad
just been through a startling and gruesome occurrence, the death of his employer. His
admission to Campos was made while he was still under the influence of said startling
occurrenceandbeforehehadanopportunitytoconcoctorcontriveastory.Hisdeclarationto
Campos concerned the circumstances surrounding the killing of Keyser. Appellants
spontaneousstatementsmadetoaprivatesecurityguard,notanagentoftheStateoralaw
enforcer,arenotcoveredbytheMirandaprinciplesand,asresgestate,admissibleinevidence
againsthim.
Further,wheninterviewedonseparateoccasionsbythemedia,appellantnotonlyagreed
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

7/14

4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

to be interviewed by the news reporters, but he spontaneously admitted his guilt to them. He
evensuppliedthedetailsregardingthecommissionofthecrimetoreporterKaraDavidofGMA
Channel7,whotestifiedincourt,towit:
PUBLICPROSECUTOR:
Q:Couldyoutelluswhatyoufoundoutintheinterview?
A:ThefirstquestionIthinkIaskedwas,ifheadmitsthecrimeandhegladlysaidyeshedidit,
thedetailsaboutthecrime,howhesawthebodyandwhereheputit,andthereasonwhy
hedidit.
COURT:
Towhatcrimedidheadmit?
A:Hesaidhegotmadwith(sic)hisboss,sohegotapieceofwood,dospordos,hehithisboss
inthebackandthenafterthat,Ithinkhegotasawandsawedthebodytoeightpieces.
PUBLICPROSECUTOR:
YousaidtheinterviewwasdoneinsidetheroomofCol.Quintana,howmanywereyouinsidethe
roomatthattime?
A:IreallycouldnotrememberbutIwaswithmycameraman,anassistant,Col.QuintanaandI
thinktwomoreescorts.Icouldnotremembertheothers.
Q: You mentioned a while ago that he gladly admitted what he did, can you explain gladly
admitted?
A:UsuallywhenIinterviewsuspects,eithertheydenyor[are]inhysterics,butEricseems(sic)
calmwhenIinterviewedhim.
Isaid,ginawamobaangkrimen,andhesaid,Oo.Hindikabanagdalawangisip?Hindi.Itwas
kindofeerie.
Q: You also mentioned that he gave details of the crime he committed, aside from what you
alreadymentionedlikehisbossbeinghitintheheadandcuttoeightpieces,whatdidhetell
you?
A:Hetoldmewhereheputit,likehelookedforsacksandcartons,andhetoldmewhereheput
theheadbutIcouldnotremember.
But I remember him saying he put the head in the bag and he said he asked help from the
securityguard,Campos.Basically,thatsit.Andhetoldmethereasonwhyhedidit.
Q:Whydidhedoit?
A: Because he was not being paid for what he has done and Mr. Keyser treated him like an
animal,thingslikethat.
Hesaidthatwhathedidwasjustright,justjustice.[50]

The TV news reporters testimonies on record show that they were acting as media
professionalswhentheyinterviewedappellant.Theywerenotunderthedirectionandcontrolof
thepolice.TherewasnocoercionforappellanttofacetheTVcameras.Therecordalsoshows
thattheinterviewstookplaceonseveraloccasions,notjustonce.Eachtime,theappellantdid
notprotestorinsistonhisinnocence.Instead,herepeatedlyadmittedwhathehaddone. He
evensupplieddetailsofKeyserskilling.AsheldinAndan,statementsspontaneouslymadeby
a suspect to news reporters during a televised interview are voluntary and admissible in
evidence.[51]
Thus,wehavenohesitationinsayingthat,despitetheinadmissibilityofappellantsalleged
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

8/14

4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

confessiontothepolice,theprosecutionhasamplyproventheappellantsguiltinthekillingof
VictorF.Keyser.Thebaredenialraisedbytheappellantinopencourtpalesincontrasttothe
spontaneousandvividoutofcourtadmissionshemadetosecurityguardCamposandthetwo
media reporters,Abelgas and David. The positive evidence, including the instruments of the
crime, together with the medical evidence as well as the testimonies of credible prosecution
witnesses,leavesusnodoubtthatappellantkilledhisemployer,VictorFranciscoKeyser,inthe
gruesomemannervividlydescribedbeforethetrialcourt.
Butwasappellantsoffensemurderforwhichappellantshouldsufferthedeathpenalty,or
onlyhomicideforwhichalesserpenaltyisappropriate?
Appellant argues that the prosecution failed to prove either treachery or evident
premeditation to qualify the killing as murder. He points out that there was not a single
eyewitnesstoshowhowthecrimewascommittedandhence,absentaneyewitnesstoshow
themannerinwhichthecrimewascommitted,hecannotbeheldliableformurder.
For the appellee, the OSG submits that as recounted by the appellant himself, he
repeatedlystruckthevictim,withapieceofcocolumber(dospordos),atthebackofhishead,
whilethevictimsbackwasturnedtowardshim.Thesuddennessoftheattack,coupledwiththe
mannerinwhichitwasexecutedclearlyindicatestreachery.TheOSGagreeswithappellant,
however,thatevidentpremeditationwasnotadequatelyestablished.Hence,weshallnowdeal
onlywiththedisputedcircumstance,treachery.
Treachery or alevosia is present when the offender commits any crime against persons
employingmeans,methodsorformsintheexecutionthereof,whichtenddirectlyandspecially
toinsureitsexecutionwithoutrisktotheoffenderarisingfromanydefensewhichtheoffended
partymightmake.[52]Twoessentialrequisitesmustconcurfortreacherytobeappreciated:(a)
theemploymentofmeansofexecutionthatgivesthepersonattackednoopportunitytodefend
himself or to retaliate and (b) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously
adopted.[53]
Aqualifyingcircumstanceliketreacherychangesthenatureofthecrimeandincreasesthe
imposable penalties for the offense. Hence, like the delict itself, it must be proven beyond
reasonabledoubt.[54]Intheinstantcase,wefindinsufficienttheprosecutionsevidencetoprove
thattheattackonthevictimcamewithoutwarningandthathehadabsolutelynoopportunityto
defend himself, or to escape. None of the prosecution witnesses could know how the attack
wasinitiatedorcarriedout,simplybecausetherewasnoeyewitnesstotheoffense.Inaddition,
appellantsnarrationinhistapedinterviewwithChannel7isnottooclearonthispoint,thus:
ERICGUILLERMO:
Muraparinngmura.Nagtatakaakokungbakitganoonnalamangkainitito.Biglaniyaakong
inanoditosabatokkotapositinuturoniyaangditoko(pointingtohishead)itinuturoturoniya
angditoko.
Ayonmurangmura,hindikonapigilanangsariliko,dinampotkoiyongkahoy.
ARNOLDCLAVIO:
Samgaorasnayon,nagdilim,napunonggalitangkanyangmgamata,nakitaniyaangisang
dospordossakanyangtabiatagaddinampothabangnakatalikodangkanyangamo.
ERICGUILLERMO:
Nanggawinkosasarilikoiyonkalmadongkalmadoakonoongginawakoyon.Nasasariliako
noongginawakoiyon.
ARNOLDCLAVIO:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

9/14

4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

Hawak ang mahabang kahoy, hinampas ni Eric si Mr. Keyser, hinampas hanggang sa
mawalanngmalay.Tilahindipanakuntentosakanyangnagawa,napagbalingannamanni
Ericangisanglagaresakanyangtabiatisinagawanaangkarumaldumalnakrimen.[55]

Fromtheforegoing,allthatcanbediscernedisthatthevictimwasscoldingtheappellant,
andthevictimsbackwasturnedtowardstheappellantwhenthelatterpickedupthepieceof
wood. It does not, however, show that there was any deliberate effort on the part of the
appellanttoadopttheparticularmeans,method,orformofattacktoensurethecommissionof
thecrimewithoutaffordingthevictimanymeanstodefendhimself.
Dr.RavellRonaldR.Baluyot,theNBIpathologistwhoautopsiedthevictimsbody,observed
thatitwasdifficulttodeterminethepositionofthevictiminrelationtohisassailant.[56]Norwas
theexperttestimonyofDr.Baluyotdefinitiveastotherelativepositionoftheassailantandthe
victim,towit:
DEFENSECOUNSEL:
I would like also to ask from your medical knowledge thru the blows that the deceased
received in his head which caused the head injury, would you be able to ascertain also in
whatpositionwastheattackerorwheretheattackerwas?
A:Based on the location of the injuries at the head, it would be very difficult to determine the
relative position of the victim and assailant as well as the position of the victim when he
sustained said injury, because there are injuries located at the front, at the left and right
portionsoftheheadalthoughtherewerenonelocatedattheback(stresssupplied).Based
ontheseinjuries,Iwouldsaythatthepositionwouldprobablybemaybeinfront,maybeto
theleftortherightinorderforhimtoinflicttheinjuriestothefront,totheleftandrightsides
ofthehead.[57]

Noteworthy,Dr.Baluyotpointedoutthatbasedontheinjuriessustainedbythevictim,there
isanindicationthathetriedtodefendhimselfagainsttheblowsbeinginflicteduponhim,thus:
PUBLICPROSECUTOR:
Q:The wound that you found at the back of the hand, which is at the back of the right hand,
wouldyoucharacterizethisas[a]defensewound?
A:Itisadefensewound.Allinjuriesespeciallyattheupperextremitiestheycouldbetaggedas
defensewoundstofendoffattacksandtheseupperextremitiesareusuallyusedtoprotect
theheadandthebody.[58]

The gap in the prosecutions evidence cannot be filled with mere speculation. Treachery
cannot be appreciated absent the particulars as to the manner in which the aggression
commencedorhowtheactunfoldedandresultedinthevictimsdemise.[59]Anydoubtastoits
existencemust,perforce,beresolvedinfavorofappellant.
Oneattendantcircumstance,however,isamplyprovedbytheprosecutionsevidencewhich
showsthatthevictimscorpsewassawnbyappellantintoseven(7)pieces.UnderArt.248(6)
of the Revised Penal Code, outraging or scoffing at the corpse is a qualifying circumstance.
Dismemberment of a dead body is one manner of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the
victim.[60]Intheinstantcase,thecorpseofVictorF.Keyserwasdismemberedbyappellantwho
sawed off the head, limbs, and torso. The Information categorically alleges this qualifying
circumstance, when it stated that the appellant thereafter, cut into pieces using said saw one
VictorF.Keyser.Thisbeingthecase,asprovedbytheprosecution,appellantisguiltynotjust
ofhomicidebutofmurder.
Thepenaltyformurderisreclusionperpetuatodeath.Therebeingneitheraggravatingnor
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

10/14

4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

mitigatingcircumstancesintheinstantcase,thelesserpenaltyofreclusionperpetuashouldbe
imposeduponappellant.[61]
Both appellant and appellee claim that the trial court erred in awarding damages. They
submitthatthetrialcourtsawardofP50,000.00forfuneralexpenseshasinsufficientbasis,for
only receipts amounting to P38,068.00 as proof of funeral expenses were presented in
evidence. Thus, this award should be reduced accordingly. Concerning the award of moral
damagesintheamountofP500,000,compensatorydamagesalsoforP500,000andexemplary
damagesin the amount ofP300,000, appellant submits that these cited sums are exorbitant,
and not in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.The OSG agrees, hence modification of said
amountsisinorder.
The amount of moral damages should be reduced to P50,000, pursuant to prevailing
jurisprudence, as the purpose for such award is to compensate the heirs of the victim for the
injuriestotheirfeelingsandnottoenrichthem.[62]Awardofexemplarydamagesisjustifiedin
viewofthegruesomemutilationofthevictimscorpse,buttheamountthereofshouldalsobe
reducedtoonlyP25,000,followingcurrentcaselaw.
The award of P500,000 in compensatory damages lacks proof and ought to be deleted.
Thevictimsmother,RemediosKeyser,testifiedthatthevictimwasearningaroundP50,000.00
a month[63] as shown in the receipt issued by Rosetti Electronics Phils. Co.[64] However, said
receiptshowsthatitwasmadeouttoher,andnotthevictim.Moreover,itdoesnotshowwhat
periodiscoveredbythereceipt.Hence,theactualvalueofthelossofearningcapacitywasnot
adequately established. Awards for the loss of earning capacity partake of the nature of
damages, and must be proved not only by credible and satisfactory evidence but also by
unbiasedproof.[65]
Civilindemnityforthevictimsdeath,however,wasleftoutbythetrialcourt,althoughnowit
is automatically granted without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of the
crime.[66]Hence,conformablywithprevailingjurisprudence,theamountofP50,000.00ascivil
indemnityshouldbeawardedinfavorofthevictimsheirs.
Nothing on the record shows the actual expenses incurred by the heirs of the victim for
attorneys fees and lawyers appearance fees. Attorneys fees are in the concept of actual or
compensatory damages and allowed under the circumstances provided for inArticle 2208 of
theCivilCode,[67]oneofwhichiswhenthecourtdeemsitjustandequitablethatattorneysfees
should be recovered.[68] In this case, we find an award of P25,000 in attorneys fees and
litigationexpensesreasonableandequitable.
WHEREFORE,theassailedjudgmentoftheRegionalTrialCourtofAntipoloCity,Branch
73,datedMarch7,2001inCriminalCaseNo.9814724,findingappellantERICGUILLERMOy
GARCIAGUILTYofthemurderofVictorFranciscoKeyserisAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION.
AppellantssentenceisherebyREDUCEDTORECLUSIONPERPETUA.HeisalsoORDERED
topaytheheirsofthevictim,VictorFranciscoKeyser,thesumofP50,000.00ascivilindemnity,
P38,068.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages, and P25,000.00 as attorneys fees, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.Costsdeoficio.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban,YnaresSantiago, SandovalGutierrez, Carpio,
AustriaMartinez,Corona,CarpioMorales,Callejo,Sr.,AzcunaandTinga,JJ.,concur.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

11/14

4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

[1]Records,pp.258283.
[2]Id.at1.
[3]Id.at25.
[4]Id.at39.
[5]Exh.BB,BB1,andCC,Records,pp.321,322,324.
[6]TSN,28April1998,pp.46.
[7]Exh.A,Records,p.294.
[8]Supra,note6at8.SeealsoTSN,15May1998,pp.78.
[9]Id.at1011.
[10]Id.at89.
[11]Id.at1213.
[12]Id.at14.
[13]TSN,19May1998,p.8.
[14]Id.at15,56.PoliceAideJovenal,Jr.,ondirectexaminationdeclaredthatwhatGuillermotoldSPO1Reyeswas

Haharapin ko ito, huwag niyo akong aanuhin. (Ill face this, dont do anything to me.) See TSN, 11August
1998,p.10.
[15]TSN,19May1998,pp.1719TSN,11August1998,p.19Exh.JandK,Records,p.301.
[16]Id.at21TSN,16June1998,p.10.
[17]Id.at22.
[18]TSN,11August1998,p.51.
[19]Exh.S,Records,p.308.
[20]TSN,4August1998,p.5.SeealsoExh.T,Records,p.309.
[21]TSN,16July1998,p.19.
[22]Id.at20.
[23]TSN,4August1998,p.4Exh.U,Records,p.310.
[24]TSN,16July1998,pp.2627.
[25]Id.at1516.
[26]TSN,4August1998,pp.1921.
[27]TSN,15May1998,pp.3031.SeealsoExh.G,Records,p.299.
[28]Id.at3435.
[29]TSN,18February1999,p.5.
[30]Id.at6,1011.
[31]Id.at14.
[32]Id.at5TSN,8September1998,p.25.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

12/14

4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

[33]TSN,12September2000,p.6.
[34]Id.at8.
[35]Id.at913.
[36]Id.at1516.
[37]Id.at2122.
[38]Id.at23.
[39]Id.at24.
[40]Supra,note38.
[41]Records,p.283.
[42]Rollo,pp.5758.
[43]ART.III,SEC.12.(1)Anypersonunderinvestigationforthecommissionofanoffenseshallhavetherighttobe

informedofhisrighttoremainsilentandtohavecompetentandindependentcounselpreferablyofhisown
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannotbewaivedexceptinwritingandinthepresenceofcounsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
(3)AnyconfessionoradmissionobtainedinviolationofthisorSection17hereofshallbeinadmissibleinevidence
againsthim.
(4)Thelawshallprovideforpenalandcivilsanctionsforviolationsofthissectionaswellascompensationtoand
rehabilitationofvictimsoftortureorsimilarpracticesandtheirfamilies.
[44]Peoplev.Lumandong,G.R.No.132745,9March2000,327SCRA650,663.
[45]TSN,16June1998,pp.2023,26.Italicsforemphasis.
[46]Peoplev.Dano,G.R.No.117690,1September2000,339SCRA515,527.
[47]Peoplev.Continente,G.R.Nos.10080102,25August2000,339SCRA1,21.
[48]Rule130,SEC.42.Partoftheresgestae.Statementsmadebyapersonwhileastartlingoccurrenceistaking

placeorimmediatelypriororsubsequenttheretowithrespecttothecircumstancesthereof,maybegivenin
evidence as part of the resgestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the
issue,andgivingitalegalsignificance,maybereceivedaspartoftheresgestae.
[49]Peoplev.Lobrigas,G.R.No.147649,17December2002,p.8.
[50]TSN,18February1999,pp.46.
[51]Peoplev.Andan,336Phil.91,106(1997).
[52]Peoplev.Patoc,G.R.No.140217,21February2003,pp.1415.
[53]Peoplev.Pinuela,G.R.Nos.14072728,31January2003,p.7.
[54]Peoplev.Orio,G.R.No.128821,12April2000,330SCRA576,588.
[55]TSN,18February1999,p.10.
[56]TSN,16July1998,p.22.
[57]TSN,4August1998,pp.89.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

13/14

4/23/2016

PeoplevsGuillermo:147786:January20,2004:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc:Decision

[58]Supra,note56.
[59]Peoplev.Paracale,G.R.No.141800,9December2002,p.26.
[60]Peoplev.Carmina,G.R.No.81404,28January1991,193SCRA429,435.
[61] ART. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single

indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstancesthatmayhaveattendedthecommissionofthedeed.
Inallcasesinwhichthelawprescribesapenaltycomposedoftwoindivisiblepenalties,thefollowingrulesshallbe
observedintheapplicationthereof:
(2) When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser
penaltyshallbeapplied.
[62]Peoplev.Obosa,G.R.No.129688,2April2002,380SCRA22,35.
[63]TSN,27August1998,p.34.
[64]Exh.DD,Records,p.327.
[65]Peoplev.Cotas,G.R.No.132043,31May2000,332SCRA627,642.
[66]Peoplev.Antonio,Jr.,G.R.No.144266,27November2002.
[67]ART. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs,

cannotberecovered,except:
(1)Whenexemplarydamagesareawarded
(2) When the defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur
expensestoprotecthisinterest
(3)Incriminalcasesofmaliciousprosecutionagainsttheplaintiff
(4)Incaseofaclearlyunfoundedcivilactionorproceedingagainsttheplaintiff
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs valid, just and
demandableclaim
(6)Inactionsforlegalsupport
(7)Inactionsfortherecoveryofwagesofhouseholdhelpers,laborers,andskilledworkers
(8)Inactionsforindemnityunderworkmenscompensationandemployersliabilitylaws
(9)Inaseparatecivilactiontorecovercivilliabilityarisingfromacrime
(10)Whenatleastdoublejudicialcostsareawarded
(11)In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorneys fees and expenses of litigation
shouldberecovered.
Inallcases,theattorneysfeesandexpensesoflitigationmustbereasonable.
[68]Peoplev.Bergante,G.R.Nos.12036970,27February1998,286SCRA629,645.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/147786.htm

14/14