Right to be heard by himself and counsel upon my husband and his companions

while they were on their way home and

G.R. No. L-53586 January 30, 1982 robbed him and brutally and mercilessly
murdered him, and with him, the
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- beautiful dreams we had for our
appellee, children.
vs.
PONCIANO LUMAGUE, JR., MARIO LUMAGUE, Even a mad dog or an abominable
ROLANDO LUMAGUE and JUANITO criminal did not deserve his manner of
LUMAGUE, accused whose death sentences are under death! He, who never harmed anybody
review. nor spanked his children out of love, lay
there in a muddy street of the Marikit
Subdivision, gasping for breath and
calling our ... son even as his assailants
took turns in stabbing him and
PER CURIAM:
pummeling him with a garden hoe that
broke at the handle as it hit my helpless
This is a murder case. Early in the morning of July 25, husband as he lay on the ground.
1977, Antonio A. Regalado, 39, a credit investigator of
the Social Security System, was maliciously killed in the
Our house that was once a happy home
Marikit Sub. division, Marikina, Rizal.
when he was around is no longer the
same since he has gone. Our little girl,
The postmortem examination revealed that he had Ma. Shiela, eats her breakfast silently
fourteen incised wounds, two lacerated wounds, ten with tears streaming down her face; our
punctured wounds and ten stab wounds, or thirty-six son L. Ian keeps asking me when his
wounds in all, eight of which were fatal because they father will wake up, and I, will never get
affected his vital organs like his lungs, liver, heart and used to the emptiness and the void that
intestines (Exh. A). The wounds were located in he has left behind.
different parts of his body: front and back, head, arms,
legs, abdomen, knees, chest and shoulders (Exh. B).
The Marikina police could not solve the crime. At the
Obviously, he had been assaulted by more than one
request of Mrs. Regalado, General Espino referred the
person.
case to the Constabulary criminal investigation service
(CIS) at Camp Crame.
The incised and stab wounds were caused by a bladed
weapon such as a kitchen knife. The lacerated wounds
As a result of the investigation, the four Lumague
were caused by a blunt instrument such as a piece of
brothers, Ponciano, Jr., 27, Rolando, 25, Mario, 23, and
wood or iron bar. The punctured wounds were caused by
Juanito 21, and their brother-in-law, Rodolfo de la Cruz,
a pointed instrument such as an icepick.
were charged with murder for the killing of Regalado.
Ponciano, Rolando and Mario were arrest on August 20,
Elma Icater Regalado, a thirty-nine year-old 1977. Juanito was arrested on October 10, 1977 when
businesswoman, the victim's widow, testified that she the prosecution had already finished the presentation of
spent P 25,000 for the funeral of her husband and for its evidence against his three brothers. De la Cruz is at
miscellaneous obligations (Exh. J to J-8). Aside from his large.
widow, the deceased was survived by his two children,
Ian, 4 and Shiela, 6. In her letter to General Romeo C.
The Lumague brothers came from a family of five boys
Espino, she said (Exh. K):
and five girls. They grew up in the slum area of Tondo,
Manila. Their parents were natives of La Union. The
In our own little world, my husband and father, a convict, was killed by a member of the Oxo
I planned the future of our children. gang (p. 138, Record).
Ma. Shiela was to be a nurse while L. Even before the Lumague brothers were implicated in
Ian, ... was to be a doctor according to the killing of Regalado, Rolando had been charged in the
his wish. We planned and rejoiced in our municipal court of San Fernando, La Union with
little hopes even when life was difficult, frustrated murder and slight physical injuries (Exh. L
until last July 25, 1977 at about 0030 and M). In the same court, Ponciano was charged with
Hrs. when a gang of hoodlums pounced frustrated homicide (Exh. P). He was also charged in the
provincial fiscal's office of La Union with direct assault Asuncion's impulse was to follow Bautista and Ducha
of an agent of a person in authority and robbery (Exh. R but after taking a few steps, he turned around and looked
and S). at the place where he had left Regalado. He saw Mario
Lumague beating Regalado on the back with a hoe (Exh.
Ponciano is married with four children. He used to be a D). Asuncion was about two fathoms away. Regalado
shoe repairman. He finished grade four. Rolando is fell on the ground face down. Asuncion got a stone and
married with three children. He finished grave five. He threw it at Mario.
used to be a tricycle driver. Mario is married with three
children. He finished grade three. He was jobless. Mario pulled Regalado to a dark grassy place near the
lighted street. Four persons approached Regalado.
The probation officers found the Lumague brothers to Asuncion Identified three of them as the brothers
have marked criminal tendencies and to have a Ponciano, Mario and Rolando Lumague. Ponciano hit
propensity for anti-social behavior (p. 139, Record). Regalado many times with his fist and struck him on the
back with an adobe stone.
Trial of Ponciano, Rolando and Mario Lumague.—
These three brothers were tried first because the other Rolando also threw an adobe stone at the head of
two accused, Juanito Lumague and Rodolfo de la Cruz, Regalado and boxed him many times. Juanito repeatedly
were at large. According to the prosecution, in July, stabbed Regalado. Rodolfo de la Cruz clobbered
1977, the Lumague brothers, with their mother, Morales, Regalado with a club ("pamalo") about two feet long.
and their sister and brother-in-law, Rodolfo de la Cruz,
were renting from Walter Romero Gutierrez a shack or Then, Mario who was armed with a hoe turned his
"barong-barong" in the Marikit Subdivision in Marikina attention to Asuncion, Ducha and Bautista who fled
near the residence of Virgilio Pacunayen. upon his approach. Mario pursued them. He did not
overtake them. Shortly thereafter, the five assailants left
At about eleven o'clock in the evening of July 24, 1977, the place where they had assaulted Regalado.
Regalado, with his friends, Roberto Asuncion, Gerardo
A. Ducha, Lorenzo Gravador and Rogelio Bautista, had Asuncion approached Regalado who was bloodied all
a drinking spree at the Havana Pub and Beerhouse over but was still breathing. Asuncion directed Bautista
located at Barrio Concepcion, Marikina, Metro Manila. to fetch a vehicle. Ducha went to the police station.
Each of the five drank three bottles of beer. They "Then a taxicab passed by, Asuncion hailed it and placed
watched the floor show. Regalado inside the taxicab. He was brought to the E,
Rodriguez Hospital but was already dead on arrival
Shortly after midnight, the group left that place and, as it thereat.
was curfew time, they decided to walk to Bautista's
house in the subdivision about a kilometer away and Asuncion's testimony is a confirmation of his sworn
sleep there. (Regalado was a resident of 5-C Annapolis statements dated August 8 and 22, 1977 before the
Street, Cubao, Quezon City, a neighbor of Asuncion who Constabulary investigator of the CIS police intelligence
resided at 5-D Annapolis Street.) section at Camp Crame (Exh. C and C-2).

What happened while the group was walking was Pacunayen, the other prosecution witness, a neighbor of
testified to by two eyewitnesses, Asuncion, 30, and the Lumague family, who was acquainted with the
Pacunayen, 21, a high school graduate, who, as noted members thereof, testified that at past midnight on July
above, was residing at a house near the shack where the 25, 1977 he was in the balcony of his house overlooking
Lumague family was staying and who claimed to have the lighted street.
been a victim of an assault perpetrated by the members
of the Lumague family in June, 1977. He witnessed the assault on Regalado which was
perpetrated by the four Lumague brothers and their
Asuncion testified that he and Regalado were walking brother-in-law Rodolfo de la Cruz. Pacunayen, who was
together. Gravador was ahead of them. Bautista and at a distance of fifteen meters from the scene of the
Ducha followed Regalado and Asuncion. While walking assault, corroborated the particulars thereof as narrated
on the street in front of the shack occupied by the by Asuncion. Pacunayen's testimony is a confirmation of
Lumague family and Pacunayen's house, Asuncion heard his sworn statement dated August 9, 1977 before the
Ducha shouting that Bautista had been stabbed. When Constabulary investigator of the CIS police intelligence
Asuncion looked behind, he noticed that Ducha and section at Camp Crame (Exh. G).
Bautista were running because they were being pursued
by two persons.
Ducha, who, like Gravador and Bautista, did not testify, against Juanita. Mario came out of the house and
executed sworn statements dated August 1 1 and 22, 197 allegedly saw Juanita prostrate on the street in front of
7 before the Constabulary CIS investigator (Exh. E and their house. Mario reentered the house, got a hoe and
F). Ducha, 25, a high school graduate, narrated how he helped Juanita in resisting his four assailants who were
and Bautista encountered a person who tried to stab holding stones and assaulting Juanita. Mario clubbed on
Bautista. Then, Ducha saw another person beating the head the person holding Juanita. Juanito got a
Regalado with a hoe. At a confrontation, Ducha kitchen knife from the house and repeatedly stabbed the
Identified Mario as the wielder of the hoe Ponciano as person whom Mario had clubbed on the head and who
the one who assaulted Regalado with an adobe stone and was sitting on the ground. The assaulted person fell on
Rolando as the one who boxed Regalado (pp. 79-83, the ground. Mario and Juanito ran away.
Record).
Mario in his statement disclosed that the persons staying
Another documentary evidence of the prosecution is the in the house at the Marikit Subdivision were Rodolfo de
hardly legible sworn statement of Mario Lumague taken la Cruz and his wife Hermenegilda (Mario's sister),
by the same Constabulary investigator (Exh. H, pp. 87- Ildefonsa or Perlita Lumague, Reynaldo Lumague, Beth
90, Record). de la Cruz, Lita Lumague (Mario's wife) and Juanito
(No. 32, Exh. H).
The investigator, before interrogating Mario, warned
him that anything that he would say regarding the death Mario said that only he himself and
of Regalado would be used against him in court and that Juanita assaulted Regalado but he
he (Mario) had the rights (1) to remain silent and not to (Mario) was not sure whether he was
answer any question that would be prejudicial to him, (2) the only one who killed Regalado (No.
to have counsel, (3) to be investigated in the presence of 40, Exh. H).
his lawyer and (4) to have counsel de oficio if he could
not afford to hire his own lawyer. The version of the defense is that Juanita Lumague was
the sole assaulted of Regalado. Ponciano, Rolando and
Then, the investigator asked Mario whether after being Mario presented as witnesses their mother Emerenciana
apprised of his constitutional rights he was willing to Morales and Angelita Ramos, Eleno Gomez and Winnie
give a voluntary statement and to sign an Camacho to prove their defense of alibi.
acknowledgment that he understood his constitutional
rights. Mario answered in the affirmative. He then Emerenciana, a sixty-nine year-old widow, testified that
signed the following certification, amounting to a waiver in July, 1977 she resided with the spouses Hermenegilda
of his constitutional rights, which formed part of his Lumague and Rodolfo de la Cruz in the house which
statement: they had been renting for three months in the Marikit
Subdivision. In the evening of July 24, 1977 she went to
Ito ay nagpapatunay na nauunawaan bed at eleven o' clock. She was awakened because of the
kong lahat ang aking mga karapatan na noise caused by some persons who were passing near the
napaliwanag sa akin ng inbestigador house and who were challenging the Ilocanos to a fight.
gaya ng pagbibigay ng salaysay na She came out of the house and saw five men who were
kusang loob, at hindi na rin kukuha ng very noisy.
abogado dahil katotohanan lamang ang
aking sasabihin. (Exh. H-1 p. 87, She advised them to go home because it was already
Record.) very late. They allegedly answered that they did not
observe the curfew and they cursed the President for
Mario's version in his statement is that he and Juanita enforcing it. Emerenciana said that the five men pushed
were in the Havana Pub and Beer Garden from seven to her towards the door of her house and she fell on the
ten o'clock in the evening of July 25 (should be 24), ground. She was allegedly stoned by the five noisy
1977. At around eleven o'clock, when Mario was already individuals. She was hit in the cheek, chest, left foot and
in his residence at the Marikit Subdivision (where he front part of her body. A woman named Marilou
lived with his brothers, mother and brother-in-law) he (Angelita) was also stoned and her foot was injured
heard a shout coming from the street in front of the ("nipilay") (412).
house and the sound of an object hitting the roof
("kalabog") and he saw Juanito going out of the house. Emerenciana admitted that when the incident happened
she, her children and son-in-law were staying in the
Then, later, Beth, the sister of his brother-in-law, house but when asked to clarify her answer she said that
informed Mario that some persons had ganged up her daughter Hermenegilda, son-in-law Rodolfo de la
Cruz and her grandchildren were staying in the house Winnie Camacho, a twenty-three year-old housewife,
(398). She declared that she did not know who killed whose husband is a first cousin of Rolando, testified that
Regalado and that when Regalado was killed her four on July 24 and 25,1977 Rolando was at her house in
sons "were not there" (399), meaning that Rolando, Barrio Ambangonan, Pugo. He planted rice on July 24.
Ponciano and Juanito were in the province, Mario was in The next day he went fishing in the river.
Tondo and Rodolfo was in the house (400-3). When
pressed by counsel de oficio to clarify the whereabouts Decision in the case of Ponciano, Rolando and Mario
of Juanito, Emerenciana answered that Juanita arrived in Lumague.—At the conclusion of Winnie's testimony on
the house when Emerenciana was pushed by the five January 31, 1978, defense counsel Galvan announced
persons (4069). that he would present the accused as witnesses at the
next hearing scheduled on February 24. That hearing
Emerenciana categorically declared that Ponciano never was not held. The case was reset for March 14. No
resided with her in Marikina (410-11). She testified that hearing was held on that date for reasons not shown in
when Juanita was boxed by the men, a fight ensued the record.
between them and Juanita. She admitted that Juanita had
previously been confined in the Madrigal Rehabilitation On that date, the trial court issued an order requiring the
Center for having been involved in a homicide case with prosecution to present its memorandum within ten days
his brother-in-law, Maximino Dacanay. and giving defense counsel Galvan five days within
which to file a reply memorandum. It scheduled on April
Angelita Ramos, 20, a helper of Emerenciana, testified 18 the promulgation of its sentence.
that Pacunayen used to go to Emerenciana's house. In the
afternoon of July 24, 1977, Ponciano was not in the The prosecution in a motion dated March 20, 1978
house in Marikina but was in Bauang, La Union, Mario offered its Exhibits L to S which were marked during the
was in Tondo and Rolando was in Barrio Ambangonan, cross-examination of the defense witnesses. Galvan
Pugo, La Union, but Juanita was in Emerenciana's objectived to Exhibits L, M and N. He did not make not
house in the Marikit Subdivision, Marikina. attached to the motion.

Angelita corroborated Emerenciana's, testimony that at The prosecution filed its memorandum on April 5.
about midnight on July 24 five persons passed by Galvan was furnished with a copy thereof. He did not
Emerenciana's house and challenged the Ilocanos to step submit his reply memorandum. As scheduled, the death
out. Emerenciana came out of the house and told the five sentence against Pnciano, Rolando and Mario was
persons to go home. She was pushed by the five persons "dictated and promulgated in open court" on April 18,
and she fell on the ground. 1978.

At that juncture, Juanita and Pacunayen arrived. The trial court convicted Ponciano, Rolando and Mario
Regalado allegedly boxed Juanita. The five persons Lumague of murder, sentenced each of them to death
threw stones and the witness, Angelita, was hit in the and ordered them to pay solidarily to the heirs of
ankle. Pacunayen assaulted Regalado with a hoe Regalado an indemnity of thirty-two thousand pesos.
Regalado fell on the ground face down. Pacunayen Treachery and abuse of superiority were considered
repeatedly stabbed Regalado (461). qualiffying circumstances. Cruelty was appreciated as a
generic aggravating circumstances. Cruelty was
Because Angelita was not available for cross- appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstances. The
examination, her testimony on direct examination was trial court did not give credence to the alibis of the
stricken out of the record (506). accused.

Eleno Gomez, 50, a farmer, a resident of Barrio The trial court in its decision explained that the defense
Quinavite, Bauang, La Union, and a first cousin of Julian waived its right to present further evidence after it failed
Camacho, who in turn is a first cousin of the Lumague to present such evidence in spite of numerious
brothers, testified that in the evening of July 24, 1977 he postponements and when defense counsel failed to
acted as guard at a dance held on the occasion of a appear in court despite due notice (p. 286, Record).
wedding in Barrio Quinavite and that Ponciano, Rolando
and Mario were present at that dance (475). Juanita and Galvan filed on April 24 a motion for reconsideration.
De la Cruz were not present at that dance. A few He complained that the accused were denied due process
moments later, Gomez testified that Rolando and Mario of law because they were not given a chance to testify in
were not present at the wedding party (489). their behalf. The motion was denied. The trial court in its
order of April 28, 1978 directed the clerk of court to The trial court then ordered the resumption of the
forward the record of the case to this Court. presentation of evidence against Juanita. The medico-
legal officer was cross-examined by Juanito's counsel
Separate trial and decision in Juanito Lumague's case. Asuncion and Elma 1. Regalado testified again. The
— As priorly noted, Juanito was arrested in Barrio prosecution formally offered in evidence against Juanita
ambangonan, on October 10, 1977 when the prosecution the same Exhibits A to K which it had already presented
had finished the presentation of its evidence against his during the trial of Ponciano, Rolando and Mario
brothers Ponciano, Roland and Mario. When arraigned Lumague.
on October 19, Juanito pleaded not guilty. He was given
a separate trial. Juanito's counsel did not present any evidence. On July
5, 1978, the trial court rendered in Juanito's case a
At the hearing on June 28, 1978, when the medico-legol decision similar to its previous decision. It convicted him
officer was testify for the second time in the separate of murder, sentenced him to death and ordered him to
trial for Juanito, Benjamin Santos, Juanito's counsel, pay the same indemnity (p. 281, Record).
interrupted the testimony of the medico-legal and
manifested that Juanito was withdrawing his plea of not Ruling.—In this automatic review of the fear death
guilty and changing it to a plea of guilty. The doctor's sentences, counsel de oficio contends that the trial court
testimony was suspended. Juanita was placed on the erred in not giving the four accused a chance to present
witness stand. He took his oath and was interrogated as other witnesses and to testify in their behalf, in admitting
follows: the extrajudicial confession of Mario Lumague, in giving
credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
Court to Juanito and in convicting the accused of murder.
Lumague: Do you
confirm and affirm that With respect to Juanita Lumague, who withdrew his plea
you are changing your of not guilty, who was tried separately and whose guilt
plea of not guilty to that was also established by means of the evidence presented
plea of guilty? — A. against him, we find that the counsel's contentions are
Yes, sir. I was not able devoid of merit. Juanito's guilt was proven beyond
to talk. reasonable doubt. His plea of guilty and the evidence
introduced by the prosecution destroyed the presumption
Q. by Court: You were of innocence in his favor.
not able to talk because
you were arrested. ...— There is conclusive evidence that he was the one who
A. No, your Honor. The stabbed Regalado. In doing so, he conspired with the
reason at that time I was other assailants of the victim particularly with the
asking but I was not assailant who treacherously struck Regalado on the back
able to reason out that I with a hoe Even Juanito's mother admitted that he took
was the one who part in the assault (408-9, 413-4). And, of course, the
committed the crime. fact that Juanita was a fugitive from justice for several
months is an indication of his guilt.
Court: Why did you not
tell the lawyer of your The trial court correctly held that the killing was murder
brother that you (are) qualified by treachery and abuse of superiority and
the only one to be aggravated by cruelty. Hence, death is the proper
presented by the penalty. Juanito's plea of guilty is not mitigating because
defense lawyer? — A. I it was made after the prosecution had commenced the
stated so, your Honor. presentation of its evidence.

Court: Did anybody With respect to the other three accused, Ponciano, Mario
intimidate, coerce you and Rolando Lumague, who pleaded not guilty and who
or promise you of (any) were tried ahead of Juanito, there is merit in their
leniency for changing contention that they were denied due process of law
that plea of not guilty to because they were not given a chance to testify in their
that plea of guilty?- behalf and to present additional evidence.
A.No. your Honor.
(550-552)
An accused has the constitutional right "to be heard by ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring:
himself and counsel" and the right "to testify as a witness
in his own behalf ". The denial of such rights is a denial I concur in the result and in doing so I wish to express
of due process, as held in People vs. Santiago, 46 Phil. some thoughts on the case.
734. See People vs. Abuda, L-30009, February 27, 1971,
37 SCRA 789. The Marikina police could not solve the murder of
Antonio A. Regalado. The Philippine Constabulary
Due process of law in a criminal Criminal Investigation petition Service (CIS) had to
prosecution consists of a law creating or intervene despite the fact that the so called friends of the
defining the offense, an impartial deceased, namely: Roberto Asuncion, Gerardo A.
tribunal of competent jurisdiction. Ducha, Lorenzo Gravador and Rogelio Bautista were
accusation in due form. notice and present when the incident occurred. They did come out
opportunity to defend, trial according to immediately to denounce the crime to the police and of
established procedure, and discharge the four only Asuncion testified in court; Ducha,
unless found guilty (16A C.J.S. 617). Gravador and Bautista did not. If a person has friends
like them, who needs enemies?
The constitutional right of the accused to be heard in his
defense is inviolate. "No court of justice under our Ducha's sworn statements (Exhibits E and F) should be
system of government has the power to deprive him of totally disregarded. Since he did not testify and hence
that right." (Abriol vs. Homeres, 84 Phil. 525, 534). could not be cross-examined, they are hearsay. They are
prejudicial to the accused.
Fundamental fairness, which is the essence of due
process, requires that the three accused should be I would urge the trial court when it renders another
allowed to testify on their defenses and to present decision in the case of Ponciano, Mario and Rolando
additional evidence to prove their innocence. Lumague to view their social and economic backgrounds
in a different light. The decision appears to indicate that
WHEREFORE, we affirm the trial court's separate because of their life-styles they have a proclivity to
decision dated July 5, 1978, sentencing Juanito Lumague commit crime. Maybe it is so. But it should be
to death. remembered that they did not choose to be poor and for
their poverty society must assume its share of the blame.
Its prior decision of April 18, 1978, sentencing to death
Ponciano, Mario and Rolando, all surnamed Lumague, ERICTA, J., concurring and dissenting:
is set aside. It is directed to receive the additional
evidence of the said accused, subject to the right of the I do not agree that cruelty has been proven. There were
prosecution to present rebuttal evidence and the right of five assailants and the attack was concerted and almost
the accused to present surrebuttal evidence. The simultaneous. If there were 36 wounds in all, each
evidence already presented subsists and should be taken defendant practically inflicted an average of seven
into account in the rendition of another decision. wounds.
Costs de oficio.
In the case of PP vs. Juan Jumauan ahas Juancho
SO ORDERED. Jumauan, 98 Phil. 1, the lone defendant inflicted upon
the deceased 13 wounds in all But this Court refused to
Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, appreciate the aggravating circumstance of cruelty,
Jr.,Fernandez, Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera, Plana and because there was no showing that the defendant
Escolin, JJ., concur. "deliberately and inhumanly increased the suffering of
the deceased. "
Fernando, CJ., took no part
The test is whether the accused deliberately and
De Castro, J., I concur with justice Ericta's observation. sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another
wrong not necessary for its commission or inhumanly
increased the victim's suffering or outraged or scoffed at
his person or corpse (People vs. Lacao, 60 SCRA 89).
Separate Opinions
There being no aggravating circumstance, the penalty to appreciate the aggravating circumstance of cruelty,
be imposed upon Juanita Lumague should be reclusion because there was no showing that the defendant
perpetua. "deliberately and inhumanly increased the suffering of
the deceased. "
I concur in the rest of the Decision.
The test is whether the accused deliberately and
De Castro, J., concur. sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another
wrong not necessary for its commission or inhumanly
increased the victim's suffering or outraged or scoffed at
his person or corpse (People vs. Lacao, 60 SCRA 89).

Separate Opinions There being no aggravating circumstance, the penalty to

be imposed upon Juanita Lumague should be reclusion
ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring: perpetua.

I concur in the result and in doing so I wish to express I concur in the rest of the Decision.
some thoughts on the case.
De Castro, J., concur.
The Marikina police could not solve the murder of
Antonio A. Regalado. The Philippine Constabulary G.R. No. L-29015 April 29, 1975
Criminal Investigation petition Service (CIS) had to
intervene despite the fact that the so called friends of the THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
deceased, namely: Roberto Asuncion, Gerardo A. appellee,
Ducha, Lorenzo Gravador and Rogelio Bautista were vs.
present when the incident occurred. They did come out FELIPE MALUNSING, ET AL., defendants, MANUEL
immediately to denounce the crime to the police and of VILLEGAS, defendant-appellant.
the four only Asuncion testified in court; Ducha,
Gravador and Bautista did not. If a person has friends Office of the Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar,
like them, who needs enemies? Assistant Solicitor General Isidro C. Borromeo and
Solicitor Dominador L. Quiroz for plaintiff-appellee.
Ducha's sworn statements (Exhibits E and F) should be
totally disregarded. Since he did not testify and hence Pablito Pielago for defendant-appellant.
could not be cross-examined, they are hearsay. They are
prejudicial to the accused.

I would urge the trial court when it renders another FERNANDO, J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1
decision in the case of Ponciano, Mario and Rolando
Lumague to view their social and economic backgrounds It was the failure of the lower court to respect the
in a different light. The decision appears to indicate that constitutional right to counsel,1 so it is alleged, that is the
because of their life-styles they have a proclivity to basis for seeking the reversal of a conviction for murder
commit crime. Maybe it is so. But it should be of appellant Manuel Villegas.2 There is more than ample
remembered that they did not choose to be poor and for support in the records for the charge thus hurled. As
their poverty society must assume its share of the blame. therein shown, Attorney Geronimo Pajarito explicitly
manifested in the opening of the trial that appellant
ERICTA, J., concurring and dissenting: intimated to him that he had his own lawyer.3 There was
an admission that he did appear for him in the
I do not agree that cruelty has been proven. There were preliminary investigation but only because there was no
five assailants and the attack was concerted and almost other counsel.4 Parenthetically, it may be observed that
simultaneous. If there were 36 wounds in all, each while in the original complaint there were two other
defendant practically inflicted an average of seven accused with the same surname as the lawyer, Geremias
wounds. Pajarito and Samuel Pajarito, after such preliminary
investigation, no doubt due to the efforts of this
In the case of PP vs. Juan Jumauan ahas Juancho particular lawyer, possibly a kinsman, they "were both
Jumauan, 98 Phil. 1, the lone defendant inflicted upon discharged for lack of probable cause."5 To resume, the
the deceased 13 wounds in all But this Court refused to lower court at this stage then asked whether the appellant
notified Attorney Pajarito about his change of mind. responsibility. It was unintended, of course, but the
When he answered in the negative, the Court stated: "All result could not rightly be distinguished from pure
right, you have a lawyer who is appearing for you."6 It is travesty. Appellant could then rightfully invoke this
to the credit of such counsel that he had reservations constitutional guarantee. Inasmuch as it is intended to
about the matter, stating that as the accused had assure a just and fair proceeding, he is entitled at the
manifested that he had dispensed with his services, his most to a new trial where he can be duly represented
representation might later on be questioned.7 The court either by a counsel of his choice or by one appointed de
was not sufficiently impressed. Appellant was informed oficio, one who would discharge his task in a much more
that "the Court will give you a lawyer. Atty. Pajarito is diligent and conscientious manner and would not readily
appointed as counsel de oficio for you. We will proceed assume that he need not bother himself unduly with
with the trial."8 After marking it of record that he was familiarizing himself further with all aspects of the case.
appointed as such counsel de oficio, the attorney was For only in such a way may there be an intelligent
asked whether he wanted to confer with appellant. This defense. If the matter be viewed thus, there is no
was the answer: "I think I know the case." 9 The Court unfairness to the state either. It can still see to it that a
then immediately proceeded with the hearing, having the person against whom a probable cause had been found
first witness called.10 In the decision itself, there is this would have to stand trial, but, to repeat, with all the
meaningful admission by the court: "No evidence was constitutional safeguards.
presented for and in behalf of Manuel Villegas."11
2. It would not be amiss to refer to the opinion of Chief
This is how the matter was characterized in the brief of Justice Moran in People v. Holgado,13 where the
appellant: "The prosecution during the trial presented its importance of this right was stressed. Thus: "In criminal
witnesses, and likewise all the defendants, ... except the cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be
appellant Manuel Villegas, took the witness stand and given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. The right to
testified for and in their defense. The appellant is a very be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the
old man, ignorant and unlettered; during the entire right to be heard by counsel. Even the most intelligent or
proceedings in the case, the appellant while present did educated man may have no skill in the science of law,
not know what was going on; the trial court never particularly in the rules of procedure, and, without
apprised the appellant of his fundamental right to be counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty
assisted by a lawyer; the trial court did not even bother but because he does not know how to establish his
inquiring why the appellant Manuel Villegas did not take innocence. And this can happen more easily to persons
the witness stand, [something out of the ordinary as] all who are ignorant or uneducated. It is for this reason that
defendants, except the appellant, had testified; and the the right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so
trial court went on throughout the proceedings of the important that it has become a constitutional right and it
case without knowing why the appellant did not testify, is so implemented that under our rules of procedure it is
that if the appellant testified what would his testimony not enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his
be like, what would be his demeanor during his right to have an attorney, it is not enough to ask him
testimony, ..."12 Hence, his insistence that no deference whether he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is
was shown to the constitutional right to counsel. We are essential that the court should assign one de oficio for
inclined to agree and we reverse. Considering, however, him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him a
the gravity of the offense charged, instead of an reasonable time to procure an attorney of his
acquittal, there should be a new trial with all the own."14 There are a number of American Supreme Court
safeguards thrown around an accused. decisions to the same effect. In one of them, William v.
Kaiser, Justice Douglas succinctly summed up the matter
1. That would be to vindicate a fundamental safeguard thus: "[The accused] needs the aid of counsel lest he be
which in this case, perhaps from a desire of the lower the victim of overzealous prosecutors, of the law's
court to proceed with the trial and thus ease what could complexity, or of his own ignorance or bewilderment."15
be a congestion in its sala, was inadvertently
disregarded. It is not enough that a counsel de oficio was What is more, it is one of the worthwhile innovations of
appointed, especially so as here, where the accused had the present Constitution that even at the stage of
indicated that he wanted a lawyer of his choice, a custodial interrogation when the police agencies are
decision prompted moreover by the fact that he had lost investigating a man's possible connection with a crime,
confidence in the member of the bar thus designated. he is already entitled to counsel.16 In a true sense, that is
Nor is it to manifest respect for this right if the merely to underscore the historical fact that even under
counsel de oficio thus named, instead of conferring with the organic acts 17 prior to the 1935 Constitution, there
the accused, would just blithely inform the judge that he was an awareness of the importance of the right to
was already fully prepared for his exacting counsel.18 This is not of course to assert that this Court in
the past had invariably accorded it an interpretation Upon his arraignment on 22 October
favorable to the stand of an accused. Thus in United 1997,[3] ARNEL, who was assisted by a
States v. Labial, 19 a 1914 decision, it was held that the counsel de parte, refused to speak. Pursuant to Section
failure of the record to disclose affirmatively that the 1(c) of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, the trial court
trial judge advised the accused of their right to counsel is entered for him a plea of not guilty in each of the
not sufficient ground for the reversal of a conviction. cases. On the same occasion, the defense waived pre-
When Labial was affirmed in United States v. trial. The cases were then consolidated and jointly tried.
Escalante,20 decided in 1917, Justice Malcolm was
moved to file a vigorous dissent. It suffices to recall his The witnesses initially presented by the prosecution
conformity to the view of Cooley that this is "perhaps were SPO2 Nicanor Avendao, Dr. Nilo Pempengco, Dr.
the privilege most important to the person accused of June Mendoza, and Salud Suillan.
crime.21 It is in that spirit, or something akin to it, that SPO2 Nicanor Avendao testified that upon his
the framers of the 1935 Constitution approached the arrival at the house of ARNEL in Barangay Bubukal,
subject. Of even greater relevance is the fact that the Santa Cruz, Laguna, at about 1:00 p.m. of 29 August
present fundamental law has, as above indicated, 1997, he found the house in disarray. He saw a naked
vitalized still further its worth and significance. woman lying dead on a wooden bed with both hands and
feet tied from behind, as well as a dead child on a
WHEREFORE, the lower court decision of December 4, crib. The dead woman was WENDY, and the dead child
1967 insofar as it found Manuel Villegas guilty of the was ARWIN. Some clothes and a puppy were also
crime of murder is reversed and a new trial ordered burned. Avendao and his team recovered a piece of steel
forthwith for such accused. This decision is immediately near WENDYs face and empty bottles of gin and Royal
executory. No costs. Tru-Orange on top of the cabinet. They took pictures of
the dead bodies and caused the entry of the incident in
the police blotter. He learned later that ARNEL's two
daughters, BERNALYN and ERICA, had been rushed to
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND the provincial hospital for treatment before he and his
CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION team arrived at the crime scene.[4]
Dr. Nilo Pempengco, the physician who conducted
an examination of the dead bodies of WENDY and
ARWIN, testified that the cause of their death was
[G.R. Nos. 139225-28. May 29, 2002] cardio-respiratory arrest due to severe traumatic head
injury and multiple contusion hematoma.[5] The injuries
could have been caused by any hard and blunt object like
a piece of metal, piece of wood, or even a hand.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ARNEL ALCALDE y PASCASIO, accused- Dr. June Mendoza, a physician-surgeon of the
appellant. Laguna Provincial Hospital, testified that he treated
BERNALYN and ERIKA on 29 August 1997. He found
DECISION in BERNALYN multiple contusion hematoma,[6] which
could have been inflicted by a blunt and hard object and
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: by a rope but which would not have caused immediate
death even if not properly treated.[7] He found in ERIKA
For automatic review[1] is the Consolidated contusions and lacerated and incised wounds,[8] which
Judgment[2] of 30 April 1999 of the Regional Trial would not have caused death even if no immediate
Court, Branch 28, Santa Cruz, Laguna, in Criminal medical attention had been given.[9]
Cases Nos. SC-6651 to SC-6654, convicting accused-
appellant Arnel Alcalde y Pascasio (hereafter ARNEL) Salud Suillan, WENDYs mother, declared that
of two counts of parricide committed against his wife WENDY and ARNEL lived with her at her residence in
WENDY and his 11-month-old son ARWIN and two Banca-Banca, Victoria, Laguna, for nine months after
counts of frustrated parricide committed against his two their marriage and that during their sojourn at her house
daughters BERNALYN and ERICA. she noticed ARNELs uncontrollable jealousy. ARNEL
used drugs, which frequently caused his
On 24 September 1997, the Office of the Provincial tantrums.[10] When asked whether she knew who killed
Prosecutor of Laguna filed before the trial court two WENDY and ARWIN, Salud answered that according to
informations for parricide and two informations for Jose Alcalde, ARNEL was the killer.[11] On cross-
frustrated parricide. examination, she admitted that ARNEL had been
continuously treated at the University of Sto. Tomas
Hospital in Manila from 1993 up to 1997.However, she interlocutory in character and could not, therefore, be the
did not know whether he was treated for a mental subject of a petition for certiorari; and that even
illness.[12] granting that the exception applied, the trial court
committed no capriciousness in issuing the assailed
After the prosecution rested its case and formally order.
offered its exhibits, the defense filed a motion for leave
of court to file a demurrer to evidence,[13] which was The prosecution thereafter presented SPO1 Neptali
granted. On 27 April 1998, the defense, through de la Cruz and Jose Alcalde as additional witnesses.
counsel de parte Atty. Renato B. Vasquez, Sr., filed a
demurrer to evidence[14] based on the following grounds: SPO1 Neptali dela Cruz, testified that at around
1:30 p.m. of 29 August 1997, while he was on duty at
(a) The accused has not been adequately the Police Assistance Center Base, Barangay Bubukal,
informed of the nature and cause of Santa Cruz, Laguna, he received a report of a killing
accusation against him during the incident at the house of ARNEL. He proceeded to the
arraignment; place with SPO2 Edilberto Apuada. There, he saw
ARNEL seated outside the house while being held by
(b) Not an iota of incriminatory evidence, two persons. He and Apuada entered the house and saw
direct or circumstantial, has been adduced the dead bodies of WENDY and ARWIN. He noticed
and presented by the prosecution during the
that ARNEL was motionless and silent when the dead
trial; and bodies were being brought out of their house.[20]
(c) The constitutional presumption of Jose Alcalde, father of ARNEL, testified that at
innocence of the accused has not been
1:30 p.m. of 29 August 1997 he heard the news that
overcome by any evidence or contrary ARNELs house was burning. Along with one Martin, his
presumption. carpenter, Jose proceeded to ARNELs house.Upon
In support thereof, the defense alleged that ARNEL entering the house, he saw ARNEL with raging eyes,
was afflicted with psychosis and could not comprehend, holding a kitchen knife and a hammer. Jose tried to
and that despite his strange behavior characterized by his pacify and convince ARNEL to surrender his weapons to
deafening silence, motionless appearance, and single him. Joses effort proved futile. It was only upon the
direction blank stare the trial court insisted on his intervention of ARNELs two brothers that ARNEL was
arraignment. Thus, ARNEL was not adequately apprised successfully disarmed. Jose left ARNEL to the care of
of the nature and cause of the accusation against his brothers because he had to bring to the hospital the
him. Moreover, no concrete evidence pointing to almost lifeless bodies of BERNALYN and ERIKA.[21]
ARNEL as the culprit was presented by the After the prosecution finally rested its case, the trial
prosecution. Hence, the constitutional presumption of court set on 8 October 1998 the presentation of the
innocence of an accused prevails. evidence for the defense. However, on 7 October 1998,
In its Order of 22 May 1998,[15] the trial court counsel for ARNEL, Atty. Vasquez Sr., informed the
denied the demurrer to evidence and set the dates for the trial court of his inability to communicate with ARNEL
presentation of the evidence for the defense. However, in because of ARNELs out of touch of the world
a Manifestation dated 4 June 1998,[16]Atty. Vasquez behavior. Atty. Vasquez manifested that the defense was
informed the court that the defense opted not to present constrained to submit the case for decision.[22]
evidence for ARNELs defense, as the prosecution failed In its decision of 30 April 1999,[23] the trial court
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. found that the prosecutions evidence has duly
On 16 July 1998, the prosecution filed its established a succession of circumstantial evidence that
Comment[17] on the manifestation and prayed for the re- leads to the inescapable conclusion that ARNEL
opening of the presentation of prosecutions evidence for committed the crimes charged. It gave due credence to
the purpose of proving that ARNEL was at the scene of the testimony of Jose Alcalde. It found significant the
the crime. In its Order of 21 August 1998,[18] the trial fact that right from the start of the investigation of the
court allowed the prosecution to present additional incident up to the time the cases were submitted for
evidence. The defense questioned the propriety of the decision, no other person was suspected of having
said order before the Court of Appeals in a petition anything to do with the gruesome family massacre. The
for certiorari. trial court added that ARNELs culpability was further
bolstered by his failure to offer any evidence for his
In its resolution of 17 December 1998,[19] the Court defense despite ample opportunity to do so.
of Appeals dismissed the petition for non-compliance
with Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court, and for the In determining the appropriate penalty in Criminal
further reason that the order sought to be set aside was Case Nos. SC-6651 and SC-6654 for the killing of
WENDY and ARWIN, the trial court applied Article 246 Furthermore, the defense calls our attention to the
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 5, Medical Certificate[24] issued by Dr. Ramon S. Javier,
R.A. No. 7659, which reads: M.D., FPPA, FPNA, of Sto. Tomas University Hospital,
stating that ARNEL was first brought to his clinic on 3
ART. 246. Parricide. -- Any person who shall kill his December 1993, and was confined at the psychiatric
father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or ward several times for bipolar mood disorder (manic-
illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or depressive psychosis). His last confinement in that
his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be hospital was from 12 to 24 February 1997, or six months
punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. before the family massacre. The medical
abstract[25] issued by Dr. Ma. Corazon S. Alvarez, which
Taking into account the two aggravating circumstances was also submitted by the defense, likewise shows the
of treachery and abuse of superior strength, it imposed several hospitalizations of ARNEL while in detention at
the death penalty in both cases. the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, and the
finding that ARNEL was suffering from bipolar mood
As for Criminal Cases Nos. SC-6652 and SC-6653, disorder with psychotic features. The defense then prays
the trial court found ARNEL guilty of the crime of for ARNELs acquittal or, in the alternative, the remand
frustrated parricide after considering the severity of the of the case to the lower court for further proceedings and
wounds suffered by his daughters BERNALYN and for the determination of ARNELs mental state.
ERIKA, which clearly showed his intent to kill them.
In the Brief for the Appellee, the Office of the
In the Appellants Brief, the defense, through a new Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that under Section
counsel, Atty. Eduardo A. Cagandahan, states that the 11, paragraph (a), Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal
trial court committed the following errors: Procedure, suspension of arraignment on the ground that
1. in proceeding with the case against the accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental
accused who had not been duly informed of condition, which effectively renders him unable to fully
the nature and cause of accusation against understand the charge against him and to plead
him during the arraignment or trial. intelligently thereto, may be granted upon motion by the
party. In these cases neither accused nor his counsel de
2. when it failed to have the accused medically parte asked for the suspension of the arraignment on that
examined to ascertain whether he was in ground. Such failure was tantamount to an admission
possession of his mental faculties when he that ARNEL was not suffering from any mental disorder
allegedly committed the acts imputed to or to a waiver of the right to move for suspension of
him, or that he was suffering from mental arraignment. Besides, for the defense of insanity to
aberration at the time the crime was prosper, it must be proved that the accused was insane at
committed, and when he entered the plea the very moment when the crime was committed. The
and during the trial on the merits despite the trial court was not duty-bound to initiate the
observation of the court a quo, as contained determination of ARNELs alleged mental incapacity.
in the order dated August 21, 1998.
Finally, the OSG agrees with the trial court that the
In support thereof, the defense assails the validity of chain of circumstances in these cases proved beyond
ARNELs arraignment, and asserts that with ARNELs reasonable doubt that ARNEL committed the crimes
questionable mental state he could not have understood charged. It, however, submits that ARNEL should be
the proceedings. It then cites the trial courts Order dated meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua only, instead of
21 August 1998, wherein the trial court made its own death, in Criminal Cases Nos. SC-6651 and SC-6654
observation regarding ARNELs strange behavior at the because the aggravating circumstances of treachery and
time of arraignment. The Order reads in part: abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated against
ARNEL. It agreed with the trial court insofar as
Finally, it is worthwhile to recall that when the accused Criminal Cases Nos. SC-6652 and SC-6653 are
was arraigned in all the four cases, the Court was concerned.
constrained to enter for him a PLEA OF NOT GUILTY
After a painstaking scrutiny of the records of these
in all said cases as the accused acted strangely in a
cases, we rule for ARNEL.
manner as if he [was] out of touch with the world and
would not utter any word. But since the defense opted We cannot subscribe to the claim of the OSG that
not to present any evidence, no defense whatsoever the failure of ARNELs counsel de parte to ask for the
could be entertained for the accused. suspension of his arraignment on the ground that
ARNEL was suffering from an unsound mental health
amounted to a waiver of such right. It must be recalled
that ARNELs arraignment was on 22 October 1997. At arraignment and the mental examination of the accused
the time, what was applicable was Section 12(a) of Rule should it appear that he is of unsound mind.
116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which
reads: In these cases, the trial court should have
ascertained ARNELs mental state instead of proceeding
with his arraignment and its subsequent proceedings.
SEC. 12. Suspension of arraignment. The arraignment
The following were enough for the trial court to take
shall be suspended, if at the time thereof:
seriously the issue of whether ARNEL was in full
possession of his mental faculties at the time of the
(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound arraignment and trial:
mental condition which effectively renders him unable to
fully understand the charge against him and to plead (a) At his arraignment, the trial court observed
intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order that ARNEL acted strangely in a manner as
his mental examination and, if necessary, his if he [was] out of touch with the world and
confinement for such purpose. would not utter any word.[29]
(b) In its Motion and Waiver of Presence [of
Nowhere in that Section was it required that a the Accused] During the Trial,[30] the
motion by the accused be filed for the suspension of defense expressed its apprehension that
arraignment. Hence, the absence of such motion could ARNEL might explode into another
not be considered a waiver of the right to a suspension of violence while in transit to attend his trial
arraignment. True, Section 11(a) of the Revised Rules of or while in the courtroom.
Criminal Procedure, which was invoked by the OSG,
requires a motion by the proper party, thus: (c) ARNELs continued strange behavior
characterized by his deafening silence,
SEC. 11. Suspension of arraignment. -- Upon motion by motionless behavior and blank stares was
the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in raised as an issue by the defense in its
the following cases: demurrer to evidence.[31]
(d) The persistent out of touch with the world
(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound behavior of ARNEL, which prevented his
mental condition which effectively renders him unable to counsel from effectively communicating
fully understand the charge against him and to plead with him for his defense was pointed out in
intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order the Manifestation and Motion submitted by
his mental examination and, if necessary, his the defense.[32]
confinement for such purpose. [Emphasis supplied].
(e) ARNELs questionable mental state was
This new requirement of motion by the proper party reiterated by the defense in its
could not be applied to these cases because the Revised memorandum.[33]
Rules of Criminal Procedure, which prescribes such The physical and outward manifestations of
requirement, took effect only on 1 December 2000. ARNEL at the time of his arraignment, which were
Besides, a waiver must be knowingly and brought to the attention of the trial court, indicated
intelligently made by the person possessing such substantial demonstration of a mental disorder that
right.[26] Unfortunately, ARNEL was apparently deprived rendered ARNEL unfit to be arraigned or tried in the
of such mental faculties. Thus, no waiver, impliedly or four criminal cases at bar. The trial court failed to
expressly, could have been made by ARNEL at the time exercise utmost circumspection in assuming that
of his arraignment by reason of his mental condition.[27] ARNEL was in full possession of his mental faculties
and understood the proceedings against him.
Settled is the rule that when a judge is informed or
discovers that an accused is apparently in a present The constitutional right to be informed of the nature
condition of insanity or imbecility, it is within his and cause of the accusation against him under the Bill of
discretion to investigate the matter. If it be found that by Rights[34] carries with it the correlative obligation to
reason of such affliction the accused could not, with the effectively convey to the accused the information to
aid of counsel, make a proper defense, it is the duty of enable him to effectively prepare for his defense.[35] At
the court to suspend the proceedings and commit the the bottom is the issue of fair trial. While not every
accused to a proper place of detention until his faculties aberration of the mind or exhibition of mental deficiency
are recovered.[28] Moreover, the aforementioned Section on the part of the accused is sufficient to justify
12(a) of Rule 116 mandates the suspension of the suspension of the proceedings, the trial court must be
fully satisfied that the accused would have a fair trial
with the assistance the law secures or gives.[36] Under the WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE
circumstances in these cases, the trial court gravely FOREGOING, the Consolidated Judgment of the
failed in this regard. Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Santa Cruz, Laguna, in
Criminal Cases Nos. SC-6651 to SC-6654 promulgated
While at first glance, the remarkable enthusiasm by on 30 April 1999 is hereby SET ASIDE. These cases are
which the trial court adjudicated these cases should earn ordered REMANDED to the trial court for further and
emulation, it however cannot be countenanced appropriate proceedings in accordance with the
considering its disregard of the constitutional rights
foregoing observations.
of ARNEL. Courts should be mindful of their
responsibility to see to it that the paramount interests of Costs de oficio.
justice are not sacrificed for the sake of speed and
efficiency.[37] SO ORDERED.

It is also worthy to mention Atty. Vasquezs

apparent lackadaisical attitude in these cases which
amounted to disregard of the strict demands of fidelity to [G.R. Nos. 115236-37. January 29, 2002]
his oath as a lawyer, duty to his client, and responsibility
as an officer of the court.[38] He knew, or ought to know,
from the very beginning that ARNEL was hospitalized
for mental disorder. The latters strange appearance at his PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
arraignment was enough reason for a counsel to ask for BRYAN FERDINAND DY y LA MADRID and
the deferment of arraignment and for leave of court to GIOVAN BERNARDINO y GARCIA, accused-
have ARNEL subjected to psychological examination appellants.
and psychiatric evaluation. Then, too, he should have, at
the very least, presented the doctor who treated ARNEL DECISION
in the University of Santo Tomas Hospital for his
recurring mental illness. Irrefutably, Atty. Vasquezs YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
behavior in the defense of ARNEL fell short of the
demanding duty to present every defense that the law Accused-appellants Bryan Dy and Giovan
permits to the end that no person may be deprived of life Bernardino were charged with Rape and Acts of
or liberty but by due process of law.[39] Lasciviousness in a complaint initiated by Gina Marie
Mobley under the following informations:
Even if Atty. Vasquezs zeal for ARNELs cause fell
short of that required of him, that is, for him to have Criminal Case No. 12600-R:
asked the court to suspend the arraignment of ARNEL
on the ground of the latters unsound mental health, the That on or about the 12th day of January, 1994, in the
greater demand of due process overwhelms such City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
inadequate zeal. of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
Solemn and inflexible is the constitutional behest conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one
that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
property without due process of law. Absolute feloniously and taking advantage of the unconscious
heedfulness of this constitutional injunction is most state of the complainant who was then under the
pronounced in criminal cases where the accused is in the influence of drugs, have carnal knowledge of the
gravest jeopardy of losing his life. It constantly behooves complainant GINA MARIE MOBLEY, against her will
every court to proceed with utmost care in each of such and consent.
cases before it, and nothing can be more demanding of
judges in that respect than when the possible punishment CONTRARY TO LAW.
would be in its severest form like death -- a penalty that,
once carried out, is irreversible and irreparable.[40] Criminal Case No. 12601-R:
In light of the foregoing fatal infirmities committed
by the trial court, as well as by the defense counsel, we That on or about the 12th day of January, 1994, in the
City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
have no other alternative except to set aside the joint
decision in question and remand the cases to the trial of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
court for further proceedings to allow the defense to actuated by lust with lewd design and with deliberate
intent to satisfy their lascivious desire, conspiring,
present evidence to prove that ARNEL was either unfit
for arraignment and trial or was insane at the time the confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kiss her,
crimes charged were committed.
fondle her breast, undress her and insert their fingers into and Giovan offered the girls a ride to Baguio City. Gina
her vagina, who was then unconscious by reason of the and Helen talked the matter between
drugs employed on her by the accused, all against her themselves. Eventually they accepted the offer thinking
will and without her consent, thereby inflicting upon the that they could save some money. Besides, they thought
latter moral shock, fright, humiliation, dishonor and the boys looked nice and trustworthy.
besmirched reputation on the part of the complainant and
her family. They left Shakeys at 7:30 in the evening and
boarded a white 1991 four-door Mitsubishi sedan. Rizal
took the wheel, while Bryan sat at the front passenger
The two cases were tried jointly. Accused-
seat. Helen, Gina and Giovan stayed on the back seat, in
appellants refused to be arraigned and enter a plea;
that order. Before proceeding to Baguio, they stopped at
hence, a plea of not guilty was entered on their behalf.
a residential area where Bryan delivered some papers
During the trial, the following undisputed facts and picked up some jackets.
were established: Complainant Gina Marie Mobley,
On their way to Baguio, they talked about
together with her companion Helen Kathleen Tennican,
school. The girls told them about their boyfriends, while
both American nationals, were exchange students at the
Bryan talked about his Italian ex-girlfriend. Rizal and
Chengdu University of Science and Technology in
Giovan did not join in the conversation at all. Bryan
Chengdu, Sichuan, China. Gina was taking up
asked Gina whether she has taken drugs, but Gina
Biology. Helen was also a Biology major and took
replied that she only drinks alcohol occasionally.
Chinese Studies as an additional course. Both were
enrolled at the Pacific Lutheran University at Tacoma, The group arrived in Baguio City at 10:45 in the
Washington, where Gina was a university scholar. evening. They proceeded to the house of Bryans uncle,
but shortly afterwards, they left to look for another place
Having heard of the renowned Filipino hospitality
to stay. They went to the Terraces Hotel but found the
from their Filipino-American friends, Gina and Helen
rates too expensive. Then, they checked the Baden
decided to spend their semestral break in the
Powell. The girls found the dormitory style
Philippines. They arrived in the country on January 10,
accommodations to their liking and were about to unload
1994. They stayed overnight in Manila then went to
their things, when Bryan suggested the Benguet Pines
Angeles City the next day. In Angeles City, they visited
Tourist Inn, which he said he had already tried and had
a bar and had cocktails, played billiards and went disco
found to be a very fine hotel.
dancing.
They checked in at the Benguet Pines Tourist Inn at
The following morning, January 12, 1994, they flew
11:00 in the evening. They got two rooms on opposite
over Mt. Pinatubo and viewed the lahar-covered areas on
sides of the corridor on the second floor. After a while,
board an ultralight plane. That afternoon, they were
Bryan and Giovan asked the girls out for some drinks
driven from their hotel to the Philippine Rabbit Bus
and dancing at the Songs Jazz Bar along Session Road.
terminal in Dau, Pampanga, where they were supposed
to take a ride to Baguio City. While waiting for their bus, The parties versions of the events that followed
they went to a Shakeys Pizza Parlor near the terminal. differed.
Gina and Helen took the table near the comfort According to Gina and Helen, while at the Songs
room. Accused-appellants Bryan and Giovan, who are Jazz Bar, Helen drank a margarita, tequila and blowjob
brothers-in-law, were seated at the next table. With them with plenty of water. Gina drank Singaporean sling,
was their driver, Rizal.Bryan recognized the two girls blowjob and half a glass of Giovans mai tai. Bryan drank
from the Angeles Flying Club, where Gina and Helen just one shot of tequila while Giovan drank half a glass
rented the ultralight plane. Gina went to the comfort of mai tai. They also had appetizers. Gina and Helen did
room. Bryan and Giovan approached Helen and not feel intoxicated. They just felt warm.
introduced themselves. They invited Helen to join them
at their table, but she declined. On the other hand, Bryan and Giovan narrate that
Helen drank margarita, daiquiri, tequila and blow job
While Brian and Giovan were still talking to Helen, while Gina had Singaporean sling, tequila, blow job and
Gina returned. She presumed that Helen knew them, so mai tai. Bryan had a bottle of beer and two shots of
she started to talk with the boys. Gina told them they tequila while Giovan only drank one bottle of beer. They
came to the country to see the sights and that they ordered chicken wings and kropeck chips.
wanted to experience Filipino hospitality. Since they
could hardly hear each other above the din of the TV, the After the group left Songs Jazz Bar, Ginas and
girls agreed to join them at their table. The girls talked Helens account went as follows:
about their plan to go to Baguio City and Banaue. Bryan
As they were pulling away, Giovan, who was driving, still by the doorway, Gina went out and walked towards
said that he was thirsty and wanted to buy cola the boys room. Gina had no recollection why she did so;
drinks. Gina agreed to have one (See Exhibit B-2). But all she could recall was that she was standing inside the
Helen declined since she had drank plenty of water boys room.
already at the Songs Jazz Bar (Ibid.). Giovan then drove
to what the girls called a convenience store because it On the other hand, Helen remembered that one of the
was open at odd hours, but which is actually the boys asked if she had playing cards but he seemed
Kowloon Restaurant, according to the boys. Giovan and preoccupied with something else, so she did not make
Bryan alighted and returned after some ten minutes with any move to get the playing cards from her bag.Since
Giovan carrying three plastic cups of Sprite or Seven-Up she was very tired she entered their (girls) room, took off
and Bryan, two cups and a plastic bag containing her contact lenses in the comfort room, put them in her
Chinese food with small lemons to be squeezed on contacts case and went to bed. Thereupon, she lost her
it. Bryan gave Helen and Gina a cup each. Since she memory. Sometime later, she felt the sensation of
thought it impolite not to drink what was given her, wanting to vomit and ran to the comfort room in panic
Helen removed the cover of her cup and sipped from it that she might not get there on time. However, she did
as there was no straw, although the cup cover had a hole not know if she vomitted. She lost her sense of time and
into which a straw is to be inserted. On the other hand, did not know if she ever went back to bed. She had never
Gina did not at first remove the lid of her cup (See felt that way before.
Exhibit 4); she just sucked from the hole intended for the
straw (Exhibit 4-B). But later on she took off the cover She again regained partial consciousness when she felt
(Exhibit 4-A) and drunk from the cup. being wet on her face and upper chest as though
somebody was touching her with the mouth. She could
Meanwhile, as they were drinking their cola drinks, not tell if her eyes were open but, in any event, she could
Giovan drove the group to Camp John Hay (should be not see anyone or anything; she only felt that her
Club John Hay) where he told the guards at the gate that personal space was being violated. She curled up like a
they were just going to check on the Clubs billeting baby in the womb and kept on saying, no, until whoever
rates. They parked in front of the billeting office. Gina was with her in the room went away. Then, she lapsed
was then about to finish her cola drink when she felt into unconsciousness.
something gritty in it which stuck into her teeth; they
were like small particles. She spat them back into the At this time in the boys room, Gina noticed that one of
cup and dumped out the remaining contents of the cup the boys pushed the two beds in the room together. She
outside the car and thereafter gave the cup to Giovan walked up to one of the beds and lay down on her
who threw it into a trash can. Gina commented out loud belly. Giovan lay alongside her and forcefully kissed
about the gritty substance in her drink and related that in her. She could not call to mind what else happened as
China they often found strange things in their she believed she was drugged. She could only remember
food. There was no word from the boys. Helen finished that Giovan was trying to take off her pants while she
her drink and then handed the empty cup to Giovan who was trying to prevent him by holding on to its elastic
likewise threw it into a trash can.[1] waist line. Giovan was all along kissing her with his
tongue in her mouth, lying on top of her and touching
After leaving Club John Hay, the group returned to her breasts. He inserted his fingers into her vagina but at
their hotel. The girls went on to narrate: this precise moment someone knocked on the door. So,
Giovan got up and it was then that Gina realized that he
Giovan, Gina, Bryan and Helen, in that order was completely naked and so was she. He handed the
entered. Helen no longer noticed where Rizal blanket on the bed to her and she covered her body with
was. Giovan directly proceeded upstairs and stopped on it. She saw lights coming from the hallway and heard
the stair just above the first landing while Gina followed Giovan say, I think she is asleep. She could not recall
him and stopped on the first landing. Helen got the keys removing them again. When that someone laid on top of
to their room while Bryan was behind her talking to the her, she found out that it was Bryan.He placed himself
desk clerk. Helen tossed the key to the boys room to between her legs. She could not recollect if they kissed
Gina who was about seven to ten feet away and the but she felt his erect penis against her vaginal
latter, in turn, gave it to Giovan. Helen also flipped their opening. She told him that she did not want to have sex;
key to Gina who caught it with one hand. Helen waited that she was still a virgin. He asked why she was still a
for Bryan and they went upstairs together. Gina was virgin and she replied that she wanted to wait for a
trying to open her and Helens room with difficulty and husband. More words were in her mind but she could not
so the latter got the key from her and opened the speak them out. Bryan told her that he wont put it in. But
door. Both entered the room briefly and when Helen was
Gina felt pain in her vagina because his penis was going After Bryan had entered the boys room, they joined
into it. together the two beds inside and sat on them (Exhibit
8). They taught Gina how to play Russian poker or what
The thought occurred to Gina that if she did not do is commonly called pusoy for more than thirty
anything, she knew what was going to happen. It dawned minutes. But Gina never learned the game and so they
on her that if she stimulated him in some other way, he switched to blackjack. Then, Gina said that she was
might not penetrate her further. So, she slid down and hungry. Giovan offered to go out and buy what Gina
did a fellatio or oral sex on him. She could not explain wanted, to which the latter replied that any food will
her feelings then; to her it was like a nightmare; it was as do. Giovan left with Rizal. That was already past 4:00
if she was observing what was going on and it wasnt oclock in the morning of January 13. After Giovan had
really her; she felt like her head was detached from her closed the door, she and Bryan continued playing
body. She did the oral sex for only several seconds blackjack. After some ten minutes, Gina put down the
because it was as if someone went into the room. Then, playing cards and said that she just wanted to talk with
she became unconscious.[2] Bryan. She lay down on her left side facing Bryan with
her left hand supporting her head. Bryan moved up on
Again, Bryan and Giovan had a different story: the bed until his face was on the same level as
Ginas. Their heads were more than a foot but less than
[F]rom the Songs Jazz Bar they went to Kowloon two feet away from each other. While they were talking
Restaurant because Bryan was hungry and wanted to eat Gina was stroking Bryans head, maybe six times. Bryan
siomai and chicken pao with Sprite. Gina and Helen also just kept silent as he did not know what to do. On the
wanted Sprite while Giovan and Rizal, grape juice and other hand, Gina was smiling at him. He then smacked
root beer, respectively. Giovan and Rizal went down to her on the lips. She kissed him back and they started
buy all these. They made their orders through a small kissing each other. Gina inquired if he had had sex
window because the main entrance to the restaurant was before and he replied, yes, although it was not true
already closed. They returned with Rizal holding three because he was afraid that Gina might laugh at him if he
plastic cups of Sprite with ice in them and Giovan, root told the truth that he has no experience in
beer and grape juice and two plastic bags containing lovemaking. Bryan shot back a similar question to her
siomai and chicken pao. Then, Giovan drove them to and she answered that she has not had sex yet and is still
John Hay because one of the girls wanted to see the a virgin as she wanted to preserve her virginity for her
place. That was already past 2:00 oclock in the morning future husband. At this point they again kissed each
of January 13. They pulled over the premises of the other. Then, Gina asked if Bryan had a condom and the
billeting area because Giovan told the guards at the gate latter said, none. She remarked that she was worried
that they would just check on the billeting rates. Giovan about AIDS and he told her that he is not afflicted with
went to the billeting office where he stayed for about ten the disease. Thereupon, Gina said that if they are to do it,
minutes. In the meantime, those left in the car finished he should not tell it to anyone to which he commented
their drinks and Bryan collected the cups and threw them that he is not the kiss-and-tell type. She then undressed
into a trash can at the farther left side of where they and he did the same. They went back to bed and resumed
parked. They were at John Hay for less than 15 kissing each other. Gina went on top of Bryan and then
minutes. Then, they left for the Benguet Pines Tourist she slid down and kissed the area around his organ and
Inn at about 2:00 oclock in the morning of January 13.[3] later did a fellatio on him. After he had climaxed, Gina
moved up and wanted to kiss him but he did not
As to the events that occurred at the hotel, accused- react. She then asked him to enter her and he replied,
appellants had this to say: yes, and touched her breasts. However, he was turned off
when, upon feeling her genitals, his hand was smeared
with transparent liquid with something like brown or
Bryan, Helen, Gina and Rizal got off the car ahead as
dark brown or red substance in it which smelled
Giovan went to park it. Giovan got the key to their room
awful. He concluded that it was menstrual fluid because
from the cars glove compartment and picked up the key
earlier when they were playing cards something fell from
to the girls room from the backseat of the car because he
Ginas jogging pants which he picked up. When he
saw it lying there. He averred that they did not leave
handed it to her, she commented that it was tampon used
their hotel keys at the front desk when they left for the
for menstruation. He told her that he could not do the act
Songs Jazz Bar since there was no one there at the
anymore to which she replied, never mind. They then put
time. After giving the girls key to them at the hallway
back their clothes on. Bryan went to the comfort room
where they were talking with Bryan, he went to their
where he washed his smeared hand. When he came out,
room followed by Rizal and then Gina. On the other
he saw Gina lying in bed with her eyes closed. He
hand, Bryan went with Helen to the girls room where he
switched off the lights and laid beside her but he could
borrowed Helens playing cards.
not sleep. He later on got up and went down to see if beddings had been changed. She ran downstairs and met
Giovan and Rizal had already arrived. However, the Hilda, a hotel desk girl, who asked her if she was
security guard told him that the two had not yet gone alright. Gina cried and told her that she had been
back. He returned to their room and, again, lay down robbed. Hilda said she will call the police. Gina returned
beside Gina. This time he fell asleep.The sun was to their room to wake up Helen but the latter still did not
already somewhat up. He went to the porch to see if their wake up.
car was already there and he saw it there. He went down
After sometime, Gina again went downstairs and
to the car and found both Giovan and Rizal sleeping
inside the car; Rizal on the drivers seat with Giovan was introduced to five or six members of the Criminal
beside him.[4] Investigation Service (CIS). She told them that she was
robbed and sexually molested and narrated to them what
had happened. Two CIS agents drove Gina to look for
Giovan claimed that he and Rizal bought food for
the house of Bryans uncle but Gina could not find it.
Gina at the Kowloon Restaurant. When Giovan returned
to the room, however, he found Bryan and Gina The hotel owner, Mrs. Delos Santos, asked two
sleeping. So he just ate the food that they bought. He hotel guests, Mariano Robles, Jr. and Rizza Lao, for
slept in the car with Rizal until Bryan woke them up. assistance in helping Gina. Together, they went upstairs
and found Helen still asleep. She was wearing black
Bryan related to Giovan what had transpired
tights and a green sweatsuit. A bra lay on the table. Mrs.
between him and Gina. Giovan teased Bryan that he
Delos Santos tried to wake her up. It took a while before
might get AIDS. Giovan told Bryan that he would like to
Helen opened her eyes and gazed around her. Mrs. Delos
go home to his wife. Bryan ordered breakfast, then the
Santos introduced Mariano and Rizza. Helen said
he and Giovan went upstairs to their room. Gina was still
nothing. Rizza propped her up with a pillow on her
there. They asked her if she would like some breakfast,
back. Helen appeared sleepy, helpless and unable to
but she said no.
move. When Rizza asked her what happened, she just
Bryan and Giovan then got their things and went cried. They thought she was drunk but her breath did not
downstairs. Bryan finished his breakfast. Bryan told smell of alcohol. Someone brought in a bowl of soup and
Giovan that they should wait for the girls to wake up Rizza let her sip from it a little at a time. Helen tried to
before leaving Baguio. They went first to the driving eat it with a spoon but her hands trembled and she could
range at Camp John Hay, but it was full, so they just not put the spoon properly into her mouth. It took her
went back to the hotel. It was 8:00 in the morning. Bryan about 30 minutes to finish the soup.
wrote his phone number on a piece of paper to give to
Mariano and Rizza decided to take Helen for a walk
the girls, since he had promised to show them around
to let her blood circulate. Rizza helped her into her
Manila. They went upstairs to the girls room and found
sandals and pulled her to the side of the bed. Helen tried
Gina there. Both girls were still sleeping. Bryan roused
to stand up but she fell back. Mariano held her on both
Gina and asked her if it was alright for them to
arms and pulled her up. He stood on Helens right side,
leave. Gina said, Yes. Before leaving, Brian left the
held her right arm with his right hand and placed his left
paper with his phone number.
arm around her waist. Rizza held Helens left
Gina testified that she passed out after doing oral arm. Mariano and Rizza tried to move forward but Helen
sex on Bryan. She woke up at 3:00 in the afternoon could not take a single step. Mariano dragged her
feeling groggy and confused. She was shocked to realize forward and she made shaky steps.
what time it was, since she normally sleeps only seven
On the stairway, Mariano had to remind Helen that
and a half to eight hours a day. She also felt tired. She
they were going downstairs. He guided her every step
could not remember how she was able to get back to
until they reached the hotel lobby. From the hotel, they
their room. She also felt that her hair, pillow and
walked around Burnham Park for about fifty (50)
underwear, which was on the floor, were wet. She
minutes to an hour. Everytime they came upon a
remembered that check-out time at the hotel was at
stairway, Mariano had to instruct Helen how to go down
12:00 noon. She opened her purse to get money to pay
step by step. Whenever Helen got tired, they sat on a
for the room, but found that her US$290.00, P2,000.00,
bench. They did this four (4) or five (5) times. Mariano
300 yuan and US$200.00 travellers check were all
had to support Helens back every time they sat down on
missing. Only her US $100.00 travellers check was
the park benches to prevent her from falling over.
left. She tried to wake Helen up but the latter only rolled
over. When they returned to the hotel, they saw
Gina. Mariano and Rizza invited the two girls to have
She got up and went out of the room, but she had
dinner with them. Gina declined. They took Helen to the
difficulty balancing herself. She walked to the boys
Barrio Fiesta Restaurant along Session Road. Again,
room but found that the door was already open and the
they had to assist Helen in getting out of Marianos Gina likewise underwent urinalysis and her urine
car. At the restaurant, Helen hardly ate. sample yielded negative of sperm cell. She did not,
however, undergo drug testing as there were no facilities
On the witness stand, Helen recounted that at that for such anywhere in Baguio City.
time she felt as if the effects of anesthesia was wearing
out. She was disoriented and groggy. She was dizzy and The prosecution presented Dr. Francisco
did not feel like waking up. She had difficulty focusing Hernandez, a neuro-surgeon, as expert witness to
on a single object. The act of walking was itself an corroborate Ginas testimony that she was drugged. Dr.
ordeal. Hernandez testified that in the practice of his profession,
he uses sedative-hypnotic drugs belonging to the
The following morning, Helen still felt groggy and benzodiazepine family of drugs. According to him, he
had difficulty concentrating and walking. She and Gina uses these drugs as tools, such that whenever he sees a
decided to go to Baguio General Hospital for a urinalysis patient, he can form an opinion on whether he or she has
and pelvic examination. Dr. Mildred Torres, who been drugged.
conducted the tests, made the following findings:
Based on the set of facts provided by the private
Perineal Exam.: Positive erythema at the prosecutor, the entries in Ginas journal and the transcript
lateral aspect of vaginal wall. No of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary
lacerations; no bleeding noted. examination conducted by the trial court in the afternoon
of January 26 and 27, 1994, Dr. Hernandez opined that
Internal Exam.: Nulliparous introitus. Vagina admits two Gina and Helen were drugged, possibly with lorazepam
fingers with difficulty. or ativan, which is a benzodiazepine.
The defense presented two expert witnesses to
Uterus: small. Adnexae: negative. Bleeding: counter Dr. Hernandezs opinion. Dr. Rey San Pedro, a
negative. Discharge: minimal; whitish. psychiatrist, opined that Gina and Helen could not have
been drugged because they have not been medically
Specimen taken for sperm analysis and gram straining. examined for the presence of drugs in their
system. Neither were the cups used by Gina and Helen
Urinalysis and pregnancy test requested. examined if they were indeed laced with drugs. Instead,
the condition described by the girls based on the
Result: Pregnancy Test: Negative. documents given by the defense could have been caused
by the alcoholic drinks. He added, though, that while
Urinalysis: Epithelial cells: occasional. Ginas behavior as described in her journal might have
Amorphous Urates: moderate. Pus been caused by ativan, he did not have any basis to
cells: 0-3. RBC:0-2 conclude the same in much the same way that he
concluded that said behavior was caused by alcohol. He
Gram Stain: Smear shows gram (-) reds. conceded that if ativan were to be taken with alcohol,
there would be a potentiating effect, meaning, that
Pus cells: because of the alcohol, the effect of the ativan would last
longer or there would be sedation.
Epithelial cells: many. The second expert witness, Dr. Pedro Solis, testified
that a person who imbibes alcohol goes through three
Smear Identification: Negative for sperm cell. stages, namely: (a) stage of excitement; (b) stage of
intoxication or the proprioception stage; and (c) stage of
Dr. Torres also found erythema on both the lateral being dead drunk or the toxic stage. On the basis of the
aspects of the inner part of the labia minora which could statement of facts and documents provided him by the
have been caused by infection, scratching or insertion of defense, Gina was only at the first stage, the stage of
any foreign object into the introitus. Ruling out infection excitement due to her alcohol intake for the following
due to the absence of purulent or yellowish discharge, reasons: she had the power to coordinate when she
she supposed that it could have been caused by caught the room key thrown to her by Helen with one
scratching or coitus. On cross-examination, she opined hand; she could properly walk; and she could properly
that it could also have been caused by the use of tampon reason out when she decided to do oral sex on Bryan in
during menstruation. She concluded that no force could order to avoid sexual intercourse. Dr. Solis explained
have been applied on Ginas hymen as it did not have any that the rather long sleep experienced by Gina and Helen
laceration or bleeding. was due to fatigue brought about by their activities the
previous day, their alcohol intake, their youth and the offended party, GINA MARIE MOBLEY, in the amount
cool ambience of Baguio City. of P100,000.00 for and as moral damages, plus costs.
He said it could not be definitely concluded that the
Both accused shall furthermore pay, jointly and
girls were drugged because no drug test was
severally, the offended party attorneys fees in the
conducted. He added that mere observance of the clinical
amount of P100,000.00 in the two cases.
symptoms can not be a basis for concluding that they
were drugged. He conceded, though, that ativan and
some other benzodiazepines are relatively new drugs The accused BERNARDINO shall be credited with his
and, as yet, he has had no experience observing its preventive imprisonment under the terms and conditions
effects except from what he has read. Like Dr. San prescribed in Article 29 in relation to Article 70 of the
Pedro, he stated that if alcohol is ingested with any of Revised Penal Code, as amended.
the psychotropic drugs like ativan, a potentiating effect
would be produced in the sense that the pharmacologic SO ORDERED.[5]
effect of the drug is increased.
Accused-appellants filed separate appeals. Accused-
The trial court gave credence to the version of the appellant Bryan Dy assigned the following errors:
prosecution. On March 16, 1994, it rendered a decision
the dispositive portion of which is as follows: A. Errors of Law
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds and declares both I. THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE
the accused BRYAN FERDINAND DY y LA MADRID TRIAL COURT SHOULD BE
and GIOVAN BERNARDINO y GARCIA guilty REVERSED AND SET ASIDE ON THE
beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of rape and acts GROUND THAT NO VALID
of lasciviousness as charged and - ARRAIGNMENT TOOK PLACE
DURING THE TRIAL BELOW.
(a) In Crim. Case No. 12600-R, for rape, DY is
sentenced, after appreciating in his favor the privileged II. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE
mitigating circumstance of minority and the generic PROCEEDINGS BELOW WERE
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, to suffer VALIDLY CONDUCTED, THE TRIAL
an indeterminate penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS COURT ERRED IN FINDING
of prision mayor, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF
YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS of reclusion RAPE AND OF ACTS OF
temporal, as maximum; while BERNARDINO is LASCIVIOUSNESS BECAUSE:
sentenced, likewise after appreciating in his favor the a. THE CHARGE OF ACTS OF
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, to suffer LASCIVIOUSNESS SHOULD HAVE
an indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and BEEN DEEMED INCLUDED IN THE
ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to CHARGE OF RAPE.
TWENTY (20) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion
perpetua, as maximum. Both accused are ordered to pay b. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
the offended party GINA MARIE MOBLEY in the USING THE TESTIMONY OF DR.
amounts of: P50,000.00 for her being raped, P12,195.00 PEDRO SOLIS, THE EXPERT
(the equivalent of US$450.00 dollars at the exchange WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE,
rate of P27.10 to US$1.00) as actual damages, and GIVEN BY HIM MORE THAN
P500,000.00 as moral damages, plus costs. TWENTY YEARS AGO IN THE CASE
OF PEOPLE V. CESAR GUY, 12 C.A.
(b) In Crim. Case No. 12601-R, for acts of REP. 2nd 258, TO DISCREDIT THE
lasciviousness, DY is sentenced, after applying in his TESTIMONY GIVEN BY HIM
favor the same mitigating circumstances mentioned DURING THE TRIAL BELOW.
above, to suffer a straight penalty of TWO (2) MONTHS
B. Errors of Fact
of arresto mayor; and BERNARDINO is sentenced,
likewise after applying to him the same mitigating III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
circumstance stated above, to suffer an indeterminate FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF
penalty of TWO (2) MONTHS OF arresto mayor, as RAPE BECAUSE:
minimum, to TWO (2) YEARS and FOUR (4)
MONTHS of prision correccional, as maximum. Both a. THERE WAS IN FACT NO CARNAL
accused shall also indemnify, jointly and severally, the KNOWLEDGE;
 b. THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WAS III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
NOT DEPRIVED OF REASON OR FINDING GIOVAN BERNARDINO
OTHERWISE UNCONSCIOUS; GUILTY AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN
THE CRIME OF RAPE BECAUSE
c. THERE WAS NO FORCE OR NEITHER FORCE NOR INTIMIDATION
INTIMIDATION. WAS EMPLOYED NOR WAS THE
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PRIVATE COMPLAINANT DEPRIVED
FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF OF REASON OR OTHERWISE
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS UNCONSCIOUS.
BECAUSE: IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
a. THERE WAS NO ACT OF LEWDNESS FINDING GIOVAN BERNARDINO
COMMITTED; GUILTY AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN
THE CRIME OF RAPE BECAUSE
b. THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WAS BRYAN DY LACKED THE REQUISITE
NOT DEPRIVED OF REASON OR DOLO OR CRIMINAL INTENT TO
OTHERWISE UNCONSCIOUS; and COMMIT THE SAID INTENTIONAL
c. THERE WAS NO FORCE OR FELONY.
INTIMIDATION. V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONCLUDING THAT GIOVAN
FINDING THAT THE SUBSEQUENT BERNARDINO WAS A CO-
ACTS OF APPELLANT ARE NOT CONSPIRATOR IN THE CRIME OF
CONSISTENT WITH THE ACTS OF A RAPE BY REASON OF CONSPIRACY
PERSON WHO HAD JUST OR THAT HE PARTICIPATED IN ANY
COMMITTED AN OFFENSE. WAY IN THE ALLEGED CRIME.

VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
FINDING THAT THE PRIVATE FINDING GIOVAN BERNARDINO
COMPLAINANTS SUBSEQUENT ACTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF ACTS OF
AND STATEMENTS MADE AS PART LASCIVIOUSNESS BEYOND
OF THE RES GESTAE SHOW THAT SHE REASONABLE DOUBT.
HAD NOT BEEN MOLESTED. VII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
VII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE CRIME
FINDING THAT THE PRIVATE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED WAS
COMPLAINANTS CREDIBILITY HAS QUALIFIED RAPE, AND IN FAILING
BEEN IMPEACHED. TO CREDIT ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GIOVAN BERNARDINO WITH THE
VIII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
FINDING THAT THE CREDIBILITY OF MINORITY.
THE OTHER PROSECUTION
WITNESSES HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.[6] VIII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
ORDERING BOTH ACCUSED-
Accused-appellant Giovan Bernardino, on the other APPELLANTS IN CRIMINAL CASE No.
hand, assigns the following errors: 12600-R TO PAY THE PRIVATE
I. THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO COMPLAINANT FIFTY THOUSAND
ACCORD THE CONSTITUTIONAL PESOS FOR THE ALLEGED RAPE,
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED TO DUE ACTUAL AND MORAL DAMAGES
PROCESS OF LAW THUS DEPRIVING PLUS COSTS; AND IN CRIMINAL
THEM OF A FAIR TRIAL. CASE No. 12601 TO MORAL DAMAGES
PLUS COSTS.[7]
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
FINDING GIOVAN BERNARDINO The defense contends that there was no valid
GUILTY AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN arraignment since they were not furnished a copy of the
THE CRIME OF RAPE BECAUSE complaint or information. Moreover, the complaint or
THERE WAS NO CARNAL information was not read in a dialect or language known
KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN BRYAN DY to them. While they waived their right to enter a plea,
AND PRIVATE COMPLAINANT. they claim that they never waived their right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation xxxxxxxxx
against them.
It is also important to stress that to nullify the
Concededly, the right to be informed of the nature
proceedings had before the court a quo would set a
and cause of the accusation may not be waived. Indeed,
dangerous precedent. For, all that an accused would do is
the defense may waive their right to enter a plea and let
to refuse to be arraigned and then proceed to trial, and if
the court enter a plea of not guilty in their
found guilty would just invoke the absence of
behalf. However, it becomes altogether a different matter
arraignment to set aside the proceedings had in the trial
if the accused themselves refuse to be informed of the
court. Such practice would run counter to the purpose
nature and cause of the accusation against them.The
and spirit of our rules of procedure which is: to help
defense can not hold hostage the court by their refusal to
achieve an orderly and speedy disposition of cases.[10]
the reading of the complaint or information.
The reason proffered by accused-appellants for their Nonetheless, accused-appellants were substantially
refusal to be arraigned, i.e., that to do so would informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
supposedly constitute a waiver of their right to appeal against them when their counsel received a copy of the
the resolutions of the prosecutor to the Secretary of Prosecutors resolution maintaining the charge for rape
Justice,[8] appears to be specious. Evidently, accused- and acts of lasciviousness.[11] The failure to read the
appellants only wanted the trial court to suspend the complaint or information in a language or dialect known
arraignment to enable them to exhaust their remedy of to them was essentially a procedural infirmity that was
appeal to the Secretary of Justice. However, accused- eventually non-prejudicial to accused-appellants. Not
appellants had no valid ground to move that their only did they receive a copy of the information, they
arraignment be held in abeyance, considering that at that likewise participated in the trial, cross-examined the
time they had not filed a petition for review of the complainant and her witnesses and presented their own
prosecutors resolution before the Department of witnesses to debunk and deny the charges against
Justice. In Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. How,[9] this them. The conduct of the defense, particularly their
Court has held that: participation in the trial, clearly indicates that they were
fully aware of the nature and cause of the accusations
Procedurally speaking, after the filing of an information, against them.
the court is in complete control of the case and any
Interestingly, after the arraignment, the defense
disposition therein is subject to its sound discretion. The
never brought up the supposed invalidity or defect
decision to suspend arraignment to await the resolution
thereof. Rather, accused-appellants and their counsel
of an appeal with the Secretary of Justice is an exercise
vigorously and fully participated in the trial of the case.
of such discretion.
Accused-appellants are clearly estopped to question
xxxxxxxxx the alleged invalidity of or infirmity in their
arraignment. By actively participating in the trial of the
It bears stressing that the court is however, not bound to case, they have effectively waived whatever procedural
adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice since the error there was in their arraignment. In short, whatever
court is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the was the defect in their arraignment was substantially
merits of the case, and may either agree or disagree with cured by their own omission and subsequent actions.
the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Reliance
Accused-appellants next submit that the crime of
alone on the resolution of the Secretary of Justice would
acts of lasciviousness should have been absorbed by the
be an abdication of the trial courts duty and jurisdiction
crime of rape.
to determine prima facie case.
The Office of the Solicitor General disagreed
As the Solicitor General correctly observed, thus: arguing, thus:

x x x [A]ssuming, arguendo, that appellants were not While it may be true that in certain cases, the crime of
validly arraigned, such defect, if any, was waived when acts of lasciviousness may be considered absorbed by
appellants, without objection, proceeded to trial as if the crime of rape, in the instant case, it cannot be so
they have been duly arraigned (22 C.J.S. 626). Any because the two crimes were committed by two different
irregularity in an arraignment, such as failure to deliver a persons acting in conspiracy. Such being the case, there
copy of the indictment, or to read the same to accused, or is no occasion for the application of the procedural rule
delivering the same to the attorney of the accused, that one crime whose elements are identical with another
instead of to the accused himself, is waived by failure to crime is absorbed by the more serious crime. There
object thereto in the trial court (Ibid., p. 628). being conspiracy, what is applicable is the rule that the
crime committed by one conspirator is added to the or the use of a tampon. She added that erythema could
crime committed by his co-conspirator and vice- not be caused solely by sex. The presence of erythema,
versa. This is so because in conspiracy, the act of one is however, cannot give a definitive conclusion as to its
considered as the act of the other co-conspirator. In the cause. She also found complainants hymen to be intact
case under consideration, while appellant Bernardino has and that there was no laceration, bleeding or
committed the crime of acts of lasciviousness, his co- spermatozoa.
conspirator appellant Bryan Dy, committed the crime of
Dr. Solis, on the other hand, submits that erythema
rape. They are, therefore, liable for both offenses in view
of the presence of conspiracy. or reddening could not have been caused by intercourse
as said act would have produced not only irritation on
the vaginal wall but also irritation, swelling and
Appellants, in insisting that the crime of acts of
reddening of complainants outer genital area. He added
lasciviousness should have been absorbed by the crime
that coitus is a blind act and would have caused irritation
of rape, misappreciated the application of Section 5,
to the labia majora, labia minora and hymen in addition
Rule 120 (when an offense includes or is included in
to the vaginal wall, suggesting that erythema on the
another) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the
vaginal wall was more consistent with scratching or the
principle of conspiracy.[12]
insertion of a foreign object such as a tampon.
The position of the Solicitor General is well- Accused-appellant Dys contention fails to
taken. As will be shown hereunder, both accused- persuade. The medical opinions he cites do not totally
appellants acted in conspiracy, especially in their act of rule out penetration or contact of penis with the
offering the girls alcoholic drinks at the Songs Jazz Bar vagina. In fact, Dr. Torres could not give a definitive
and in administering drugs in their cola drinks. Under conclusion that the reddening of the vaginal walls was
the principle of conspiracy, the act of one is the act of not caused by sexual intercourse. Even if we were to
all. Consequently, Bryan should also be held criminally follow Dr. Solis line of reasoning, he was not likewise
liable for the acts of lasciviousness committed by categorical in stating that the reddening of the vaginal
Giovan on Gina, made possible by his convenient walls was not caused by penetration by a penis. Rather,
absence in the room. Corollarily, Giovan should be held he stated that such reddening was more consistent with
equally guilty for the rape committed by Bryan. scratching or the use of a tampon.[15]
Accused-appellants dispute the factual findings of Further, lack of lacerated wounds does not negate
rape made by the trial court, arguing that: (1) that there sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an
was no carnal knowledge; (2) complainant was not essential element of rape. Even the fact that the hymen
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) of the victim was still intact does not negate rape. As
there was no force or intimidation. explained by Dr. Maximo Reyes, medico-legal officer of
the NBI, there are hymens that may admit without
In rape cases, courts are guided by the following necessarily producing laceration and there are hymens
principles: (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to that may admit injuries that will produce such
disprove it is difficult though the accused may be laceration.[16]
innocent; (2) considering that in the nature of things,
only two persons are usually involved in the crime of Even the presence or absence of spermatozoa is
rape, the testimony of the complainant should be immaterial in the prosecution of a rape case. It is well
scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for settled that penetration of the womans vagina, however
the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and slight, and not ejaculation, constitutes rape. The Court
not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of rejects the argument that the absence of sperm in the
the evidence for the defense.[13] vaginal area is a good defense in a rape case.[17]
Accused-appellant Dy insists there was no carnal For rape to be consummated, full penetration is not
knowledge between him and complainant. He avers that necessary. Penile invasion necessarily entails contact
the only intimate contact between them consisted merely with the labia. It suffices that there is proof of the
of Mobleys kissing him, holding his penis and eventually entrance of the male organ with the labia of the
sucking it, and of him in turn kissing her and placing his pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis
fingers in her vagina.[14] He claims that Dr. Torres and by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture
Dr. Solis findings as well as complainants journal or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a
confirmed his testimony. Dr. Torres, in particular, conviction for rape. To repeat, the rupture of the hymen
testified that complainants cervix merely showed or laceration of any part of the womans genitalia is not
reddening and irritation indicating positive erythema at indispensable to a conviction for rape.[18]
the lateral aspect of the vaginal wall. Said erythema
could have been caused by coitus, infection, scratching,
 Accused-appellant Dy also insists that complainant hours. The trial court correctly appreciated the clinical
could not have been drugged, relying on the opinion of and academic assessment of the potency and effect of
his expert witnesses, namely, Dr. San Pedro and Dr. ativan which, according to Dr. Hernandez, is a
Solis. The reasoning that complainant could not have benzodiazepine or a sedative-hypnotic drug. More
been drugged as there was no drug test taken is at least specifically, the trial court found that:
speculative and at most non sequitur. The trial court
found that: Gina experienced patchy amnesia, i.e., she could
remember some of the events happening to her and in
The proven reaction of Gina and Helen to the cola drinks front of her but forget the others, like her inability to
given them by the accused unmistakably indicates that recall that she went back to their room and even
they were indeed drugged. Dr. Francisco Hernandez, the bathed. She also had disorientation and confusion
prosecution expert witness, opined that the sedative- because she did not know why she went to the boys
hypnotic drug known as ativan or lorazepam could room and why she was naked. Disorientation and
probably be the one used. As explained by him, ativan is confusion, in turn, produce hypnotic effect, making the
a dose-related drug. A dosage of from 0.5 milligram to 4 one drugged easily suggestible, easily manipulated and
milligrams could produce in a person of average built or easily taken advantaged of. Gina likewise had visual
with a weight of 130 pounds anxiolytic effect, visual hallucination since she had the sensation that it was as if
hallucination, amnesia, confusion, disorientation, gait her head was detached from her body. She could resist
unsteadiness and sedation. At a 4-milligram dosage, the but she had no means of resisting because ativan is a
imbiber would experience sedation and excessive muscle relaxant and all her muscles were flaccid or lax.
sleepiness (See Exhibit G). The onset of the action of the
drug is within 15 to 45 minutes from the time it is Quite significantly, Dr. San Pedro, one of the defense
ingested; it peaks after 2 hours; and the action will last expert witnesses, stated that ativan could also cause
for 6 to 8 hours. Ginas feeling that she was falling in and out of
consciousness during the incident in
The effects of ativan manifested themselves in Gina and question.Significantly, too, Dr. San Pedro further
Helen but they were more profound in Helen because testified that Ginas behavior could be consistent with her
she drank all the cola drink spiked with drug and she is taking alcoholic drinks and ativan on the same
slimmer than the 165-pound Gina who did not finish her occasion. Dr. Solis, the other defense expert witness,
cola drink because when she felt something gritty that also gave the view that imbibing alcohol together with
stuck into her teeth, she spat back into her cup the cola in ativan would produce potentiation or increase the
her mouth and dumped out the rest of her drink. pharmacologic effect of the drug.[20]

Accused-appellant Dy can not take comfort in the Accused-appellant Dy asserts that: (a) the
fact that Gina failed to undergo a drug test. In People v. combination of drugs and alcohol normally produces a
Villanos,[19] the issue of whether the laced softdrink potentiating effect in that the subject can either fall into a
should have been presented in evidence to prove that coma or do the opposite which is to act aggressively and
complainant felt dizzy and unconscious after drinking with extreme hostility, and (b) the effects described by
the same was resolved thus: complainant and Helen Tennican are more
consistent with alcohol use rather than the effect of
True, there was no test conducted to determine the drugs.These assertions are not in accord with the trial
presence of any sedative or drug in the drinks given to courts findings of fact, and when combined with the
the victims which caused them to lose momentary adverbs normally and more consistent, are not definitive.
control of their faculties. But this is of little consequence
Even so, the trial court did not err in its assessment
as the same is not an indispensable element in a
of the credibility of Dr. Hernandezs testimony. The fact
prosecution for rape. Under the circumstances, it suffices
that Dr. Hernandez has not been accredited as an expert
that the victim was found to have been unconscious at
by the Dangerous Drugs Board does not necessarily
the time the offender had carnal knowledge of her.
mean that he is not an expert on the effects of drugs, as
accused-appellant Dy would like this Court to
Accused-appellant Dys submission that the ativan is believe. Accreditation by the Board is not an essential
an anxiety-reducing drug and not a sedative which element of expertise. More properly, expertise pertains
would not normally produce sleep unless taken in to knowledge and experience as well as relevant
massive quantities is belied by the undisputed fact that exposure to a particular field of discipline. It appears that
Gina slept for approximately thirteen hours while Helen Dr. Hernandez has met these latter requisites.
slept for almost eighteen hours. Gina testified that she
normally sleeps from seven and a half hours to eight
 Since complainant was drugged, she was effectively the washroom who accepted the boys invitation to their
deprived of reason if not effectively rendered table and Helen then followed suit;
unconscious.
(c) Upon learning that the girls were coming up to
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
Baguio City, the boys intimated that they, too, were
amended by RA No. 7659, rape is committed by having
coming up as they had planned two weeks earlier and
carnal knowledge of a woman who is unconscious. In
offered the girls a ride with them. The boys pretension
such a case, the fact of sexual assault and the identity of
could not be true otherwise Bryan, who came from
the assailant can be established from the events
Manila, would have prepared at least a jacket and some
preceding or following the victims loss of
clothes for their well-planned Baguio trip; instead, they
consciousness.[21] Here, complainant was not totally
had to go first to a residential area in Angeles City where
unconscious but was physically helpless to resist or
Bryan borrowed a jacket (two according to Helen) before
effectively communicate her refusal to the lewd desires
driving to Baguio City;
of accused-appellants. She was aware of the fact of
sexual assault and the identity of her assailants despite
her patchy amnesia, disorientation and xxxxxxxxx
confusion. In People v. Lintag,[22] this Court held that:
(e) At the Songs Jazz Bar, Bryan and Giovan kept on
[I]f the ability to resist is taken away by administering offering and giving Gina and Helen alcoholic drinks;
drugs, even though the woman may be conscious, sexual
intercourse with her is rape. (Citation omitted) If the (f) As they left, Giovan suggested that he was thirsty and
womans will is affected by the anesthetic so that the wanted cola drink;
connection is had without her consent, though she may
be more or less conscious, the act will be rape. (Citation (g) Notably, Helen declined any further cola drink since
omitted) she had already drunk enough water at the Songs;

In this regard, the trial court observed: (h) But Bryan and Giovan, who went to buy the drinks at
Kowloon Restaurant, saw to it that the two plastic cups
Gina has positively and steadfastly and unrelentingly of Sprite carried by Bryan be given to Gina and
claimed that after the effects of the drug had taken on her Helen. They were the drugged cola drinks;
and she lay down on the beds put together in the boys
room, Giovan lay alongside her and forcibly kissed her (i) As heretofore stated, they detoured through Club John
with his tongue inside her mouth, kissed her breasts and Hay to let Gina and Helen drink their drug-laced Sprite
inserted his index and middle fingers into her vagina and have the drug take its initial effect;
followed by Bryan having sexual intercourse with her
and just to prevent Bryan from penetrating her further, (j) When Giovan was satiating his lust on Gina, Bryan
she did oral sex on him.[23] was not around to let Giovan freely do what he
wanted. When Bryans turn came, Giovan also left.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come
to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony Accused-appellant Bernardinos contention that he
and decide to commit it. The agreement may be deduced could not have been a co-conspirator in the crime of rape
from the manner in which the offense was committed. It because Bryan Dy lacked the requisite dolo or criminal
must be shown that all participants performed specific intent to commit said intentional felony is
acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a unmeritorious. Complainant was found to have been
common purpose or design to commit the felony.[24] drugged. The obvious implication of drugging
complainant was to render her unconscious or at least
Accused-appellants joint participation in the crime unable to resist the malicious and sexual designs of
of rape is clear from the trial courts findings as follows: accused-appellants on the former. By doing so, accused-
appellants ensured that complainant would be in no
(a) Bryan and Giovan were both at the Angeles Flying position to resist or to effectively say no. The fact of
Club when Bryan spotted Gina and Helen; drugging complainant betrays both accused-appellants
intent to sexually assault complainant or engage in
(b) The two boys and their driver sat at a table next to sexual intercourse with her.
the girls and immediately Bryan and later on Giovan
struck up a conversation with the girls, initially with In addition, accused-appellant Dy submits that he
Helen whom they invited to their table which she would not have acted the way he did had he committed
declined, and then with Gina after the latter came out of the crime of rape. His argument is non sequitur. While
an accused-appellants post-incident behavior is never on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is
proof of guilt, neither is it of innocence. denied to the appellate courts. Only the trial judge can
observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame,
By the same token, accused-appellant submits that hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or
complainants acts and statements, which are allegedly the scant or full realization of an oath all of which are
part of the res gestae, indicate that she had not been useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness
raped or molested.This contention is, likewise, honesty and sincerity. The trial courts findings are
unmeritorious. The behavior and reaction of every
accorded finality, unless there appears in the record
person cannot be predicted with accuracy. It is an some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower
accepted maxim that different people react differently to court may have overlooked, misunderstood or
a given situation or type of situation and there is no misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would
standard form of behavioral response when one is alter the results of the case.[29] Unless certain facts of
confronted with a strange or startling experience. Not substance and value were overlooked which, if
every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to considered, might affect the result of the case, its
the usual expectations of every one. Some may shout; assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity
some may faint; and some may be shocked into to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses
insensibility, while others may openly welcome the
while testifying and detect if they are lying.[30]
intrusion.[25] Behavioral psychology teaches us that
people react to similar situations dissimilarly. There is This Court does not agree that the trial court
no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by overlooked or misappreciated any fact of substance or
a shocking incident. The workings of the human mind value. In assessing the credibility of complainant, the
when placed under emotional stress are trial court commented thus:
unpredictable. This Court indeed has not laid down any
rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately The Court had observed her demeanor when she was
after she has been abused. This experience is relative and testifying and she was direct, spontaneous and
may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending straightforward, even crying in narrating the sensitive
on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be details of her horrible experience; she had also
tainted by any modicum of doubt.[26] demonstrated much care and concern about her
obligation to tell the truth and nothing but the truth under
Accused-appellant Dy also avers that the credibility
the oath which she had taken before sitting on the
of complainant and her other witnesses was
witness chair.[31]
impeached. In effect, accused-appellants question the
trial courts assessment of complainants credibility.
The victims act of crying during her testimony
Credible witness and credible testimony are the two bolsters the credibility of the rape charge with the verity
essential elements for the determination of the weight of born out of human nature and experience.[32]
a particular testimony. This principle could not ring any
truer where the prosecution relies mainly on the Besides, no woman would concoct a story of
testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the defloration, allow examination of her private parts and
medico-legal findings of a physician. Be that as it may, subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in
the accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone, truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice
uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim, provided for the wrong done to her. It is settled jurisprudence that
that her testimony is clear, convincing and otherwise when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in
consistent with human nature.[27] effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed
committed.[33] A woman would think twice before she
Needless to say, this is a matter best assigned to the concocts a story of rape unless she is motivated by a
trial court which had the first-hand opportunity to hear patent desire to seek justice for the wrong committed
the testimonies of the witnesses and observe their against her.[34]
demeanor, conduct, and attitude during cross-
examination. Such matters cannot be gathered from a No decent woman in her right mind would tell a tale
mere reading of the transcripts of stenographic that could sully her reputation and bring undue
notes. Hence, the trial courts findings carry great weight embarrassment and shame to herself and expose her
and substance.[28] family to all sorts of public aspersions if it is not the
truth.[35] If her story had only been contrived, she would
In any case, well-settled is the rule that the findings not have been so composed and consistent throughout
of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a her entire testimony in the face of intense and lengthy
matter best left to the trial court because of its unique interrogation.[36] Indeed, if an accused had really nothing
position of having observed that elusive and to do with the crime, it is against the natural order of
incommunicable evidence of the witnesses deportment events and human nature and against the presumption of
good faith that the prosecution witness would falsely of prision mayor in any of its periods, i.e., from 6 years
testify against the former.[37] and 1 day to 12 years.
In this case, accused-appellants could not even Considering the foregoing, accused-appellant Dy is
come up with a credible motive for complainant to hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 8 years
charge them with rape. At any rate, ill motive is never an of prision mayor, as minimum up to 14 years and 8
essential element of a crime.It becomes inconsequential months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
in a case where there are affirmative, nay, categorical
As regards accused-appellant Bernardino, he is not
declarations towards the accused-appellants
accountability for the felony.[38] entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority considering that at the time of the commission
It is doctrinally settled that the lone testimony of a of the crime, he was already nineteen years
rape victim, by itself, is sufficient to convict if old.[41] Hence, as to him, the proper imposable penalty
credible. Equally settled is the principle that when a is reclusion perpetua, an indivisible penalty. Under
woman declares that she has been raped, she says in Article 63, first paragraph, of the Revised Penal Code,
effect all that is necessary to mean that she has been this penalty shall be imposed regardless of the
raped, and where her testimony passes the test of attendance of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
credibility, the accused can be convicted on the basis surrender.
thereof.This is because from the nature of the crime, the
only evidence that can be offered to establish the guilt of The trial court erred in sentencing accused-
the accused is the complainants testimony.[39] appellant Bernardino to an indeterminate penalty. Since
the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed on him,
Accused-appellant Bernardino assails the trial accused-appellant Bernardino can not enjoy the benefit
courts failure to credit him with the mitigating of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.[42]
circumstance of minority. There is no merit to this
contention. Accused-appellant Bernardino was already Accused-appellant Bernardinos act of kissing Ginas
nineteen when the crime was committed. Moreover, in breasts and inserting his finger into her vagina
constituted acts of lasciviousness.[43] The penalty for this
the case of People v. Abad,[40] which accused-appellant
Bernardino cites, the circumstances and immaturity of felony, under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code,
accused in said case did not allow him the freedom of is prision correccional. The penalty to be imposed on
initiative and action which should be expected of a accused-appellant Dy, after appreciating the privileged
person who is aware of the full consequences and mitigating circumstance of minority and the generic
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,
responsibility for his acts. Accused-appellant Bernardino
was not under similar circumstances and neither was is arresto mayor in its minimum period. Inasmuch as the
there any clinical basis to show he was immature. Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable,[44] the trial
court correctly imposed on him the straight penalty of
Under the second paragraph of Article 335 of the two months of arresto mayor.
Revised Penal Code, rape is punished by reclusion
On the other hand, the penalty to be imposed on
perpetua. Although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 fixed
the duration of reclusion perpetua from 20 years and 1 accused-appellant Bernardino, considering the generic
day to 40 years, the penalty has remained indivisible. mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,
is prision correccional in its minimum period. The trial
At the time of the commission of the crime, court, therefore, correctly imposed on him the
accused-appellant Dy was 17 years old, hence a indeterminate penalty of two months of arresto mayor,
minor. Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, as minimum, to two years and four months of prision
when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty correccional, as maximum.
next lower to that prescribed by law shall be imposed,
but always in the proper period. Finally, in the matter of the damages awarded by
the trial court, this Court reduces the award of moral
Minority being a privileged mitigating damages from P500,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with
circumstance, the proper imposable penalty in this case prevailing jurisprudence.Moral damages are not awarded
for accused-appellant Dy is reclusion temporal, which to punish the accused but to compensate for the mental
ranges from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years. Appreciating anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock suffered by
the ordinary generic mitigating circumstance of the victim or his family as the proximate result of the
voluntary surrender in favor of Dy, the imposable wrongful act. The award is not meant to enrich the
penalty should be within minimum period of reclusion victim at the expense of the accused.[45]
temporal, i.e.,12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8
months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Likewise, the award of P12,195.00 or the equivalent
minimum term of the penalty should be within the range of US$450.00 as actual damages is deleted for lack of
factual basis. To seek recovery of actual damages, it is alibi. Thus, for failure of the prosecution to allege in the
necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a information and prove during trial the correct dates of
reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent the rapes allegedly committed against the victim, Elvie
proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured Basco, the accused will be let off the hook on due
party.[46] process considerations.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the On March 27, 1996, two informations were filed
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, against the accused Valdesancho.
Branch 5, in Criminal Case No. 12600-R, finding
accused-appellant BRYAN FERDINAND DY y LA In Criminal Case No. S-1964, the information
MADRID and GIOVAN BERNARDINO y GARCIA reads, viz:
guilty of Rape, and sentencing accused-appellant Bryan
Dy to suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight years "That on or about August 15, 1994 at Sitio Mahabang
of prision mayor, as minimum, up to fourteen years and Parang, Barangay Nanguma, Municipality of Mabitac,
eight months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, is Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this
AFFIRMED. The said decision, insofar as accused- Honorable Court, the above-named accused with lewd
appellant Giovan Bernardinos penalty is concerned, is designs and by means of force and violence, did then and
MODIFIED in that he is sentenced to suffer the penalty there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
of reclusion perpetua. intercourse with one Elvie B. Basco, 15 years old, single
(,) against her will and consent and to her damage and
The decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. prejudice.
12601-R, finding accused-appellants guilty of Acts of
Lasciviousness and sentencing accused-appellant Dy to CONTRARY TO LAW."[2]
suffer the straight penalty of two months of arresto
mayor, and accused-appellant Bernardino to suffer the In Criminal Case No. S-1965, the information
indeterminate penalty of two months of arresto reads, viz:
mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months
of prision correccional, as maximum, is AFFIRMED. "That on or about the evening of August 16, 1994 at
Accused-appellants Dy and Bernardino are further Sitio Mahabang Parang, Barangay Nanguma,
ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay complainant, Municipality of Mabitac, Province of Laguna and within
Gina Marie Mobley, the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and named accused with lewd designs and by means of force
P100,000.00 as attorneys fees, and to pay the costs of the and violence, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
suit. The award of P12,195.00 or US$450.00 as actual feloniously have sexual intercourse with one Elvie B.
damages is DELETED. Basco, 15 years of age, single (,) against her will and
consent and to her damage and prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
CONTRARY TO LAW."[3]

The prosecution evidence shows that the accused

[G.R. Nos. 137051-52. May 30, 2001]
Valdesancho is the husband of Elvie's sister, Erlinda
Valdesancho. Elvie and her two younger brothers, Erick
and Eddie, lived with their brother in the mountains of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Barangay Minayutan, Famy, Laguna. In 1994, however,
vs. VICENTE VALDESANCHO Y Elvie's mother, Leonida Basco, requested the spouses
DELMO, accused-appellant. Erlinda and the accused Valdesancho to let Elvie, Erick
and Eddie live in their house in San Antonio, Mabitac,
Laguna. The three were going to study in Barangay San
DECISION
Antonio. They resided with the accused from June 24,
PUNO, J.: 1994 to June 1995. Elvie was then fourteen years old and
in Grade 1 at the Barangay San Antonio School.[4]
This Court has many times declared that the date of The first incident of rape happened in the early
commission of the rape is not an essential element of the morning of August 15, 1994. Elvie was in the house of
crime.[1] While this is true in the cases at bar, the dates the accused Valdesancho while Erlinda was then in
when the rapes were committed are nonetheless essential Manila. The accused called Elvie into his room and
to the accused Vicente Valdesanchos defense of ordered her to powder his back. After a while, Elvie
asked the accused to excuse her because she had to cook examined. Thereafter, they filed a criminal complaint for
breakfast. The accused held her and refused to release rape against the accused.[8] She averred that she did not
her. He tied her hands at her back and laid her on the have any misunderstanding with Erlinda and the accused
bed. He removed Elvie's shorts and panty and then took Valdesancho.[9]
off his pants. Elvie pleaded with the accused not to
violate her. She tried to keep her legs together, but the Dra. Nimfa Pastrana, Medico-Legal Officer at the
accused forcibly spread her legs. He succeeded in having General Cailles Memorial Hospital, examined Elvie on
January 13, 1996. On January 19, 1996, she issued a
carnal knowledge of Elvie. The painful experience
caused her to bleed. Having satisfied his lust, the medical certificate stating her findings, viz:
accused stood up and put on his clothes. He untied
Elvie's hands and she dressed up. The accused warned "Old hymenal incomplete lacerations noted at 12, 5 and
her not to reveal the dastardly act to anybody, otherwise 4 o'clock position. . . Old hymenal complete lacerations
he would kill her and her family. All this time, Elvie's at 3 and 7 o'clock positions."[10]
brothers were sleeping in the other room.[5]
She opined that the lacerations could have been caused
The second incident of rape happened in the by a man's private part or fingers inserted in the vagina
evening of August 16, 1994. Elvie was in the house of months or years before she examined Elvie. Elvie told
the accused Valdesancho studying. He called Elvie to his her she had been raped. Dra. Pastrana noted in a logbook
room and ordered her to look under the bed for a that according to Elvie, the rape took place on August 4,
chick. She did so, and while she was on her way out of 1994.[11]
the room, the accused blocked her path. The accused laid
her on the bed, removed her shorts and panty, kissed her Erlinda Valdesancho, wife of the accused, testified
on the cheeks and lips, and again had carnal knowledge for the defense. She declared that on August 15 and 16,
of her against her will. She hurt. After succumbing to his 1994, she was in their house at Mahabang Parang, San
beastly instinct, the accused put on his brief and Antonio, Mabitac, Laguna. Her husband was not home
pants. Elvie also put on her clothes. Again, the accused on those days because he was in J. Rizal St., Sta. Maria,
threatened Elvie not to report the incident to anybody, Laguna helping his friends cook food for the town
otherwise he would kill her and her family. Elvie kept fiesta. The distance between that place and their house is
her harrowing experience to herself for fear that the about five kilometers.Erlinda was then with her brothers
accused would carry out his threat.[6] Erick and Eddie and her sister Elvie. On August 15,
1994, Erlinda awoke at about 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. She
In September 1995, however, when Elvie was woke up Elvie, Erick, and Eddie to get ready for
already residing with her brother and mother in school. The three children went to school at San
Barangay Minayutan, Famy, Laguna, she reported the Antonio, Mabitac, Laguna, and nothing unusual
rape incidents to her Tiya Soling. She was fearful that happened that date. Elvie was then thirteen nearing
the accused might rape her again. Although she no fourteen years old and in Grade 1. The whole day of
longer lived with the accused, the latter stayed in their August 15, 1994, Erlinda made candies, crocheted, and
(Elvie's) house in Barangay Minayutan for less than a cleaned the house.
month in September, 1995 and he gave her malicious
looks. Tiya Soling reported the rape incidents to Elvie's On August 16, 1994, Erlinda testified that she woke
mother who verified the story from Elvie herself. On up at about 5:00 a.m. In the subsequent part of her
January 15, 1996, Elvie executed a sworn statement at testimony, however, Erlinda surprisingly said that on
the Mabitac Police Station narrating the rape incidents.[7] August 16, 1994, she did not see Elvie.Allegedly, Elvie
no longer lived with her and the accused by the summer
Elvie's mother, Leonida Basco, testified that in vacation of 1994. It was in 1993 that Elvie, Erick, and
1994, she requested her three children, Elvie, Erick and Eddie were entrusted to her and her husband, accused
Eddie to live with her daughter, Erlinda, and the accused Valdesancho. They shouldered the school expenses of
Valdesancho in Mahabang Parang. Elvie was then the three who went to San Antonio Elementary
fourteen years old. Consistent with Elvie's testimony, School. The siblings stayed with them until summer
Leonida declared that it was Soledad Nero (Elvie's Tiya vacation in 1994. Thereafter, they were brought to
Soling) who first told her that the accused raped Barangay Minayutan, Famy, Laguna, then to Saksak,
Elvie. Elvie confirmed to her that she had been raped Sta. Maria, Laguna, and finally to Ilog Putol, Siniloan,
twice by the accused in August 1994. Leonida did not Laguna.[12]
immediately take action on the matter as the accused was
her son-in-law. But after she was convinced of Elvie's Erlinda further testified that her father died on July
story, she accompanied her to the police station in the 4, 1991. Her mother, Leonida, did not remarry but lived
Municipal Building of Mabitac. Upon advice by a in with a lesbian named Melita Flores. This was the
certain Mayor Carpio, Elvie was medically source of animosity between them. On January 4, 1995,
prior to the filing of the instant rape cases, her mother testified that the accused left his house in the afternoon
berated her. Her mother was mad because she advised of August 16, 1994, and not the following day. A year
her to separate from Melita. The latter had children of after or on August 15 and 16, 1995, the accused again
her own and their relationship was an helped prepare food for the town fiesta. In 1996, Agustin
embarrassment. Erlinda knew that Melita was a lesbian asked his neighbors, among whom were his godchildren
because the latter left her husband for Leonida.[13] in marriage, to help prepare the food.[19]
On additional direct examination, about a month Mercedita Ramos likewise took the witness stand
after her initial testimony where she stated that Elvie for the accused. She is a teacher at the Famy Central
lived with them on August 15 and 16, 1994, Erlinda Elementary School. Previously, she taught in Barangay
testified that Elvie could not have possibly been raped by Minayutan, Famy, Laguna beginning school year 1994-
her husband. She explained that Elvie was no longer 1995. Elvie Basco was her pupil in Grade 2 from June 6,
living with them at the time of the alleged rape 1994 to March, 1995. She identified the certification she
incidents.[14] By then, Elvie was already residing with issued on February 25, 1997 upon request of Erlinda
her brothers Elmer and Edgar in Barangay Minayutan, Valdesancho. It stated that Elvie attended classes in
Famy, Laguna. Elvie was then studying in Barangay Minayutan Elementary School on August 1 to 31,
Minayutan and was in Grade 2. The school was about 1994. She based her certification on Form 18-E which
twelve meters from Elmer's residence and 150 meters was in the custody of Mr. Edgardo Planillo, the District
from the house of Edgar. To buttress her claim, she Supervisor of the Department of Education, Culture and
presented to the court a certification stating that Elvie Sports in Famy, Laguna. Form 18-E does not contain the
Basco studied and finished Grade 1 from 1993 to 1994 at exact month of attendance, but it states that Erlinda was
the Paaralang Elementarya ng San Antonio, Mabitac, absent for only one (1) day during school year 1994-
Laguna. The certification was signed by Victoria 1995.[20]
Cuevas, a Grade 1 and 2 teacher and Ma. Rona Aguja,
the Gurong Namamahala.[15] She also presented a Edgardo Planillo also testified for the accused. At
certification dated February 12, 1997, stating that Elvie the time he testified on May 21, 1997, he had been the
Basco studied Grade 2 at Minayutan Elementary School District Supervisor for only ten months. He identified the
in Barangay Minayutan, Famy, Laguna during the school certification he issued to Erlinda Valdesancho based on
year 1994-1995. This was signed by a certain Edgardo Form 18-E-1 which was submitted prior to his
Planillo.[16] Erlinda also presented a certification dated assumption of office. It stated that during the school year
1994-95, Elvie Basco was in Grade 2 at the Minayutan
February 25, 1997, stating that Elvie attended her classes
in Minayutan Elementary School from August 1 to 31, Barrio School.[21]
1994. It was signed by Elvie's teacher, Mercedita The accused Valdesancho then took the witness
Ramos.[17] stand. He testified that in 1993, Elvie Basco's mother
Erlinda denied going to Manila occassionally entrusted Elvie to him and his wife to study. Elvie was
then in Grade 1 at the San Antonio Elementary School in
during the year Elvie lived with her and her
husband. She also testified that she and her husband did Mabitac, Laguna. Subsequently, she studied Grade 2 in
not have any misunderstanding with Elvie before the Minayutan, Famy, Laguna.
latter lodged a complaint for rape against the accused.[18] The accused denied the rape charges leveled against
Aquilino Agustin also testified for the accused. He him. He contends that Elvie, with the assistance of her
is a retired PNP member and farmer residing in Sta. mother Leonida, filed the instant cases against him
Maria, Laguna. He owned a riceland in Sitio Mahabang because of the serious quarrel between his wife, Erlinda,
Parang, Barangay San Antonio, Mabitac, Laguna and and Leonida spurred by Leonida's relationship with a
had known the accused Valdesancho for about five lesbian named Melita Flores. He knew that Melita was a
years. lesbian because Leonida and Melita lived for one month
in his house in 1995.Melita herself admitted to him that
On August 14, 1994, Agustin went to the house of she was a lesbian. Leonida told him one time, "Darating
the accused and asked tha latter to help him butcher a pig ang araw luluha ng dugo ang aking asawa at gagapang
for the town fiesta the next day. The accused went to Sta. kami parang ahas sa hirap."[22] He alleged another reason
Maria before lunch time on August 15, 1994. He helped why Leonida harbored ill feelings against
butcher a pig and stayed there the whole day. The him. Allegedly, Leonida burned his house. This
following day, or on August 16, 1994, the accused again prompted him to file a case against Leonida. In 1991, he
went to Agustin's house. He arrived at about 6:00 in the likewise filed a complaint against Leonida's husband,
morning and helped cook food. He sliced meat and other Carlito Basco, for the burning of the house of the
ingredients. He left Agustin's house early morning the accused's employer. The accused, however, declared he
following day. On cross-examination, however, Agustin had no misunderstanding or quarrel with Elvie.
 On August 15, 1994, the accused alleged he was in right to be informed of the nature and cause of
Sta. Maria, helping Ka Usting (Aquilino Agustin) accusation against him."
prepare for the town fiesta. Sta. Maria is about two
kilometers away from Mabitac where the accused In the cases at bar, the informations charged that the
lives. He arrived in Agustin's house at 5:00 in the crimes were committed on August 15 and 16, 1994. The
morning and stayed there up to 5:00 in the afternoon. He entire evidence of the prosecution, including the
spent the night at the house of his compadre, Nestor testimony of Elvie, showed that Elvie was allegedly
Flores. On August 16, 1994, he went home. His wife raped by the accused on said dates while living in the
was at home. He stayed in his house up to the latters house. Contrary to the prosecutions evidence, the
evening. He averred that on August 15 and 16, 1994, defense convincingly showed that in August 1994, Elvie
Elvie was no longer living with them. She was staying in was already in Grade 2 at the Barangay Minayutan
Minayutan and was in Grade 2 at Barangay Minayutan, Elementary School and living with her brothers in
about 30 kilometers from Mabitac. The following year's Minayutan. Nonetheless, the trial court convicted the
fiesta or on August 15 and 16, 1995, the accused was accused of two counts of rape committed on August 15
also in Sta. Maria helping prepare for the town fiesta. He and 16, 1993, instead of August 15 and 16, 1994 as
could not remember, however, where he was on August alleged in the information and in the prosecution's
14, 15, and 16, 1993 nor on August 15 and 16, 1992. evidence. It explained:
The trial court upheld the prosecution's story. It
convicted the accused, viz: "In the informations, the incidents happened allegedly on
August 15, and 16, 1994. Considering as adverted to that
private complainant is of tender age, only fourteen (14)
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
years old, and her educational attainment, only Grade I,
hereby rendered finding accused VICENTE
she could not possibly remember the dates when she was
VALDESANCHO y DELMO guilty beyond reasonable
raped, and these cases were filed two (2) years
doubt of the crime of "RAPE" committed against private
thereafter. But as adverted to, she is certain that she was
complainant Elvie Basco, in the two (2) informations for
sexually molested when she was residing in the house of
rape, hereby sentences him to two (2) Reclusion
accused located at Sitio Mahabang Parang, Brgy.
Perpetua; to pay the victim the sum of P100,000.00 for
Nanguma, Mabitac, Laguna, and studying at Brgy. San
moral damages in the two (2) cases; and to pay the cost.
Antonio Elementary School, Mabitac, Laguna, that is in
the year 1993."[24]
Accused Vicente Valdesancho y Delmo being a detained
prisoner, it is hereby ordered that he be credited with the
The accused cries foul over his conviction for two
full length of his preventive imprisonment if he agrees
counts of rape committed on August 15 and 16, 1993
voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary
when the informations filed against him alleged August
rules imposed upon convicted prisoner, otherwise, he
15 and 16, 1994 as the dates when the crimes were
shall be credited with 4/5 of the period he had undergone
committed. He contends that he was denied due process
preventive imprisonment, in accordance with Art. 29 of
to defend himself. His whole defense of alibi centered
the Revised Penal Code as amended."[23]
around August 15 and 16, 1994, the alleged dates of the
rape incidents.[25]
Hence, this appeal with the following assignment of
errors: We agree. Article III, Section 14 of the 1987
Constitution mandates that no person shall be held liable
"I. for a criminal offense without due process of law. It
further provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the
The trial court erred in giving full weight and credence accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of
to the version of the prosecution and in disregarding the accusation against him and shall enjoy the right to be
version of the defense. heard by himself and counsel. Similarly, the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, which took
II. effect on December 1, 2000, provides that in all criminal
prosecutions, it is the right of the accused to be informed
The lower court erred in convicting the accused- of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To
appellant on two (2) counts of rape alleged in the convict an accused for an offense not alleged in the
information to have been committed on the 15th and complaint or information violates such right.[26]
16th of August 1994 whereas the decision stated that the
two (2) counts of rape were committed on the 15th and The rationale behind informing the accused in
16th of August 1993, thus depriving the accused of the writing of the charges against him was explained by this
Court as early as 1904 in U.S. v. Karelsen,[27] viz:
"First. To furnish the accused with such a description of Time is not an essential element of rape. An information
the charge against him as will enable him to make his that states the approximate rather than the precise time it
defense; and second, to avail himself of his conviction or was committed is sufficient in form. Any perceived
acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for formal defect in the information must be raised before
the same cause; and third, to inform the court of the facts arraignment, either through a bill of particulars or a
alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient motion to quash; otherwise, objection to such defect
in law to support a conviction, if one should be had shall be considered waived.
(United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542). In order
that this requirement may be satisfied, facts must be The Case
stated, not conclusions of law. Every crime is made up
of certain acts and intent; these must be set forth in the Larry Cachapero y Basilio appeals the January 15, 2002
complaint with reasonable particularity of time, place, Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
names (plaintiff and defendant), and circumstances. In Camiling, Tarlac (Branch 68), in Criminal Case No. 98-
short, the complaint must contain a specific allegation of 68 Cam, finding him guilty of rape as follows:
every fact and circumstances necessary to constitute the
crime charged."[28] "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
accused LARRY CACHAPERO y [BASILIO] is
In the cases at bar, the informations in Criminal hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
Case No. S-1964 and Criminal Case No. S-1965 charged of the crime of RAPE, under Article 266-A of
the accused with rape committed against Elvie Basco on the Revised Penal Code, in relation to R.A. No.
August 15, 1994 and August 16, 1994, respectively. All 7610, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the
evidence of the prosecution tried to prove that the victim penalty of reclusion perpetua, with its accessory
was raped by the accused on these dates. The accused penalties, and [is hereby further] directed to pay
interposed the defense of alibi. He proved that on these the victim the sum of ₱50,000.00 as civil
dates he was in the town of Sta. Maria helping a friend indemnity, the sum of ₱50,000.00 as moral
butcher a pig for the town fiesta. He also proved that on damages and another sum of ₱25,000.00 as
said dates, the victim, Elvie, was no longer living with exemplary damages."2
them in Mabitac, Laguna. She already transferred to
Minayutan, Famy, Laguna where she was in Grade The Information3 dated December 1, 1998, charged
2. Despite the parties evidence, the trial court convicted appellant in these words:
the accused for allegedly raping Elvie on August 15 and
16, 1993. Without doubt, the accused was not given any "That sometime in March 1998, in the
chance to prove where he was on August 15 and 16, Municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac,
1993. What he did was to prove where he was on August Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
15 and 16, 1994 for the informations charged him with Honorable Court, the above-named accused did
rapes on those specific dates. He had no opportunity to then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
defend himself on the rapes allegedly committed on the feloniously by means of force and intimidation
earlier dates. This is plain denial of due process. succeed in having sexual intercourse with Anna
WHEREFORE, the impugned decision is Laurence Toledo, a 7-year old minor."4
REVERSED. The accused Vicente Valdesancho y
Delmo is ACQUITTED of the two charges of rape Upon his arraignment on October 2, 2000,5 appellant,
leveled against him in Criminal Cases No. S-1964 and S- assisted by his counsel de oficio,6 pleaded not guilty.
1965. After trial in due course, the court a quo rendered the
assailed Decision.
SO ORDERED.
The Facts
G.R. No. 153008 May 20, 2004
Version of the Prosecution
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs. In its Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
LARRY CACHAPERO y BASILIO, appellant. presents the prosecution’s version of the facts in the
following manner:
DECISION
"Sometime in March 1998, complainant Anna
PANGANIBAN, J.: Toledo, who was seven (7) years old, went to
 play with Lorena Cachapero and Dino "Accused Larry Cachapero testified that at the
Cachapero at a nearby house in Barrio Bancay time of the alleged incident, he was in their
1st, Camiling, Tarlac. house together with his father and mother. He
denied seeing the private complainant on that
"During that occasion, appellant Larry day. He alleged the case was filed against [him]
Cachapero, brother of Lorena, made her lie because of the long standing feud between his
down and removed her shorts and panty. He mother and the mother of the private
inserted his penis into her sexual organ and she complainant."8 (Citations omitted)
felt pain. Larry told her not to tell her parents
because he might be scolded. Ruling of the Trial Court

"On September 2, 1998, witness Conchita According to the trial court, testimony coming from an
Donato was conducting a remedial class in innocent child like the victim was credible and sufficient
Reading to her Grade I and II students. While to convict appellant of rape, more so because the
they were reading the word ‘tagtuyot’ or testimony was supported by medical findings.
‘saluyot,’ one of her students Jocelyn Meneses
told her that Anna was sexually abused by The lower court thus brushed aside the claim of
‘Manong Larry.’ appellant that he was falsely accused. It held that,
whatever feud may have existed between the mother of
"She then ordered the students to leave the room the rape victim and the accused, no woman in her right
and asked Jocelyn and Anna to stay behind. She mind would unnecessarily expose her minor daughter to
confronted Anna and asked her the truth. Anna the humiliation and stigma of a public trial. Citing
covered her face with her two hands, cried, and Section 3(b)(1) of RA No. 7610,9 it added that the sexual
said yes. The teachers had a conference, after abuse of the victim prejudiced her development.
which they decided to report the matter to the
parents of Anna. Hence, this appeal.10

"On September 3, 1998, Anna’s mother brought Issues

her to the Camiling District Hospital where she
was examined. Dr. Mercedes B. Gapultos, a In his Brief, appellant raises the following issues for our
Medico Legal Officer, examined Anna and came consideration:
out with the following report:
"I.
‘Findings:
The court a quo erred in giving weight and
Pelvic - Mons pubis undeveloped, credence to the testimony of private complainant
Exam: no pubic hairs which is full of inconsistencies.
- Old hymenal lacerations
noted at 3:00 o’clock and "II.
9:00 o’clock positions.
- No abrasions, contusions The court a quo erred in finding accused-
noted in the perineum.’ appellant guilty of the crime charged despite
failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
"Dr. Gapultos testified that she found old beyond reasonable doubt.
hymenal lacerations and that it may be caused by
many factors like penetration of the hymen by a "III.
hard object, or by an object forcibly
entered."7 (Citations omitted) The court a quo erred in not considering the
Information as insufficient to support a judgment
Version of the Defense of conviction for failure of the prosecution to
state the precise date of commission of the
Interposing the defenses of denial and alibi, appellant alleged rape[,] it being an essential element of
tersely relates his version of the facts in these words: the crime charged."11
Simply put, appellant questions the sufficiency of (1) the By cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and
Information and (2) the prosecution’s evidence. presenting evidence for the defense, appellant’s counsel
actively took part in the trial. Furthermore, the defense
The Court’s Ruling never objected to the presentation of the prosecution
evidence20proving that the offense had been committed
The appeal has no merit; appellant’s conviction for in March 1998. Appellant has not shown that he was
statutory rape is affirmed, but the award of exemplary deprived of a proper defense, for he was in fact able to
damages is deleted. foist an alibi. It cannot be said, therefore, that his
constitutionally protected right to be informed of the
First Issue: nature and cause of the accusation against him has been
Sufficiency of Information violated.

Contending that time is a material ingredient of rape, Second Issue:

appellant argues that the Information was fatally Sufficiency of the Prosecution’s Evidence
defective for failing to state the precise hour when the
crime was committed. Such infirmity, he added, Appellant contends that private complainant’s testimony,
jeopardized his right to be properly informed of the which was tainted with material inconsistencies, should
charge against him. not have been received by the trial court with precipitate
credulity. Calling the victim a coached witness, he points
We disagree. The time of occurrence is not an essential out that her answers were inconsistent on (1) whether or
element of rape.12 This being so, its precise date and not she bled after the alleged rape and (2) what time she
hour need not be alleged in the complaint or informed her mother about the incident.
information.13 Section 11 of Rule 110 of the Rules of
Court provides: Appellant’s contentions are unconvincing. It is well-
established that the testimony of a rape victim is
"SEC. 11. Date of commission of the offense. – It generally given full weight and credit,21 more so if she is
is not necessary to state in the complaint or a minor. The revelation of an innocent child whose
information the precise date the offense was chastity has been abused deserves full credit, as her
committed except when it is a material willingness to undergo the trouble and the humiliation of
ingredient of the offense. The offense may be a public trial is an eloquent testament to the truth of her
alleged to have been committed on a date as near complaint.22 In so testifying, she could only have been
as possible to the actual date of its impelled to tell the truth, especially in the absence of
commission."(Italics supplied) proof of ill motive.

The Information in this case alleged that the crime was In this case, the victim was a young girl of seven years
committed "sometime in March 1998" which, according when she came forward to declare that appellant had
to private complainant, was more or less at the closing of raped her. At age nine, she narrated to the court the
the school year.14 Being reasonably definite and certain, violation of her person in this manner:
this approximation sufficiently meets the requirement of
the law. After all, Section 6 of Rule 11015 of the Rules of "PROS. GUARDIANO [to Anna]:
Court merely requires that the information must state,
among others, the approximate time of the commission Q Do you remember an incident that happened
of the offense. [i]n March, 1998 in relation [to] the accused?

Moreover, objections as to the form of the complaint or A Yes, Sir.

information cannot be made for the first time on
appeal.16 If the present appellant found the Information Q [T]hat March, 1998, [is] that x x x, more or
insufficient, he should have moved before arraignment less, [about the] closing of the school year?
either for a bill of particulars,17 for him to be properly
informed of the exact date of the alleged rape; or for the A Yes, Sir.
quashal of the Information, on the ground that it did not
conform with the prescribed form.18 Having failed to Q Can you tell us on that date, what did Larry
pursue either remedy, he is deemed to have waived Cachapero do to you?
objection to any formal defect in the Information.19
A Larry Cachapero made [me lie] down and [he] A Yes, Sir.
remove[d] my panty and shorts, Sir.
Q And how many times did he put pressure in
Q Can you tell us if Larry Cachapero was the the opening of your organ?
one who removed your panty and shorts?
A Only once, Sir.
A Yes, Sir.
Q And do you remember if his penis penetrated
Q After removing your panty and shorts, what your sex organ?
did Larry Cachapero do after that?
A Yes, Sir.
A He had sexual intercourse with me, Sir.
Q Can you estimate which part of his penis
Q Can you tell us what is [the] sexual penetrated your organ, how long?
intercourse [that] Larry Cachapero did to you?
A (Witness demonstrated by spreading her index
A He just removed my shorts and panty and he finger measuring about two [2] inches as
sexually abused me, Sir. stipulated).

Q How did he sexually abuse you? Q After that, did your organ bleed?

A He made me [lie] down, Sir. A Yes, Sir."23

Q After he made you [lie] down, what did he do To be sure, the victim’s testimony was not flawless or
after that? perfect in all aspects. We must remember, however, that
it was the narration of a minor who barely understood
A He sexually abused me, Sir. sex and sexuality.24 Hence, in assessing her testimony, it
would not be fair to apply the standards used for
Q And did he put out his penis? adults.25 Indeed, she fully understood the defilement of
her person, even if she was at a loss for the right words
A Yes, Sir. with which to describe the horrid details. It was for this
reason that the prosecutor had to ask leading questions,
Q Did he place his penis touching your sex which are allowed under Section 10 of Rule 132 of the
organ? Rules of Court.26

A Yes, Sir. Furthermore, the account given by the victim, stating the
essential fact that appellant had carnal knowledge of her,
refers to details that are not in any way affected or
Q And did you feel any pressure when his penis
obscured by the supposed contradictions -- whether or
touched your sex organ?
not she bled after the rape or how soon she informed her
mother of the incident.27 What further buttressed the
A Yes, Sir. story of private complainant were Dr. Gapultos’ medical
findings28 that there were old lacerations in her hymen.
Q And that feels very painful? Although not indispensable to a rape conviction,29 such
findings were credible physical evidence of forcible
A Yes, Sir. defloration, among others.30

Q And that pain you felt is at the [opening] of Similarly corroborative of the girl’s tale of woe was
your sex organ? Conchita Donato’s unrebutted testimony. It disclosed
that appellant’s sister, Lorena, had admitted to having
A Yes, Sir. seen the incident in much the same detail as the victim
had declared. The pertinent portion of Lorena’s
Q And it is very painful everytime there was testimony during cross-examination is reproduced
pressure in the opening of your sex organ? below:
"ATTY. JOAQUIN: Finally, it is a general rule that appellate courts will not
interfere with the judgment of trial courts on the
Q When you heard of this conversation, did you credibility of witnesses, unless there appears on record
ask what she mean[t] by the word ‘yot.’? some facts or circumstances of weight and influence that
have been overlooked, misapprehended or
A Yes, Sir. I asked her if she understands the misinterpreted.32 This deference to the trial court’s
word ‘yot.’ [T]he child Jocelyn Meneses said appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of
that ‘niyotyot’ ni Mang Larry ni Anna Lorraine’ witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the
and I asked Anna Lorraine if it is true that she testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that
was sexually abused by Larry and she cried and alone is sufficient to convict the accused.33 Thus, when a
answered yes, Sir. guileless girl of seven credibly declares that she has been
raped, she has said all that is necessary to prove the
Q But you did not ask x x x further questions? ravishment of her honor.34

A No more, Sir, because the child cried. The gravamen of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a
woman below twelve years of age.35 In this case, the
Q So, she did not exactly tell what happened to prosecution duly established that appellant had sexual
her and what Larry did to her because she was intercourse with private complainant; and that the latter,
already crying? as shown by her birth certificate,36 was under twelve
years old at the time.
A No, Sir[,] we again interviewed the child
while we were at the Guidance Center with my On the other hand, of little probative value is the alibi of
co-teachers and she said yes and I even asked appellant that he was in the house of his parents at the
how the incident happened and Lorena told me time of the rape. In rape cases, while denial and alibi are
that both were inside the room and they were legitimate defenses, bare assertions thereof cannot
naked and Larry was on top of Anna Lorraine, overcome the categorical testimony of the victim.37 In
Sir. particular, the defense of alibi is weak if wanting in
material corroboration,38 as in this case.
Q Are we made to understand Madam Witness
that you also interviewed the sister[,] Lorena? Also unpersuasive is the contention of appellant that the
charge against him was precipitated by a long-standing
feud between his family and that of private complainant.
A Yes, Sir.
He himself belied this allegation during his cross-
examination, from which we quote:
Q Who between the two (2) were naked as
narrated to you by Lorena?
"PROS. GUARDIANO [to Cachapero]:
A ‘Labus da’ they were naked, she told us, Sir.
Q Mr. Witness, how far is your house [from] the
house of the private complainant?
Q And that was only the exact narration given
by Lorena?
A From my seat to the Municipal building, Sir
(estimated at 150 meters).
A Yes, Sir[,] and that Larry was on top of Anna
Lorraine.
Q And you are aware that Anna [Laurence]
Toledo and your younger sister and brother are
Q Did Lorena see the private organ[s] of those friends, is that correct?
naked persons?
A No, Sir.
A I did not ask about that, Sir.
Q And there was a quarrel between your mother
Q And you did not also ask whether the private and the mother of the complainant, as you said
organ of Larry Cachapero was inserted into the earlier?
private organ of Anna Lorraine?
A Yes, Sir.
A I did not, Sir."31 (Italics supplied)
 Q And you said [that] they quarreled [with] carpenter and a Barangay Tanod, was a neighbor of
each other even before this crime, is that Ponciano.
correct?
On May 13, 1995, a Saturday, at about 7:00 p.m.,
Rufo was seated near his house and resting before
A Not yet, Sir.
retiring for the evening. Momentarily, Rufo saw
Roberto, with Beverly perched on his right shoulder,
Q So they quarrel[ed] after this incident, is that walking towards the direction of the poblacion. Robertos
correct? left hand was holding the right hand of Mary Donoso, a
nine-year old playmate of Beverly. The trio were in
A Yes, Sir. animated conversation on their way towards the
poblacion.
Q Because you are accused of rape by the
private complainant who is the daughter of that After the lapse of an hour or so, Edita noticed that
mother whom your mother quarreled with, is Beverly had not yet returned to their house. She went out
that correct? of the house to look for her daughter. Rufo told Edita
that earlier he saw Beverly perched on the shoulder of
A Yes, Sir."39 (Italics supplied) Roberto on their way towards the direction of the
poblacion. Thereafter, Roberto sauntered by. However,
Beverly was no longer with him. Puzzled, Edita inquired
Award of Exemplary Damages Improper
from Roberto where Beverly was. Instead of responding,
Roberto fled. Edita was flustered. Rufo, who witnessed
The trial court’s award of ₱25,000 for exemplary the incident, advised Edita to report the incident to the
damages should be deleted. Such damages may be given police authorities. Edita rushed back home and woke up
only when one or more aggravating circumstances are Ponciano. She told her husband that Beverly had been
alleged in the information and proved during the taken by Roberto and that Beverly had not yet returned
trial.40 In the present case, there are no such home. The couple rushed from their house and reported
circumstances. the incident to the police authorities. With the help of
their neighbors and police officers Manuel Toribio and
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed Dodong Espino, the couple looked for Beverly but failed
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Camiling, to locate her. They resumed their search the next day,
Tarlac, AFFIRMED. The award of exemplary damages May 14, 1995, and, at 3:00 p.m., they found Beverly
is DELETED. Costs against appellant. sprawled in a grassy portion below a copra kiln about
120 meters away from the house of the Onato couple and
SO ORDERED. about 15 meters from the nearest house. Beverly was
already dead. Pictures of Beverly were taken where her
body was found.[2] Ponciano and the policemen then
looked for Dr. Renato Ortiz, the Municipal Health
[G.R. No. 131804. February 26, 2003] Officer, to conduct an autopsy on the cadaver of Beverly
but the doctor was in Calbayog City. Lorenzo Bernabe,
the Municipal Sanitary Inspector who had been trained
by the District Hospital to perform autopsies in the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, absence of the Municipal District Officer, performed the
vs. ROBERTO OSTIA @ ROBERT, accused- autopsy on the cadaver of Beverly. Bernabe drew a
appellant. sketch depicting the human body indicating the number
and locations of the injuries sustained by
DECISION Beverly.[3] Bernabe then prepared the autopsy report.
CALLEJO, SR., J.: Dr. Renato Ortiz validated the report of Bernabe
and signed a Medico-Legal Necropsy Report on May 24,
The Spouses Ponciano Onato and Edita Onato 1995 showing the injuries sustained by Beverly and the
resided with their four-year old daughter,[1] Beverly cause of her death:
Onato, in Sitio Mactang, Barangay Ilo, Sto. Nio,
Samar. Ponciano was a fisherman and a farmer but was FINDINGS
employed by Tito Soria in his buy-and-sell of fish
business. Roberto Ostia, a co-worker of Ponciano, 1. Wound, lacerated, 3.5 cm. long, running
resided in the poblacion of Sto. Nio. Rufo Legaspi, a downward from posterior vaginal wall to
the anus.
 2. Wound, lacerated, 2 cm. long, running During the arraignment of Roberto on January 30,
upward from the vagina to mons pubis. 1996, he, through his counsel de oficio, manifested to the
court that he was willing to plead guilty to the lesser
3. Contusion, purplish in color, 5.0 cm. in offense of murder.However, the public prosecutor
diameter lateral side of lumbar area, left, prayed for a continuance so that he could consult the
below the costal margin. provincial prosecutor and the father of the victim,
4. Presence of blood clots, left ear. Ponciano, on the offer of Roberto.
The arraignment of Roberto was reset to February
USE OF DEATH: 29, 1996, on which date, he, through his counsel de
oficio, moved that a reinvestigation be conducted by the
Cardio-Respiratory Arrest public prosecutor. The motion was granted by the trial
court.[10] However, despite notice from the office of the
2ndary to severe hemorrhage[4] public prosecutor, Roberto failed to adduce
controverting evidence. On motion of the prosecution,
According to Dr. Ortiz, the lacerated wounds the arraignment of Roberto was set on August 9,
sustained by Beverly from the posterior wall of her 1996. When arraigned on said date, Roberto, with the
vagina to her anus and from her vagina to the mons assistance of his counsel de oficio, entered a plea of Not
pubis were caused by a blunt instrument shoved Guilty to the charge of rape with homicide.[11]
violently into her vagina.[5] Such an instrument could be
a penis. The doctor also signed the Certificate of Death Trial ensued. The prosecution presented Dr. Renato
of Beverly.[6] Ortiz as its first witness. Before the trial resumed on
February 24, 1997, the counsel de oficio of Roberto
Earlier on May 18, 1995, a criminal complaint for manifested that the latter was intending to plead guilty to
rape with homicide was filed by Ponciano against murder and prayed for the deferment of the trial. The
Roberto with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court[7] and public prosecutor manifested to the court that he had no
after the requisite preliminary investigation, an objection to Robertos pleading guilty to murder as he did
Information charging Roberto with Rape with Homicide not have sufficient evidence to prove that the latter raped
was filed on December 7, 1995 with Branch 32 of the Beverly but that he had sufficient evidence to prove that
Regional Trial Court of Calbayog City which reads: he killed her.
During the trial set on May 6, 1997, Roberto,
That on or about the 13th day of May, 1995, at about
through counsel, moved that he be allowed to withdraw
7:00 oclock in the evening, at Sitio Mactang, Barangay
his plea of not guilty to rape with homicide and to enter
Ilo, Municipality of Sto. Nio, Province of Samar,
a plea of guilty to murder.Ponciano, the father of
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Beverly, and the public prosecutor agreed to Robertos
Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, by
pleading guilty to murder. On May 19, 1997, Roberto,
means of force and intimidation, did then and there
per Certificate of Re-arraignment signed by the Branch
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
Clerk of Court,[12] was re-arraigned for the lesser offense
knowledge against a minor four (4) years old girl,
of murder and pleaded guilty thereto.[13] The court then
BEVERLY ONATO, without the latters consent and
informed Roberto that the penalty for murder
against her will, and thereafter, with deliberate intent to
was reclusion perpetua to death, two indivisible
kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
penalties, and that the court may impose the death
feloniously inflict upon the said Beverly Onato fatal
penalty on him depending on the circumstances found by
wounds on the different parts of her body, which caused
the trial court.
her untimely death.
When trial resumed on May 22, 1997, for the
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8] prosecution to continue presenting its evidence, Roberto
took the witness stand to answer more questions from
On the date set for his arraignment, Roberto the court. He testified that he killed Beverly by smashing
appeared without counsel. The court issued an order a piece of rock bigger than the size of his fist, about
appointing Atty. Artemio Apostol as counsel de oficio of seven inches in diameter, on her head and chest and on
Roberto.[9] Said counsel prayed for the resetting of the the other parts of her body because, in the meantime, he
arraignment to January 30, 1996 to enable him to secure lost control of himself. He further stated that he was not
a copy of the necropsy report and study the case forced or coerced in so testifying before the court. He
intelligently. The court granted the motion. admitted that he caused the death of the victim.
During the trial on May 26, 1997, the prosecution
formally offered its documentary evidence. The court
admitted all the prosecutions documentary evidence THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN RULING THAT
without any objection from Roberto. The latter did not EVIDENT PREMEDITATION QUALIFIED THE
anymore adduce any testimonial and documentary KILLING TO MURDER.
evidence in his behalf and on said date, the court issued
an order declaring that the case was submitted for its III
decision.[14]
On August 25, 1997, the trial court rendered ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ACCUSED-
judgment[15] finding Roberto guilty beyond reasonable APPELLANT COMMITTED THE CRIME MURDER
doubt of murder with the qualifying circumstance of (SIC) THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN IMPOSING THE
evident premeditation and with the generic aggravating SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH UPON HIM.[17]
circumstances of (a) abuse of confidence considering
that Roberto and Ponciano were co-workers, (b) On the first assignment of error, accused-appellant
nighttime considering that Beverly was killed in the avers that the trial court failed to comply with its
evening and (c) despoblado considering that the nearest mandatory duties when he pleaded guilty to murder, a
house to the situs criminis was fourteen meters. The capital offense, the imposable penalty for which
decretal portion of the decision reads: is reclusion perpetua to death. More specifically, the
trial court allegedly failed to comply with Section 3,
WHEREFORE, the Court, accepting the plea of guilt of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court when it failed to conduct
the accused ROBERTO OSTIA alias ROBERT to the a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
crime of Murder, and likewise considering that the comprehension of accused-appellant of the consequences
evidence has sufficiently proved that the crime has been of his plea of guilty to murder and to inquire from him if
committed, finds and declares the said accused guilty of he wished to adduce evidence on his behalf and allow
Murder beyond reasonable doubt[s], as principal, and him to do so if he wished. Accused-appellant contends
considering three aggravating circumstances which are that his plea of guilty to murder was improvidently made
not offset by any mitigating circumstances, hereby and prays that his arraignment for murder and all
sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of DEATH, proceedings as well as the decision of the trial court
to be carried out in accordance with law, and to pay the convicting him of said crime and imposing on him the
costs. supreme penalty of death be nullified. He further prays
for the remand of the case to the trial court for
appropriate proceedings. For its part, the Office of the
Likewise, the Court hereby condemns the accused to
Solicitor General asserts that as gleaned from the
indemnify the heirs of the victim Beverly Onato in the
decision of the trial court, it complied with fealty with
amount of P50,000.00.
the mandatory requirements of Section 3, Rule 116 of
the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended. The
Let the entire records of the case, together with the OSG quotes the following portion of the trial courts
stenographic transcripts and exhibits be forwarded to the decision:
honorable Supreme Court for automatic review of this
decision.
x x x On May 19, 1997, the accused was re-arraigned
upon the information. He was assisted by his counsel
SO ORDERED.[16] and the information was read and translated to him in the
waray dialect which he claims he understands and
The case was brought to the Court on automatic speaks. After thus reading and translating the
appeal the death penalty having been imposed on information to him in the waray dialect, the accused
Roberto by the trial court. entered a plea of guilt to murder.
Accused-appellant Roberto assails the decision of
the trial court with the following assignments of error: The Public Prosecutor, Hon. Feliciano Aguilar, gave his
consent to this plea of guilt of the accused to murder,
I manifesting again to the Court that he has no direct
evidence to establish rape. The complainant, Ponciano
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN Onato who is the father of the victim Beverly Onato,
CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE after conferring with the Public Prosecutor, also gave his
CRIME OF MURDER DESPITE HIS IMPROVIDENT consent to this plea of the accused to the lesser offense
PLEA OF GUILTY. of murder. The Court conducted searching and
clarificatory questions to the accused to determine
II whether the latter understood his plea of guilt as well as
realized the consequences thereof. He was informed by
the Court that as a result of his plea of guilt, he admitted offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into
all the facts alleged in the information which were the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
already read and translated to him in the waray dialect consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to
during the re-arraignment; that the Court will no longer prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The
conduct any trial but would just impose upon him the accused may also present evidence in his behalf.
penalty that is proper under the law; that the penalty
provided for murder, a heinous crime under Article 248 The rule applies only where the accused pleads
of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act guilty to a capital offense charged in the Information or
No. 7659 is Reclusion Perpetua to death, and that either complaint or amended Information or complaint. Section
of these two indivisible penalties may be imposed upon 4 of Rule 114 of the said rules defines a capital offense
him depending upon the circumstances which may as that which under the law existing at the time of its
ultimately be appreciated by the Court (see TSN dated commission may be punished with death. Irrefragably,
May 19, 1997, pages 1-3; 4-5). murder punishable by reclusion perpetua to death is a
capital offense because, with the presence of aggravating
He was asked whether he was earnest and sincere in his circumstances absent any mitigating circumstance, the
plea of guilt to murder, and he answered the Court in the death penalty may be imposed conformably with Article
affirmative. Furthermore, the Court asked him whether 63 of the Revised Penal Code. Under the Information,
he was threatened, forced, coerced by anybody or accused-appellant was charged with murder qualified by
somebody suggested to him to plea guilty to murder but treachery. Although the Information does not
he answered that he was not, and that his plea was all his specifically allege treachery as a qualifying circumstance
own free will and volition. (see TSN dated May 22, in the commission of the crime, however, the
1997, pages 1-4). Information alleges that the victim Beverly was four
years old at the time of the killing. Such allegation is
The accused was asked by the Court how he killed the sufficient compliance with Section 6, Rule 110 of the
victim and he stated that he used a piece of rock about Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended. Case
the size of his fist which was measured to have an law has it that killing a child by an adult constitutes
approximate diameter of four inches and elongated in treachery even if the mode of attack by the assailant is
shape about seven inches long which he smashed on the not proved by the prosecution because a child of tender
victim, whereby he hit the victim on the chest, on the years could not be expected to put up a defense and
head, as well as other parts of her body. hence, at the mercy of his or her assailant.[19]
When an accused enters a plea of guilty to a capital
Although after conducting searching and clarificatory offense, the trial court is mandated to do the following:
questions as anteriorly already mentioned, the Court was
without doubts that the accused was not improvident in
x x x (1) conduct a searching inquiry into the
his plea of guilt to murder and that he realized the
voluntariness of the plea and the accuseds full
consequences thereof, consistent with the rules and
comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2) require
considering the fact that the crime of murder to which
the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of
the accused pleaded guilty is a capital offense, the Court
the accused and the precise degree of his culpability;
required the prosecution to present its evidence. Aside
and (3) ask the accused if he desires to present evidence
from the testimony of Dr. Renato M. Ortiz, M.D., the
in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. x x
prosecution presented Ponciano Onato, the father of the
x[20]
victim, and Rufo Legape who is a Barangay Kagawd
(sic) of Brgy. Ilo, Sto. Nino, Samar.
The procedure in said rule is mandatory and a judge
who fails to observe with fealty the said rule commits
(pp. 2-5, Decision)
grave abuse of discretion.[21] This Court had cautioned
trial judges to proceed with meticulous care whenever
Appellants claimed absence of an inquiry by the trial the imposable penalty for the crime charged is death:
court as to his interest to present evidence is of no
moment.[18]
x x x The execution of a death sentence is irrevocable
and experience has shown that innocent persons have, at
This Court agrees with accused-appellant. Section times, pleaded guilty. In capital offenses, the essence of
3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court cited by accused- judicial review is anchored on the principle that while
appellant reads: society allows violent retribution for heinous crimes
committed against it, it always must make certain that
SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense, reception of the blood of the innocent is not spilled, or that the guilty
evidence. When the accused pleads guilty to a capital
are not made to suffer more than their just measure of in the commission thereof; and inform him of the
punishment and retribution. The prudent course to imposable penalty and his civil liabilities for the crime
follow is to take testimony not only to satisfy the trial for which he would plead guilty to.
judge but also to aid the Supreme Court in determining
whether the accused understood the significance and In this case, the Information was merely read and
consequences of his plea. This is to preclude any room translated to accused-appellant in the waray dialect
for reasonable doubt in the mind of the trial court, or this which he understood. The trial court informed accused-
appellant that by pleading guilty, he admitted all the
Court on review, as to the possibility that there might
have been some misunderstanding by the accused of the facts alleged in the Information and that the court would
nature of the charge to which he pleaded guilty, and to no longer conduct any trial but that it would impose on
ascertain the circumstances attendant to the commission him the proper penalty for the crime of murder under
of the crime which justify or require the exercise of a Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, a heinous crime
greater or lesser degree of severity in the imposition of under Republic Act 7659 punishable by two indivisible
the prescribed penalties.[22] penalties, namely, reclusion perpetua to death and that
either of said penalties may be imposed on him
depending upon the circumstances which may ultimately
This Court likewise outlined the duties of the trial
be appreciated by the court. When asked by the trial
court in conducting searching questions, thus:
court if he pleaded guilty on his own volition, and if
nobody forced, threatened or coerced him into admitting
x x x What is essential is that the judge should, first of having killed Beverly, accused-appellant answered that
all, consider the age, personality, educational he admitted having killed Beverly on his own free will.
background, socio-economic status and other personal
circumstances of the accused confessing his guilt.The This Court is convinced that the trial court failed to
trial judge should determine whether the accused had comply with its duties under Section 3, Rule 116 of the
been coerced or placed under a state of duress either by Rules of Court. It bears stressing that accused-appellant
actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent did not even know how to read and write. In fact, he
or avenging quarters, or by mistaken impressions given, merely affixed his thumbmark on the Waiver of Right to
wittingly or unwittingly, by authorities or parties; a Preliminary Investigation.[24] The trial court failed to
whether the accused had the assistance of competent explain to accused-appellant (a) the nature of murder and
counsel during the custodial and preliminary the elements thereof; (b) that killing Beverly, a four-year
investigations; and whether he understood the charges old girl, constituted treachery, a qualifying circumstance;
against him. The court should inquire if the accused accused-appellant being unlettered could not be
knows the crime with which he is charged and explain to presumed to understand the requisites of treachery, a
him the elements of the crime and the corresponding highly technical legal term;[25] (c) the nature and effect of
penalty therefor. The court may require the accused to a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the killing of
fully narrate the incident that spawned the charges Beverly and its effect on the penalty that may be
against him, or make him reenact the manner in which imposed on him; (d) what heinous crimes are and the
he perpetrated the crime, or cause him to furnish and meaning and import of indivisible penalties; (e) the
explain missing details of significance about his personal specific circumstances which may be considered by the
circumstances, about the commission of the crime and court in the imposition of reclusion perpetua or death
events during the custodial and preliminary penalty; (f) whether his plea of guilty after the
investigation. In doing so, all questions posed by the prosecution had commenced presenting its evidence may
judge to the accused should be in a language known and still be considered by the trial court as a mitigating
understood by the latter. Still, the inquiry need not stop circumstance;[26] (g) the nature of civil liabilities that he
with the accused. The court may also propound may be ordered to pay and the amounts thereof. The trial
questions to accuseds counsel to determine whether or court even failed to probe into the reasons for accused-
not said counsel had conferred with, and completely appellants change of plea from not guilty of rape with
explained to accused the meaning of a plea and its homicide to guilty of murder and for his failure to
consequences. x x x[23] adduce evidence during the reinvestigation of the case
despite having been granted the right to do so by the trial
The trial court is also required to probe thoroughly court. The trial court did not even bother inquiring from
into the reasons as well as the facts and circumstances accused-appellant whether he sought the advice of his
for the change of plea of the accused and his counsel before pleading guilty to murder and whether he
comprehension of his plea; explain to him the elements wanted to adduce evidence in his behalf to prove any
of the crime for which he is charged as well as the nature mitigating circumstances in the commission of the crime
and effect of qualifying circumstances, generic to warrant the imposition of the lesser penalty
aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances of reclusion perpetua.[27]
 Notwithstanding the improvident plea of guilty of premeditation was not alleged in the Information. An
accused-appellant, this Court finds it unnecessary to accused cannot be convicted of murder where a qualified
remand the case to the trial court. This is so because circumstance is not alleged in the Information, otherwise
independent of accused-appellants plea of guilty and his the accused would be deprived of his right to be
testimony admitting liability for Beverlys death, the informed of the nature of the offense with which he is
evidence adduced by the prosecution, albeit charged. In People v. Gallarde,[29] we held that:
circumstantial, established the guilt of accused-appellant
for murder beyond reasonable doubt. As this Court held x x x In rape with homicide, in order to be convicted of
in People v. Jabien: murder in case the evidence fails to support the charge of
rape, the qualifying circumstance must be sufficiently
To be sure, accused-appellant did not only give an alleged and proved. Otherwise, it would be a denial of
informed plea of guilt. His guilt was proved by the the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of
evidence presented by the prosecution. In People vs. the offense with which he is charged. It is fundamental
Derilo we held: that every element of the offense must be alleged in the
complaint or information.The main purpose of requiring
While it may be argued that appellant entered an the various elements of a crime to be set out in an
improvident plea of guilty when re-arraigned, we find no information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare
need, however, to remand the case to the lower court for his defense. He is presumed to have no independent
further reception of evidence. As a rule, this Court has knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.
set aside convictions based on pleas of guilty in capital
offenses because of improvidence thereof and when such In the absence then in the information of an allegation of
plea is the sole basis of the condemnatory any qualifying circumstance, GALLARDE cannot be
judgment. However, where the trial court receives convicted of murder. An accused cannot be convicted of
evidence to determine precisely whether or not the an offense higher than that with which he is charged in
accused has erred in admitting his guilt, the manner on the complaint or information under which he is tried. It
which the plea of guilty is made (improvidently or not) matters not how conclusive and convincing the evidence
loses legal significance, for the simple reason that the of guilt may be, but an accused cannot be convicted of
conviction is based on evidence proving the commission any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or
by the accused of the offense charged. information for which he is tried, or is necessarily
included in that which is charged. He has a right to be
Thus, even without considering the plea of guilty of informed of the nature of the offense with which he is
appellant, he may still be convicted if there is adequate charged before he is put on trial. To convict an accused
evidence on record on which to predicate his of a higher offense than that charged in the complaint or
conviction. As already observed, the prosecution had information under which he is tried would be an
already rested when appellant decided to change his unauthorized denial of that right.
plea. The prosecution then had all the opportunity to
verify the material allegations in the information . . . Moreover, evident premeditation was not proved by
(Italics supplied). the prosecution. There is no evidence to prove when
accused-appellant decided to kill Beverly and that he
In People vs. Tahop we also ruled that even if [the] clung to his determination to kill her and a sufficient
accused[s] x x x plea was improvidently made, if the lapse of time between his determination and the actual
evidence presented thereafter by the prosecution is killing of Beverly.[30]
sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the
On the third assignment of error, the trial court
courts verdict of guilt based solely on the hard evidence
likewise erred in appreciating nighttime, despoblado and
presented can be sustained. At this point then, the
abuse of confidence as generic aggravating
improvidence of the plea of guilt is irrelevant.[28]
circumstances in the commission of the crime. The
prosecution failed to prove that accused-appellant
On the second assignment of error, the trial court purposely sought or took advantage of nighttime in
convicted accused-appellant of murder on its finding that killing Beverly.[31] There is no evidence that accused-
the killing of Beverly was qualified by evident appellant sought or took advantage of the solitude of
premeditation. While we agree with the ruling of the trial the situs criminis in committing the crime.[32] Abuse of
court that accused-appellant is guilty of murder, confidence could not be appreciated as generic
however, the appropriate qualifying circumstance in the aggravating circumstance because the prosecution failed
commission of the crime is treachery, not evident to prove that (a) accused-appellant enjoyed the trust and
premeditation. Treachery was alleged in the Information confidence of Beverly or her parents; (b) and that even if
and duly proved. On the other hand, evident accused-appellant enjoyed said confidence, he took
advantage of said trust or confidence to kill court can indefinitely suspend the arraignment of the
Beverly.[33] The barefaced fact that the accused-appellant accused until the petition for review with the Secretary
and Ponciano were co-workers does not constitute of Justice (SOJ) has been resolved.
evidence that the latter reposed trust and confidence in
accused-appellant. In the absence of any generic The facts of this case are not disputed.
aggravating or mitigating circumstances in the On May 28, 1999, the City Prosecutor of Paraaque
commission of the crime, the accused-appellant is meted filed an Information[1] for estafa against Ma. Fe Barreiro
the penalty of reclusion perpetua conformably with (private respondent) based on the complaint[2] filed by
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. (petitioner). The case
The trial court ordered accused-appellant to pay to was docketed as Criminal Case No. 99-536 entitled
the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 by way People of the Philippines vs. Ma. Fe F. Barreiro before
of civil indemnity. However, the trial court failed to the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City, Branch 257,
order accused-appellant to pay the amount of P50,000.00 presided by public respondent Judge Rolando G. How.
by way of moral damages.[34] The decision of the trial Before the scheduled arraignment of private
court shall be modified accordingly. respondent on August 5, 1999 could take place,
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the respondent court issued an Order[3]dated June 29, 1999,
resetting the arraignment of private respondent on
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calbayog City,
Branch 32 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH September 2, 1999 on the ground that private respondent
MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant is found guilty of had filed an appeal with the Department of Justice
(DOJ).[4] Private respondent manifested in the same
murder defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
as amended by Republic Act 7659 and there being no Order that she would submit a certification from the DOJ
modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime granting due course to her appeal on or before the second
is hereby meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is scheduled arraignment.[5] On September 24, 1999,
also ordered to pay the heirs of the victim Beverly Onato respondent court issued an Order[6] denying petitioners
motion for reconsideration of the order that previously
the amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity and
the amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages. reset the arraignment of private respondent. Said order
further rescheduled the arraignment of private
Costs de oficio. respondent to November 18, 1999.
SO ORDERED. On November 10, 1999, private respondent filed
another Motion to Defer Arraignment.[7] On November
15, 1999, before the scheduled date of the arraignment of
private respondent and before the date set for the hearing
RIGHT TO HAVE A SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND of private respondents Motion to Defer Arraignment,
PUBLIC TRIAL respondent court issued an Order[8] further deferring the
arraignment of private respondent until such time that
the appeal with the said office (SOJ) is
resolved.[9] Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the
order was denied by respondent court on November 22,
[G.R. No. 140863. August 22, 2000] 1999.[10]
Petitioner bewails the fact that six months have
elapsed since private respondent appeared or submitted
SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and herself to the jurisdiction of respondent court and up to
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, now she still has to be arraigned.[11] Respondent court
vs. HON. ROLANDO HOW, in his capacity as allegedly violated due process when it issued the
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court assailed order before petitioner received a copy of the
Branch 257 of Paraaque and MA. FE F. Motion to Defer Arraignment of private respondent and
BARREIRO, respondents. before the hearing for the same motion could be
conducted.[12] Petitioner points out that despite the order
DECISION of respondent court dated September 26, 1999 which
stated that the arraignment of private respondent on
GONZAGA-REYES, J.: November 18, 1999 is intransferable, respondent court,
in utter disregard of its own order, issued the now
The question raised in this instant petition assailed order indefinitely suspending the arraignment of
for certiorari and mandamus is whether or not the trial private respondent.[13]
 Petitioner is convinced that the twin orders further subordinates in criminal cases despite an information
delaying the arraignment of private respondent and already having been filed in court.[21]
denying the motion for reconsideration of petitioner
violate Section 7, of the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 (RA The nature of the Justice Secretarys power of
8493) and Section 12, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on control over prosecutors was explained in Ledesma vs.
Criminal Procedure. Court of Appeals [22] in this wise:

Petitioner further submits that this instant petition Decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject to
raises a pure question of law of first impression[14] since appeal to the secretary of justice who, under the Revised
it involves the application and interpretation of a law of Administrative Code,[23] exercises the power of direct
very recent vintage, namely Republic Act No. 8493, control and supervision over said prosecutors; and who
otherwise known as the Speedy Trial Act of may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their rulings.
1998.[15] Petitioner mainly relies on Section 7 of said law
that states that: Section 39, Chapter 8, Book IV in relation to Section[s]
5, 8, and 9, Chapter 2, Title III of the Code gives the
Section 7. Time Limit Between Filing of Information secretary of justice supervision and control over the
and Arraignment and Between Arraignment and Trial. Office of the Chief Prosecutor and the Provincial and
The arraignment of an accused shall be held within thirty City Prosecution Offices. The scope of his power of
(30) days from the filing of the information, or from the supervision and control is delineated in Section 38,
date the accused has appeared before the justice, judge or paragraph 1, Chapter 7, Book IV of the Code:
court in which the charge is pending, whichever date last
occurs. xxx (1) Supervision and Control. Supervision and control
shall include authority to act directly whenever a specific
By issuing the assailed order, respondent court function is entrusted by law or regulation to a
allegedly committed grave abuse of discretion subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the
amounting to lack/excess of jurisdiction.[16] Hence, this commission of acts; review, approve, reverse or modify
petition for certiorari and mandamus to nullify and set acts and decisions of subordinate officials or units; x x x
aside the order of respondent court dated November 15, x.
1999.
Petitioner limits the issues to the following: Supplementing the aforequoted provisions are Section 3
of R.A. 3783 and Section 37 of Act 4007, which read:
I.
Section 3. x x x x
RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO
ARRAIGN THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT DESPITE The Chief State Prosecutor, the Assistant Chief State
THE LAPSE OF THE TIME LIMIT OF THIRTY (30) Prosecutors, the Senior State Prosecutors, and the State
DAYS MANDATORILY IMPOSED BY SECTION 7, Prosecutors shall x x x perform such other duties as may
OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8493, OTHERWISE be assigned to them by the Secretary of Justice in the
KNOWN AS THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT OF 1998; interest of public service.
AND
xxxxxxxxx
II.
Section 37. The provisions of the existing law to the
RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN DEFYING contrary notwithstanding, whenever a specific power,
SECTION 12, RULE 116, OF THE REVISED RULES authority, duty, function, or activity is entrusted to a
ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.[17] chief of bureau, office, division or service, the same shall
be understood as also conferred upon the proper
The instant petition is devoid of merit. Department Head who shall have authority to act
directly in pursuance thereof, or to review, modify, or
The power of the Secretary of Justice to review
revoke any decision or action of said chief of bureau,
resolutions of his subordinates even after the information
office, division or service.
has already been filed in court is well settled. In Marcelo
vs. Court of Appeals,[18] reiterated in Roberts vs. Court of
Appeals,[19] we clarified that nothing in Crespo vs. Supervision and control of a department head over his
Mogul[20] forecloses the power or authority of the subordinates have been defined in administrative law as
Secretary of Justice to review resolutions of his follows:
In administrative law, supervision means overseeing or assess the merits of the case, and may either agree or
the power or authority of an officer to see that disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of
subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail Justice.[34] Reliance alone on the resolution of the
or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such Secretary of Justice would be an abdication of the trial
action or step as prescribed by law to make them courts duty and jurisdiction to determine prima
perform such duties. Control, on the other hand, means facie case.[35]
the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set
Petitioner insists that in view of the passage of the
aside what a subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment Speedy Trial Act of 1998, the review authority of the
of the former for that of the latter. Secretary of Justice after an information has been
already filed in court may possibly transgress the right of
a party to a speedy disposition of his case, in light of the
Review as an act of supervision and control by the
mandatory tenor of the Speedy Trial Act of 1998
justice secretary over the fiscals and prosecutors finds
requiring that the accused must be arraigned within
basis in the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
thirty (30) days from the filing of an information against
remedies which holds that mistakes, abuses or
him. Petitioner then impresses upon this Court that there
negligence committed in the initial steps of an
is a need to reconcile the review authority of the
administrative activity or by an administrative agency
Secretary of Justice and the Speedy Trial Act of 1998,
should be corrected by higher administrative authorities,
and submits that the Secretary of Justice must review the
and not directly by courts. As a rule, only after
appeal and rule thereon within a period of thirty (30)
administrative remedies are exhausted may judicial
days from the date the information was filed or from the
recourse be allowed.[24]
date the accused appeared in court (surrendered or
arrested)[36] if only to give meaning to the Speedy Trial
Procedurally speaking, after the filing of the Act.
information, the court is in complete control of the case
and any disposition therein is subject to its sound We are not persuaded. The authority of the
discretion.[25] The decision to suspend arraignment to Secretary of Justice to review resolutions of his
await the resolution of an appeal with the Secretary of subordinates even after an information has already been
Justice is an exercise of such discretion. Consistent with filed in court does not present an irreconcilable conflict
our ruling in Marcelo,[26] we have since then held in a with the thirty-day period prescribed by Section 7 of the
number of cases that a court can defer to the authority of Speedy Trial Act.
the prosecution arm to resolve, once and for all, the issue
Contrary to the urgings of petitioner, Section 7 of
of whether or not sufficient ground existed to file the
the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 prescribing the thirty-day
information.[27]This is in line with our general
period for the arraignment of the accused is not
pronouncement in Crespo[28] that courts cannot interfere
absolute. In fact, Section 10 of the same law enumerates
with the prosecutors discretion over criminal
periods of delay that shall be excluded in computing the
prosecution.[29] Thus, public respondent did not act with
time within which trial must commence. The pertinent
grave abuse of discretion when it suspended the
portion thereof provides that:
arraignment of private respondent to await the resolution
of her petition for review with the Secretary of Justice.
SEC. 10. Exclusions. - The following periods of delay
In several cases, we have emphatically cautioned shall be excluded in computing the time within which
judges to refrain from arraigning the accused trial must commence:
precipitately to avoid a miscarriage of
justice.[30] In Dimatulac vs. Villon,[31] the judge in that xxx
case hastily arraigned the accused despite the pending
appeal of the accused with the DOJ and notwithstanding (f) Any period of delay resulting from a
the existence of circumstances indicating the probability continuance granted by any justice or
of miscarriage of justice. Said judge was reminded that judge motu propio or on motion of the accused or
he should have heeded our statement in Marcelo[32] that his/her counsel or at the request of the public
prudence, if not wisdom, or at least respect for the prosecutor, if the justice or judge granted such
authority of the prosecution agency, dictated that he continuance on the basis of his/her findings that the
(respondent judge therein) should have waited for the ends of justice served by taking such action
resolution of the appeal then pending with the DOJ.[33] outweigh the best interest of the public and the
It bears stressing that the court is however not defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay
bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice resulting from a continuance granted by the court in
since the court is mandated to independently evaluate or accordance with this subparagraph shall be
 excludable under this section unless the court sets complainant in the criminal case, cannot deprive private
forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in respondent, accused therein, of her right to avail of a
writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of remedy afforded to an accused in a criminal case. The
justice served by the granting of such continuance immediate arraignment of private respondent would
outweigh the best interests of the public and the have then proscribed her right as accused to appeal the
accused in a speedy trial. resolution of the prosecutor to the Secretary of Justice
since Section 4 of DOJ Order No. 223 of June 30, 1993
Accordingly, the view espoused by petitioner that forestalls an appeal to the Secretary of Justice if the
the thirty-day period prescribed by Section 7 of the accused/appellant has already been arraigned.[41] Hence,
Speedy Trial Act must be strictly observed so as not to in this case, the order suspending the arraignment of
violate its right to a speedy trial finds no support in the private respondent merely allowed private respondent to
law itself. The exceptions provided in the Speedy Trial exhaust the administrative remedies available to her as
Act of 1998 reflect the fundamentally recognized accused in the criminal case before the court could
principle that the concept of speedy trial is a relative proceed to a full-blown trial. Conversely, in case the
term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.[37] In resolution is for the dismissal of the information, the
fact, in implementing the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, this offended party in the criminal case, herein petitioner, can
Court issued SC Circular No. 38-98, Section 2 of which appeal the adverse resolution to the Secretary of
provides that: Justice.[42] In Marcelo vs. Court of Appeals, this Court
aptly pointed out that:
Section 2. Time Limit for Arraignment and Pre-trial. The
arraignment, and the pre-trial if the accused pleads not the trial court in a criminal case which takes
guilty to the crime charged, shall be held within thirty cognizance of an accuseds motion for review of the
(30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction resolution of the investigating prosecutor or for
over the person of the accused. The period of the reinvestigation and defers the arraignment until
pendency of a motion to quash, or for a bill of resolution of the said motion must act on the
particulars, or other causes justifying suspension of resolution reversing the investigating prosecutors
arraignment shall be excluded. (Emphasis ours) finding or on a motion to dismiss based
thereon only upon proof that such resolution is
As stated earlier, prudence and wisdom dictate that already final in that no appeal was taken therefrom
the court should hold in abeyance the proceedings while to the Department of Justice.[43] (Emphasis ours)
the Secretary of Justice resolves the petition for review
questioning the resolution of the prosecutor. The delay in The fact that public respondent issued the assailed
such a case is justified because the determination of order suspending the arraignment of private respondent
whether the delay is unreasonable, thus amounting to a before the Motion to Defer Arraignment of private
transgression of the right to a speedy trial, cannot be respondent could be heard is not tantamount to grave
simply reduced to a mathematical process. Hence, the abuse of discretion. It was well within the power of
length of delay is not the lone criterion to be considered, public respondent to grant the continuance since Section
several factors must be taken into account in determining 10 (f) of the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 clearly confers
whether or not the constitutional right to a speedy trial this authority.
has been violated. The factors to consider and balance
Public respondent substantially complied with the
are the duration of the delay, reason thereof, assertion of
requirement of Section 10 (f) of the Speedy Trial Act
the right or failure to assert it and the prejudice caused
when it stated its reasons for the deferment and eventual
by such delay.[38]
suspension of the arraignment of private respondent in
The importance of the review authority of the its orders dated September 24, 1999[44] and November
Secretary of Justice cannot be overemphasized; as earlier 22, 1999[45]. In said orders, public respondent reasoned
pointed out, it is based on the doctrine of exhaustion of that the suspension of the arraignment of private
administrative remedies that holds that mistakes, abuses respondent was to give the opportunity to the accused to
or negligence committed in the initial steps of an exhaust the procedural remedies available,[46] to allow
administrative activity or by an administrative agency the Secretary of Justice to review the resolution of the
should be corrected by higher administrative authorities, City Prosecutor[47]so as not to deprive the former of his
and not directly by courts.[39] power to review the action of the latter by a precipitate
trial of the case,[48] and based on the discretionary power
We are not unmindful of the principle that while the of the trial judge to grant or deny the motion to suspend
right to a speedy trial secures rights to the defendant, it the arraignment of the accused pending determination of
does not preclude the rights of public her petition for review at the Department of
justice.[40] However, in this case, petitioner as private Justice.[49] Despite the absence of a law or regulation
prescribing the period within which the Secretary of arraignment shall be limited to the cases enumerated
Justice must dispose of an appeal, the presumption still therein. Moreover, jurisprudence has clearly established
holds true that in the regular performance of his that the suspension of arraignment is not strictly limited
functions, the Secretary of Justice will decide the appeal to the two situations contemplated in said
in the soonest possible time. Recently, the Department of provision.[53] In fine, no grave abuse of discretion
Justice issued Memorandum Order No. 12 dated July 3, attended the issuance of the assailed order suspending
2000 mandating that the period for the disposition of the arraignment of private respondent until her petition
appeals/petitions for review shall be 75 days.[50] In view for review with the Secretary of Justice is resolved.
of this memorandum, the indefinite suspension of
proceedings in the trial court because of a pending WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack
petition for review with the Secretary of Justice is now of merit.
unlikely to happen. SO ORDERED.
Section 16 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court does RODOLFO G. VALENCIA, G.R. No. 165996
entitle the offended party to intervene in the criminal Petitioner,
case if he has not waived the civil action or expressly Present:
reserved his right to institute it separately from the Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman),
criminal action. However, the prosecution of the - versus - Quisumbing,
criminal case through the private prosecutor is still under Ynares-Santiago,
the direction and control of the public prosecutor[51]and C
such intervention must be with the permission of the a
public prosecutor.[52] In this case, based on the power of r
control and supervision of the Secretary of Justice over p
public prosecutors, the pendency of the appeal of private i
respondent with the Secretary of Justice should have o
impelled the public prosecutor to move for the ,
suspension of the arraignment of private
respondent. Considering that private respondent had a
already informed the court of her appeal with the n
Secretary of Justice and had moved for the suspension of d
her arraignment, the public prosecutor should have A
desisted from opposing the abeyance of further zcuna, J
proceedings. J.
Lastly, petitioners argument that the suspension of THE SANDIGANBAYAN,
the arraignment in this case was in violation of Section Respondent. Promulgated:
12, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure is likewise not tenable. Section 12, Rule 116 October 17, 2005
of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides x ------------------------------------------------------------------
that: ---------------------- x

Section 12. Suspension of Arraignment. The arraignment DECISION

shall be suspended, if at the time thereof:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
(a) The accused appears to be suffering from
an unsound mental condition which
effectively renders him unable to fully
understand the case against him and to This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the
court shall order his mental examination Court assails the June 14, 2004 Order[1] of respondent
and, if necessary, his confinement for such Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 25160, which
purpose.
denied petitioners motion for leave to file demurrer to
(b) The court finds the existence of a valid
prejudicial question. evidence and set the case for presentation of evidence for
There is nothing in the above-quoted provision that the prosecution; as well as its July 28, 2004
expressly or impliedly mandates that the suspension of
Resolution[2] denying petitioners motion for
1. Mr. Rodolfo G. Valencia, had been
reconsideration. the Governor of the Province of Oriental
Mindoro, for having won in the
gobernatorial race in the May 1992 local
The undisputed facts show that on February 10, 1999, and provincial election;
petitioner Rodolfo G. Valencia, then governor of
2. During the 1992 election, Mr.
Oriental Mindoro was charged before the Sandiganbayan Cresente Umbao of Pola, Oriental,
Mindoro also ran for the position of
with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. councilor in the Municipality of Pola,
3019, the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Oriental Mindoro but he lost;

information filed against petitioner reads: 3. On October 17, 1992, Councilor

Antonio Mercene, Jr. of Pola, Oriental,
Mindoro died thus creating a permanent
That on or about December 1, 1992, or
vacancy in the membership position of
sometime prior or subsequent thereto in
Sanguniang Bayan of Pola, Oriental
the Province of Oriental Mindoro,
Mindoro.
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-
4. On December 1, 1992 then Governor
named accused, a public officer, being
Rodolfo G. Valencia of Oriental,
then the Governor of the Province of
Mindoro, appointed Cresente Umbao to
Oriental Mindoro, while in the
the position of a councilor in the
performance of his official functions,
Municipal Council of Pola, Oriental
committing the offense in relation to his
Mindoro on the vacancy left by the
office, and taking advantage of his
death of Councilor Mercene.
official position, acting with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross
CONTENTION/ISSUES
inexcusable negligence, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally
The Prosecution contends that this
cause undue injury to the Province of
appointment is in violation of Sec. 3(e)
Oriental Mindoro, and at the same time
of R.A. 3019 as it gives among other,
give unwarranted benefits, advantage or
unwarranted benefit to Mr. Cresente
preference to one CRESENTE
Umbao who is disqualified to be
UMBAO, a candidate who ran and lost
appointed within a period of one year
in the 1992 election, by then and there
after having lost in May 1992 local
appointing said Cresente Umbao as
election for councilor, while the
Sangguniang Bayan member of Pola,
accused, then Governor Rodolfo
Oriental Mindoro, within the prohibitive
Valencia, maintains that the
period of one (1) year after an election,
appointment of Lumbao was in the
in flagrant violation of Sec. 6, Art IX B
performance of his duty and that it was
of the Constitution, to the damage and
made in good faith pursuant to Sec. 45,
prejudice of the Province of Oriental
Chapter 2, Title 2, of the Local
Mindoro and to the government as a
Government Code (R.A. 7160).
whole.[3]
The Parties reserve their rights to
present documentary evidences as the
Upon arraignment on April 13, 1999, petitioner pleaded need arise during the trial.
not guilty.[4]
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the parties respectfully prays that this
stipulation of facts be well taken by the
On March 24, 2003, the parties submitted a Joint
Honorable Sandiganbayan for pre-trial
Stipulation of Facts, to wit: purposes.[5]
 Opposition/Comment alleging that petitioners Motion
On March 26, 2003, the Sandiganbayan directed for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence is premature
the parties to sign the Joint Stipulation of Facts, thus because the prosecution has yet to formally offer the
Joint Stipulation of Facts.[9]
The Court orders both counsels
and the accused to sign each and every
page of the Joint Stipulation of Facts. On February 20, 2004, the Sandiganbayan
Thereafter, let a pre-trial order be issued
on the bases of the agreement of both reiterated its March 26, 2003 Resolution directing
parties as embodied in this Joint petitioner and counsels to sign the Joint Stipulation of
Stipulation of Facts.[6]
Facts.[10] Petitioner filed a Manifestation with Motion for
Reconsideration[11] claiming that his former counsel was
The Joint Stipulation of Facts however remained
not authorized to enter into any agreement and that he
unsigned by petitioner. Only the signature of the Special
came to know of the existence of said stipulations only
Prosecutor and petitioners counsel appear on the last
on January 12, 2004.
page thereof.

On March 11, 2004, the Sandiganbayan issued a

On January 12, 2004, Prosecutor Danilo F.
Pre-trial Order[12] embodying the Joint Stipulation of
Salindong rested the case based on the Joint Stipulation
Facts.
of Facts and waived the presentation of testimonial or
documentary evidence for the prosecution.[7]
Considering petitioners refusal to acknowledge
the Joint Stipulation of Facts or to sign the Pre-trial
Thereafter, petitioner filed on January 19, 2004 a
Order, the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed June 14,
Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence because
2004 Order recalling the Pre-trial Order; denying the
the prosecution failed to present, mark or offer evidence
motion for leave to file demurrer; and setting the case for
that would substantiate the charge against him. Petitioner
presentation of the prosecutions evidence, thus
asserted that the Joint Stipulation of Facts is
inadmissible because it lacks his signature. Even if the
This afternoon is supposed to be
same be admitted, the information is dismissable for the initial presentation of the defense
evidence. Prosecutor Danilo F.
failure of the prosecution to submit evidence to establish Salindong, former handling prosecutor
the injury caused to the government and the presence of of this case, rested his case on the basis
of the Pre-Trial Order issued by this
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross Court. However, accused Rodolfo
Valencia refused to sign the pre-trial
inexcusable negligence in the appointment of Cresente order as per his motion for
Umbao, which are among the essential elements of the reconsideration, to which Prosecutor
Agnes Autencio Daquis commented that
crime of violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019.[8] since the accused refused to sign the
pre-trial order, that the same be
abrogated and that trial on the merits
The prosecution, now represented by Prosecutor ensued. Consequently, the Pre-Trial
Order issued by this Court on March 11,
Agnes B. Autencio-Daquis, filed an
 2004 is hereby recalled and set aside. In
view of the refusal of the accused to present evidence after it orally manifested its intention to
enter into any stipulation of facts, let this rest its case? (3) was petitioner denied his right to speedy
case be scheduled for trial on the merits.
The presentation of prosecutions trial?
evidence is hereby scheduled on August
31 and September 1, 2004 at 2:00 oclock
in the afternoon. The demurrer to Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court,
evidence filed by the accused is
therefore considered premature and is provides:
hereby stricken out of the records.[13]
SEC. 23. Demurrer to evidence.
After the prosecution rests its case, the
court may dismiss the action on the
Petitioners motion for reconsideration was ground of insufficiency of evidence (1)
denied on July 28, 2004, as follows: on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution the opportunity to be heard
or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed
The Motion for Reconsideration by the accused with or without leave of
(of June 14, 2004 Order) dated June 29, court.
2004 filed by accused, thru counsels
which met vigorous opposition from the
prosecutions Comment/Opposition dated
July 16, 2004 is denied for lack of merit. Corollarily, Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of
As clearly stated in the Order of June Court states:
14, 2004, the case for the prosecution
was re-opened because of the refusal of SEC. 34. Offer of evidence. The
accused to sign the pre-trial order on the court shall consider no evidence which
basis of which the prosecution rested its
has not been formally offered. The
case. Justice and fairness demand the re-
purpose for which the evidence is
opening of the evidence for the
offered must be specified.
prosecution because of the unwarranted
act of the accused in refusing to sign the
pre-trial order.[14]
A demurrer to evidence tests the sufficiency or
insufficiency of the prosecutions evidence. As such, a
Hence, the instant petition contending that the
demurrer to evidence or a motion for leave to file the
Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in issuing
same must be filed after the prosecution rests its case.
the assailed June 14, 2004 Order and July 28, 2004
But before an evidence may be admitted, the rules
Resolution.
require that the same be formally offered, otherwise, it
cannot be considered by the court. A prior formal offer
Meanwhile, there being no temporary restraining
of evidence concludes the case for the prosecution and
order nor preliminary injunction issued by this Court, the
determines the timeliness of the filing of a demurrer to
prosecution proceeded with the presentation of its
evidence.
evidence.[15]

As held in Aquino v. Sison,[16] the motion to

The issues for resolution are (1) was petitioners
dismiss for insufficiency of evidence filed by the
Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence
accused after the conclusion of the cross-examination of
premature? (2) may the prosecution be allowed to
the witness for the prosecution, is premature because the
latter is still in the process of presenting evidence. The At any rate, had the prosecution actually filed
chemistry report relied upon by the court in granting the said motion and formally offered the evidence before the
motion to dismiss was disregarded because it was not Sandiganbayan, the motion for leave to file demurrer to
properly identified or formally offered as evidence. evidence still suffers prematurity because it was filed on
Verily, until such time that the prosecution closed its January 19, 2004, or one day before the date of the
evidence, the defense cannot be considered to have motion and offer, i.e., January 20, 2004. In fact, even
seasonably filed a demurrer to evidence or a motion for petitioner admitted in his motion for leave to file
leave to file the same. demurrer to evidence that the prosecution failed to mark
and offer any evidence against him.[20]
In the present case, petitioners motion for leave
to file demurrer to evidence is premature because the Anent the second issue, we find that the trial
prosecution had yet to formally rest its case. When the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the
motion was filed on January 19, 2004, the latter had not prosecutions request to present additional evidence.
yet marked nor formally offered the Joint Stipulation of Admission of additional evidence is addressed to the
Facts as evidence. It is inconsequential that petitioner sound discretion of the trial court. Considerable latitude
received by mail on January 27, 2004, a motion and is allowed and such discretion will not be disturbed
formal offer of evidence dated January 20, 2004 from absent a finding that the accused was denied due process
Prosecutor Salindong,[17] because, as aptly observed by of law. As early as the 1907 case of United States v.
the Office of the Ombudsman, the records of the Cinco,[21] the Court has consistently upheld such
Sandiganbayan bear no such motion or formal offer of prerogative of the trial court, thus
evidence filed by the prosecution. The motion and
... The judges of the Courts of First
formal offer found in the records are those attached as Instance are judges of both fact and law,
Annex B[18] to petitioners Manifestation with Motion for and after hearing all the evidence
adduced by the attorneys, if the court is
Reconsideration[19] and not copies filed by the not satisfied, we see no reason why he
prosecution. Under Section 12, Rule 13 of the Rules of should not be permitted to call
additional witnesses for the purpose of
Court, the filing of a pleading or paper shall be proved satisfying his mind upon any questions
presented during the trial of the case.
by its existence in the case records. The absence of the
motion to rest the case in the records of the
Indeed, in the furtherance of justice, the court
Sandiganbayan and the failure to offer the Joint
may grant the parties the opportunity to adduce
Stipulation of Facts prove that the prosecution did not
additional evidence bearing upon the main issue in
formally rest or conclude the presentation of its
question.[22] Thus, in Hon. Vega, etc., et al. v. Hon.
evidence, rendering petitioners motion for leave to file
Panis, etc., et al.,[23] the Court sustained the order of the
demurrer to evidence, premature.
trial court allowing the prosecution to present additional
evidence after it had offered its evidence and rested its
case and after the defense filed a motion to dismiss. It have his day in court and the opportunity to present
was stressed therein that while the prosecution had counter evidence. Thus
rested, the trial was not yet terminated and the case was As a rule, the matter of reopening of a
still under the control and jurisdiction of the court. case for reception of further evidence
after either prosecution or defense has
Hence, in the exercise of its discretion, the trial court rested its case is within the discretion of
may receive additional evidence. the trial court. However, a concession to
a reopening must not prejudice the
accused or deny him the opportunity to
introduce counter evidence.
We also held in People v. Januario,[24] that strict
observance of the order of trial or trial procedure In U.S. vs. Base, we held that a trial
court is not in error, if it opts to reopen
outlined in Rule 119 of the Rules of Court depends upon the proceedings of a case, even after
both sides had rested and the case
the circumstance obtaining in each case at the discretion
submitted for decision, by the calling of
of the trial judge. Citing United States v. Alviar,[25] the additional witnesses or recalling of
witnesses so as to satisfy the judges
Court explained mind with reference to particular facts
involved in the case. A judge cannot be
The orderly course of faulted should he require a material
proceedings requires, witness to complete his testimony,
however, that the which is what happened in this case. It is
prosecution shall go but proper that the judges mind be
forward and should satisfied on any and all questions
present all of its proof presented during the trial, in order to
in the first instance; but serve the cause of justice.
it is competent for the
judge, according to the Appellants claim that the trial
nature of the case, to courts concession to reopen the case
allow a party who had unduly prejudiced him is not well taken.
closed his case to We note that appellant had every
introduce further opportunity to present his evidence to
evidence in rebuttal. support his case or to refute the
This rule, however, prosecutions evidence point-by-point,
depends upon the after the prosecution had rested its case.
particular circumstances In short, appellant was never deprived of
of each particular case his day in court. A day in court is the
and falls within the touchstone of the right to due process in
sound discretion of the criminal justice. Thus, we are unable to
judge, to be exercised or hold that a grave abuse of discretion was
not as he may think committed by the trial court when it
proper. ordered the so-called reopening in order
to complete the testimony of a
Hence, the court may allow the prosecution witness.[27]
prosecutor, even after he has rested his
case or after the defense moved for
dismissal, to present involuntarily In the case at bar, petitioner cannot claim denial of due
omitted evidence.[26]
process because he will have the opportunity to contest
the evidence adduced against him and to prove his
It must be emphasized that the primary consideration in
defenses after the prosecution concludes the presentation
allowing the reopening of a case is for the accused to
of its evidence. Moreover, the order of the trial court
granting the reception of additional evidence for the because of the ineptitude or nonchalance of the Special
prosecution is not technically a reopening of the case Prosecutor.[31] A contrary ruling would result in a void
inasmuch as the latter had yet to formally rest its case. A proceedings.
motion to reopen presupposes that either or both parties
have formally offered and closed their evidence.[28] If the In Merciales v. Court of Appeals,[32] the Court
Court sanctions the admission of additional evidence annulled the acquittal of the accused based on the
after the case had been submitted for resolution but demurrer to evidence filed by the defense. It was held
before judgment, with more reason therefore that we that the prosecutors failure to present sufficient evidence
should sustain the introduction of additional evidence in to convict the accused and the indifference displayed by
the present case because the prosecution had not yet the trial court in not requiring the prosecutor to present
concluded the presentation of its evidence. The State is additional evidence resulted in the denial of the States
also entitled to due process in criminal cases, that is, a right to due process warranting the reversal of the
fair opportunity to prosecute and convict. The Court has judgment of acquittal on the ground of absence of
always accorded this right to the prosecution, and where jurisdiction. Thus
the right had been denied, had promptly annulled the
... [T]he public prosecutor knew
offending court action.[29] that he had not presented sufficient
Furthermore, the haphazard manner by which evidence to convict the accused.... he
deliberately failed to present an
Prosecutor Salindong handled the case for the State will available witness and thereby allowed
the court to declare that the prosecution
not pass unnoticed by the Court. It is the duty of the
has rested its case.... he was remiss in
public prosecutor to bring the criminal proceedings for his duty to protect the interest of the
offended parties.... [and] was guilty of
the punishment of the guilty. Concomitant with this is blatant error and abuse of discretion,
the duty to pursue the prosecution of a criminal action thereby causing prejudice to the
offended party
and to represent the public interest.[30] With these
.
standards, we thus find Prosecutor Salindong remiss in
the performance of his responsibilities. He gravely By refusing to comply with the
trial courts order to present evidence, the
abused his discretion by resting the case without public prosecutor grossly violated the
adducing evidence for the State and without ensuring above-quoted rule. Moreover, the public
prosecutor violated his bounden duty to
that petitioner had signed the Joint Stipulation of Facts protect the interest of the offended
party.... After the trial court denied his
before it was submitted to the Sandiganbayan. As a
motion to discharge Nuada as a state
result, the prosecution was denied due process. witness, he should have proceeded to
complete the evidence of the
prosecution by other means. Instead, he
In light of the foregoing, the Sandiganbayan was willfully and deliberately refused to
present an available witness, i.e., the
therefore correct in allowing the State to adduce NBI Agent who was present in court on
that date and time. The public
additional evidence. The State should not be prejudiced prosecutor was duty-bound to exhaust
and deprived of its right to prosecute cases simply all available proofs to establish the guilt
 of the accused and bring them to justice
for their offense against the injured accused by the Constitution and the Rules of Court are
party. shields, not weapons; hence, courts are to give meaning

Likewise guilty for serious to that intent.[33]

nonfeasance was the trial court.
Notwithstanding its knowledge that the
evidence for the prosecution was As significant as the right of an accused to a
insufficient to convict, especially after
the public prosecutor tenaciously speedy trial is the right of the State to prosecute people
insisted on utilizing Nuada as state who violate its penal laws.[34] The right to a speedy trial
witness, the trial court passively
watched as the public prosecutor is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended
bungled the case. The trial court was
by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.[35] In the
well aware of the nature of the
testimonies of the seven prosecution instant case, allowing the prosecution to present
witnesses that have so far been
presented. Given this circumstance, the additional evidence, is a lawful exercise of due process
trial court, motu proprio, should have and is certainly not intended to vex or oppress the
called additional witnesses for the
purpose of questioning them himself in petitioner. In the balancing test used to determine
order to satisfy his mind with reference
whether an accused had been denied speedy disposition
to particular facts or issues involved in
the case. of cases, the scales tilt in favor of allowing the

Based on the foregoing, it is prosecution to adduce further evidence. Slowly but

evident that petitioner was deprived of surely, justice and due process would be afforded to the
her day in court. Indeed, it is not only
the State, but more so the offended prosecution and to petitioner as well who would have the
party, that is entitled to due process in
criminal cases. Inasmuch as the acquittal chance to present counter evidence. On the other hand,
of the accused by the court a quo was to erroneously put premium on the right to speedy trial
done without regard to due process of
law, the same is null and void. It is as if in the instant case and deny the prosecutions prayer to
there was no acquittal at all, and the adduce additional evidence would logically result in the
same cannot constitute a claim for
double jeopardy. dismissal of the case for the State. There is no difference
between an order outrightly dismissing the case and an
In the same vein, the right to speedy trial cannot be order allowing the eventual dismissal thereof. Both
successfully invoked where to sustain the same would would set a dangerous precedent which enables the
result in a clear denial of due process to the prosecution. accused, who may be guilty, to go free without having
While justice is administered with dispatch, the essential been validly tried, thereby infringing the interest of the
ingredient is orderly, expeditious and not mere speed. It society.
cannot be definitely said how long is too long in a
system where justice is supposed to be swift, but Neither can petitioner capitalize on the pendency
deliberate. It is consistent with delays and depends upon of his case since 1998. Note that the 1994 anonymous
circumstances. It secures rights to the accused, but it complaint[36] against petitioner was indorsed for
does not preclude the rights of public justice. Also, it investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman to the
must be borne in mind that the rights given to the National Bureau of Investigation which submitted its
 1979. It was only in 1989 when the case
findings in 1995. On March 15, 1996, the Ombudsman below was re-raffled from the RTC of
for Luzon recommended the filing of a complaint for Caloocan City to the RTC of Navotas-
Malabon and only after respondent trial
violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019,[37] followed by judge of the latter court ordered on
March 14, 1990 the parties to follow-up
another recommendation from the Graft Investigation
and complete the transcript of
Officer on July 14, 1998 for the institution of an stenographic notes that matters started to
get moving towards a resolution of the
Information against petitioner.[38] After Ombudsman case. More importantly, it was only after
Aniano Desiertos approval of said resolution on the new trial judge reset the retaking of
the testimonies to November 9, 1990
February 5, 1999,[39] the Special Prosecutor filed the because of petitioners absence during
the original setting on October 24, 1990
Information on February 10, 1999. The arraignment on
that the accused suddenly became
April 13, 1999, was followed by seven (7) requests of zealous of safeguarding his right to
speedy trial and disposition.
petitioner to travel abroad, all of which were granted by
the Sandiganbayan.[40] On June 28, 2002, the latter .

directed the counsels to submit a Joint Stipulation of It is fair to assume that he would
have just continued to sleep on his right
Facts, which was presented on March 24,
a situation amounting to laches had the
2003.[41] Considering the difficulty of obtaining a respondent judge not taken the initiative
of determining the non-completion of
quorum in the Sandiganbayan due to the retirement of the records and of ordering the remedy
the Justices, the presentation of the prosecutions precisely so he could dispose of the
case. The matter could have taken a
evidence scheduled on May 19 & 20 and July 8 & 9, different dimension if during all those
ten years between 1979 when accused
2003, were moved to September 8 & 9[42] and November filed his memorandum and 1989 when
10 & 11, 2003. On the latter dates, however, the the case was re-raffled, the accused
showed signs of asserting his right
prosecution witnesses failed to appear, prompting the which was granted him in 1987 when
Special Prosecutor to manifest his intention to rest the the new constitution took effect, or at
least made some overt act (like a motion
case on January 12, 2004. for early disposition or a motion to
compel the stenographer to transcribe
notes) that he was not waiving it. As it
All this time, however, petitioner never invoked is, his silence would have to be
interpreted as a waiver of such right.
his right to speedy trial. In Guerrero v. CA,[43] it was
In Dela Pea v. Sandiganbayan,[44] the Court
held that failure to seasonably raise the right to speedy
denied a petition seeking to quash the Information
trial precludes the accused from relying thereon as a
holding that the silence of the accused amounted to
ground to dismiss the case. He is deemed to have slept
laches. In the said case, the investigatory process was set
on his rights by not asserting the right to speedy
in motion on August 14, 1992 and the Information was
disposition at the earliest possible opportunity. The
filed on May 6, 1997. After the arraignment was set
Court explained its ruling in this wise:
sometime in December 1999, the accused filed a motion

In the case before us, the to quash on December 21, 1999, based on the violation
petitioner merely sat and waited after the of his right to due process and prompt disposition of
case was submitted for resolution in
cases. In sustaining the Sandiganbayans denial of the The rule as consistently applied in this
motion to quash, the Court ratiocinated that: jurisdiction is that objections to the sluggish disposition
of the case must be positively invoked by the accused
Moreover, it is worthy to note
that it was only on 21 December 1999, and a demand therefor must be openly made. The Court
after the case was set for arraignment, ruled in Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan,[46] that dismissal of a
that petitioners raised the issue of the
delay in the conduct of the preliminary case is not justified simply because the prosecutor had
investigation. As stated by them in their gone to sleep at the switch while the defendant and his
Motion to Quash/Dismiss, [o]ther than
the counter-affidavits, [they] did counsel rested in silence. The accused must not be
nothing. Also, in their petition, they
averred: Aside from the motion for rewarded by the dismissal of the case and the State and
extension of time to file counter- society punished by the neglect of the prosecutor unless
affidavits, petitioners in the present case
did not file nor send any letter-queries the accused himself calls the attention of the court on the
addressed to the Office of the
matter.
Ombudsman for Mindanao which
conducted the preliminary investigation.
They slept on their right a situation We see no reason to deviate from the
amounting to laches. The matter could jurisprudential holdings and treat the instant case
have taken a different dimension if
differently. Petitioner never contested the prosecutorial
during all those four years, they showed
signs of asserting their right to a speedy proceedings nor timely challenged the pendency of the
disposition of their cases or at least case after arraignment. It was only in the Motion for
made some overt acts, like filing a
Reconsideration of the June 14, 2004 order denying the
motion for early resolution, to show that
they were not waiving that right. Their demurrer to evidence and setting the case for reception
silence may, therefore be interpreted as of additional evidence for the prosecution, that petitioner
a waiver of such right. As aptly stated
insisted on his right to speedy trial. Under Section 9,
in Alvizo, the petitioner therein was
insensitive to the implications and Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, failure of the accused to
contingencies of the projected criminal move for dismissal prior to trial constitutes a waiver of
prosecution posed against him by not
taking any step whatsoever to accelerate his right to speedy trial. His failure therefore to timely
the disposition of the matter, which question the delay in the disposition of the case
inaction conduces to the perception that amounted to an implied acceptance of such delay and a
the supervening delay seems to have
been without his objection, [and] hence waiver of the right to question the same. Like any other
impliedly with his acquiescence. right conferred by the Constitution or statute, except
when otherwise expressly so provided, the speedy trial
right may be waived when not positively asserted. Thus,
The foregoing doctrines were reiterated in Bernat v.
if there was a delay in the disposition of the case,
Sandiganbayan,[45] where the claim of denial of the right
petitioner is not entirely without blame.[47]
to a speedy disposition of his criminal case was brushed
aside by the Court considering that the accused waited
Then too, while petitioner is free to acknowledge
eight years before complaining of the delay in the
or reject the Joint Stipulation of Facts, the trial court
disposal of his case.
cannot be said to have abused its discretion in ordering
petitioner to sign the same considering that said
stipulation was not yet formally offered by the
 D
prosecution. At that stage, said document cannot yet be avide,
considered officially an evidence for the prosecution. Jr., C.J.
(Chair
The refusal therefore of petitioner to affix his signature man),
- versus - Quisumbing,
in the said stipulation or in the Pre-trial Order
Ynares-Santiago,
embodying the same is sufficient justification for the C
a
trial court to recall the latter and in the exercise of its r
sound discretion, set the case for presentation of the p
i
prosecutions evidence. o
,

Finally, if petitioner disagrees with the denial of his a

n
motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, his remedy d
is not to file a petition for certiorari but to proceed with A
zcuna, J
the presentation of his evidence and to appeal any J.
HON. FIRST DIVISION,
adverse decision that may be rendered by the trial court.
SANDIGANBAYAN, Promulgated:
The last sentence of Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Respondent.
November 29, 2005
Court, provides that the order denying a motion for leave
of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer x ------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------- x
itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or certiorari
DECISION
before judgment.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The June
14, 2004 Order of respondent Sandiganbayan in
Criminal Case No. 25160 which denied petitioners This is a special civil action for certiorari under

motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence and set the Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify the

case for presentation of evidence for the prosecution; as September 13, 2004 Resolution[1] of the Sandiganbayan

well its July 28, 2004 Resolution denying petitioners denying petitioners motion to dismiss and its January 11,

motion for reconsideration are AFFIRMED. 2005 Resolution[2] denying the motion for
reconsideration.

The instant case is REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan

for further proceedings. The case arose from the investigation initiated
by a letter-complaint of then Police Sr. Superintendent
Romeo M. Acop to the Ombudsman where it appears
that payrolls of 2,000 enlisted men of the Cordillera
SO ORDERED.
GUILLERMO T. DOMONDON G.R. No. 166606 Regional Command (CRECOM), who were allegedly
and VAN D. LUSPO, recipients of the P20,000,000 appropriated for combat,
Petitioners, Present:
clothing, and individual equipment (CCIE) allowance, Hence, the instant petition raising the sole issue
were falsified. of whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of
discretion in denying petitioners motion to dismiss.
Subsequent investigations determined that The procedural history of the case may be
petitioners Philippine National Police (PNP) Director for outlined as follows:
Comptrollership Guillermo Domondon, and Sr.
May 12, 1994 Domondon
Superintendent Van Luspo, together with other PNP moved for the consolidation of Crim.
officers, namely: Cesar Nazareno, Armand Agbayani, Case No. 20574 with Crim. Case Nos.
20185, 20191, 20192 and 20576.
Joven Brizuela, Juan Luna and Danilo Garcia, conspired
with one another in approving without budgetary basis, May 17, 1994 the
Sandiganbayan issued an Order
the release of Advice Allotment SN No. 4363 dated requiring the prosecution to demonstrate
the probable complicity of petitioners
August 11, 1992 for P5,000,000 and Advice Allotment Domondon and Luspo, and accused
SN No. 4400 dated August 18, 1992 for P15,000,000, Cesar Nazareno in the transaction
described in the Information.
for the procurement of CCIE for the use of PNP
May 25, 1994 Accused Rodrigo
personnel of the CRECOM, causing to be issued checks
F. Licudine filed a motion for
with an aggregate amount of P20,000,000 for payment reconsideration.
of ghost purchases of the aforesaid CCIE items. June 8, 1994 Sandiganbayan
ordered prosecution to re-examine
evidence and re-investigate.
On May 4, 1994, an information was filed before
June 13, 1994 Luspo filed his
the Sandiganbayan charging petitioners Domondon and
motion to defer arraignment and motion
Luspo, and the above-named accused, with violation of for reinvestigation with Sandiganbayan.
Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. November 8, 1994 Prosecutor
Erdulfo Q. Querubin issued Order
resolving review and reinvestigation
Their arraignment was reset for several times, recommending that prosecution proceed
against petitioners duly approved by
hence, petitioners filed on December 3, 2003 a motion to Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez.
dismiss claiming that the failure to arraign them within
May 17, 1995 Domondon filed
the period set under Republic Act (RA) No. 8493 or the his motion for reconsideration of the
Speedy Trial Act of 1998 have resulted in denial of their Order dated November 8, 1994 and for
consolidation.
rights to speedy trial.
November 29, 1995 Prosecutor
Joselito R. Ferrer issued Order acting on
On September 13, 2004, the Sandiganbayan the motion for reconsideration and
consolidation of petitioner Domondon
denied petitioners motion to dismiss and on January 11, recommending, inter alia, that
2005, dismissed petitioners motion for reconsideration. petitioners be exonerated.

September 2, 1996 Then Overall

Deputy Ombudsman (ODO) Francisco
A. Villa issued memorandum
recommending disapproval of light of the finality of the judgment of
recommendation of Prosecutor Ferrer. the Supreme Court denying the
aforementioned petition of petitioner
February 19, 1997 Ombudsman Domondon.
Aniano A. Desierto disapproved the
reconsideration of Prosecutor Ferrer to November 17, 2000 Domondon
exonerate petitioners as recommended filed his Omnibus Motion seeking
by ODO Villa. deferment of arraignment until
resolution of the motion for dismissal
July 28, 1997 Amended for lack of due process, undue delay,
Information was issued by Prosecutor violation of the right to speedy trial, and
Ferrer dropping accused Prospero if the motion for dismissal is denied, to
Noble, Nicasio Radovan, Jr., Rodrigo consolidate the instant case with
Licudine, Amparo Cabigas, and Juan Criminal Case No. 20191 pending
Refe II from the instant charge in before the Fifth Division of the
accordance with the approval by Sandiganbayan.
Ombudsman Desierto of his
Memorandum dated July 29, 1997. November 23, 2000 During the
scheduled arraignment, Sandiganbayan
August 26, 1997 Prosecutor again required prosecution to show why
Ferrer filed prosecutions Motion to the senior officers particularly Gen.
Admit Amended Information. Guillermo T. Domondon and General
Cesar Nazareno should be included
September 5, 1997 Hearing on herein thereby resetting the arraignment
the foregoing motion to admit Amended to January 5, 2001; during the same
Information wherein the Sandiganbayan proceeding, petitioner Luspo failed to
gave complaining witnesses fifteen (15) appear for which reason the
days from receipt of its Order within Sandiganbayan issued a show-cause
which to file their comments and/or order.
opposition to the motion with the
prosecution a like period from receipt January 5, 2001 Arraignment
thereof within which to file reply. did not proceed.

October 6, 1997 Domondon February 6, 2001 The

filed his motion asking for additional Sandiganbayan issued its Resolution
period until November 7, 1997 within requiring Domondon to furnish copies
which to submit his comments and/or of his Manifestation (which was actually
objections to the motion to Admit a motion to dismiss but was not set for
Amended Information. hearing) to prosecution, which was
given five (5) days from receipt to
November 26, 1997 comment thereon.
Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution
deferring action on prosecutions motion February 27, 2001 Accused
to admit Amended Information while Juan Luna filed his Motion to Quash.
the petition for certiorari and prohibition
of petitioner Domondon before the February 15, 2002 Arraignment
Supreme Court seeking to prevent the again cancelled due to pendency of
filing of the Amended Information is motion to dismiss of accused Danilo
still pending. Garcia.

October 23, 2000 June 5, 2002 Arraignment

Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution cancelled.
granting prosecutions motion to admit
Amended Information and setting the September 19, 2002 Accused
arraignment for, among others, Joven Brizuela filed his Motion for Bill
petitioners on November 23, 2000 in the of Particulars.
 September 30, 2000 February 10, 2004 The
Arraignment cancelled; prosecution was prosecution filed its opposition to
given by the Sandiganbayan fifteen (15) Motion to dismiss of petitioners.
days within which to file opposition to
accused Brizuelas motion for bill of March 3, 2004 Petitioners filed
particulars. their Comment to Opposition.

October 9, 2002 Prosecution April 28, 2004 Accused Danilo

filed its Opposition to accused Brizuelas Garcia filed his leave to file comment
motion for bill of particulars. regarding Motion to Dismiss.

October 14, 2002 Date of May 13, 2004 Accused Garcia

Domondons motion for arraignment and filed his opposition to prosecutions
pre-trial separate from that of their co- motion for leave to file comment
accused. regarding Motion to Dismiss.

October 18, 2002 Date of urgent May 18, 2004 Sandiganbayan

motion for extension of time to file reply admitted prosecutions opposition to
filed by accused Brizuela. accused Garcias motion to dismiss.

October 28, 2002 Date of Reply August 31, 2004 Prosecution

to Opposition filed by accused Brizuela. filed its motion to resolve praying that
the motion for bill of particulars of
November 4, 2002 Domondon accused Brizuela, the motion for
filed his Motion for Separate Trial and separate trial of petitioners herein, and
to withdraw the October 14, 2002 the motion to dismiss of accused Garcia
motion and required prosecution to be resolved.
comment on the motion for separate trial
filed by petitioner Domondon; the September 13, 2004 The
arraignment was again cancelled. Sandiganbayan promulgated its
Resolution denying the motion to
December 9, 2002 The dismiss of petitioners herein and of
Sandiganbayan granted the Urgent accused Garcia, the motion for bill of
Motion for Extension of Time to File particulars of accused Brizuela, and
Reply filed by accused Brizuela. motion for separate trial of petitioners
herein and setting the arraignment on
December 20, 2002 Prosecution October 5, 2004, the pre-trial on October
filed its Comment/Opposition to the 14 and 15, 2004 and trial on November
Motion for Separate Trial and to Set 9, 11, 12 and every Tuesday, Thursday,
Arraignment. and Friday thereafter.

December 3, 2003 Domondon October 1, 2004 Accused Garcia

filed Motion to Dismiss setting the same filed his motion for reconsideration on
for hearing on December 15, 2003 until the foregoing denial of his motion to
the end of the year due to Yuletide dismiss by Sandiganbayan setting the
season. same for hearing on October 5, 2004,
with a Manifestation and Motion
January 22, 2004 Domondon praying that the arraignment, pre-trial
filed his Motion to Dismiss at bar. and trial be cancelled pending his
motion for reconsideration.
February 3, 2004 The
Sandiganbayan heard the said motion to October 13, 2004 Petitioners
dismiss and gave prosecution fifteen herein filed their motion for
(15) days within which to file its reconsideration on the foregoing denial
comment/opposition thereto. of their motion to dismiss.
 March 2, 2005 The prosecution
October 15, 2004 Prosecution filed its Pre-Trial Brief.
filed its consolidated opposition to the
foregoing motions of petitioners herein, March 4, 2005 The preliminary
accused Garcia and Brizuela. conference proceeded with no
agreement between the parties.
November 3, 2004 Petitioners Prosecution marked its exhibits.
herein filed their Rejoinder/ Comment to
the foregoing consolidated opposition of March 7, 2005 Accused Garcia
prosecution. filed his motion to reset preliminary
conference and to resolve his pending
January 11, 2005 motion to suspend further proceedings.
Sandiganbayan promulgated the
Resolution denying the motions for March 11, 2005 Preliminary
reconsideration of petitioners herein, conference continued.
accused Garcia and Brizuela and setting
the arraignment on January 11, 2005 and March 14, 2005 The prosecution
the preliminary conference on February filed its Amended Pre-Trial Brief
8, 2005. On the same day, the correcting some typographical errors in
Sandiganbayan, in open court, cancelled its original Pre-Trial Brief and adding
the arraignment and reset the same to some exhibits.
February 4, 2005 considering that the
accused concerned, including herein March 15, 2005 During the
petitioners, only received their copies of intended pre-trial, the parties signified
the foregoing Resolution on the morning the need to continue the preliminary
of that date (January 11, 2005). conference and the Sandiganbayan set
the continuation thereof after the court
January 27, 2005 Petitioners proceedings, which the parties actually
herein filed the instant petition for held.
certiorari with the Supreme Court.
April 13, 2005 The prosecution
January 29, 2005 Accused filed its Re-Amended Pre-Trial Brief
Garcia filed his motion to defer adding some witnesses.
arraignment and to suspend further
proceedings due to his intended petition April 15, 2005 During the
for certiorari with the Supreme Court. intended trial, the same was considered
as continuation of the pre-trial as no pre-
February 3, 2005 Accused trial order and minutes of the
Garcia filed his petition for certiorari preliminary conference had as yet been
with the Supreme Court. completed which the Sandiganbayan
stated would be released before the
February 4, 2005 Arraignment intended trial on May 5, 2005.
after more than ten (10) years from the
filing of the original informations on To date The prosecution is
May 4, 1994, proceeded except for ready to present its first witness.
petitioner Luspo who was allegedly ill.
After arraignment, the preliminary
conference was set for March 4, 2005, As earlier mentioned, the denial by the
the pre-trial for March 15, 2005, and the
trial for April 15, May 5,6,17, and 19, Sandiganbayan of petitioners motion to dismiss
2005. prompted the filing of the instant petition on the ground
February 22, 2005 Petitioner that the failure to arraign them within the time set by the
Luspo was arraigned.
Speedy Trial Act of 1998 constitutes a violation of their
right to a speedy trial.
 Thus in People v. Tee,[3] we held that the right to
Petitioners allege that speedy trial is not a a speedy trial is deemed violated only when: 1) the
flexible concept. They explained that prior to the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and
enactment of RA 8493, as implemented by Supreme oppressive delays; 2) when unjustified postponements
Court (SC) Circular No. 38-98, the concept of speedy are asked for and secured; 3) when without cause or
trial was deemed flexible because the number of days to justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to
determine whether an accused is deprived of his elapse without the party having his case tried.
constitutional right to speedy trial, was not specified.
The courts were given enough latitude to make a judicial A mere mathematical reckoning of the time
determination of whether the delays could be considered involved, therefore, would not be sufficient. In the
as vexatious, capricious, and oppressive to constitute a application of the constitutional guarantee of the right to
violation of the right to speedy trial. Petitioners claim speedy disposition of cases, particular regard must also
that with the enactment of RA 8493, any delay in excess be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each
of the allowable number of days within which trial case.[4]
should be conducted will give rise to the violation of the
accuseds right to speedy trial. Petitioners also contend In Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan,[5] the Court
that they cannot be faulted for the delays which resulted emphasized that:
in the failure to arraign them on time. They point out that
[T]he right to a speedy
the Sandiganbayan erroneously anchored the denial of disposition of a case, like the right to
their motion to dismiss on the ground that the failure to speedy trial, is deemed violated only
when the proceeding is attended by
resolve accused Brizuelas motion for bill of particulars vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
cannot be utilized in computing the period of delay. delays; or when unjustified
postponements of the trial are asked for
and secured, or when without cause or
justifiable motive a long period of time
The petition lacks merit. is allowed to elapse without the party
having his case tried. Equally applicable
is the balancing test used to determine
While the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 sets the time whether a defendant has been denied his
right to a speedy trial, or a speedy
limit for the arraignment and trial of a case, these
disposition of a case for that matter, in
however do not preclude justifiable postponements and which the conduct of both the
prosecution and the defendant are
delay when so warranted by the situation. Section 2 of weighed, and such factors as length of
SC Circular 38-98 provides that the period of the the delay, reason for the delay, the
defendants assertion or non-assertion of
pendency of a motion to quash, or for a bill of his right, and prejudice to the defendant
resulting from the delay, are considered.
particulars, or other causes justifying suspension of
arraignment, shall be excluded.

We further explained that in determining

whether the constitutional right to speedy trial of
 a motion for reinvestigation and the
petitioners has been violated, the factors to consider and petition for certiorari and prohibition
balance are the duration of the delay, reason therefor, with the Honorable Supreme Court,
which is, if such reasoning is to be
assertion of the right or failure to assert it and the followed, to the detriment of the other
accused in this case.
prejudice caused by such delay.[6]

In the light of the above guiding principles, we We find no reason to deviate from the findings

must inquire whether in the present case there was and conclusions of the respondent court. A careful

unreasonable delay in the conduct of the arraignment examination of the records would show that the

which resulted in violation of the right to speedy trial of postponements were caused by numerous pending

the petitioners. It must be recalled that in the application motions or petitions. The delays caused by the filing and

of the constitutional guaranty of the right to speedy trial, resolution of these motions and petitions cannot be

particular regard must also be taken of the facts and categorized as vexatious, capricious or oppressive. After

circumstances peculiar to each case. all, it is the judicious and deliberate determination of all
the pending incidents of a case, with a genuine respect
for the rights of all parties and the requirements of
In justifying the denial of petitioners motion to
procedural due process, that should be the primordial
dismiss, the Sandiganbayan reasoned that although the
scheduled arraignments were postponed several times, consideration in the full resolution of a case, more than

they were however postponed for valid reasons. The the mere convenience of the parties or of the courts, so
that justice and fairness would be served thereby.
respondent court cited a number of justifiable causes of
postponements, thus:[7]
There being no oppressive delay in the
[O]ne of the postponements was proceedings, and no postponements unjustifiably sought,
due to the request of one of the accused
to reset the arraignment since the we concur with the conclusion reached by the
counsel of record is not available on the Sandiganbayan that petitioners right to speedy trial had
scheduled date. To proceed with the
arraignment despite the noted absence of not been violated. Hence, the dismissal of petitioners
one of the counsels would result in
inequity on one of the accused-movants motion to dismiss must be upheld.
co-defendants. Another postponement,
as pointed out by the accused-movants,
was the time given by the Court to allow WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The
the prosecutor to file an opposition to Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated September 13,
Brizuelas Bill of Particulars. The
comment made by accused-movants is 2004 denying petitioners motion to dismiss and its
discriminatory and unjust. They claim
that the delay caused by the filing of a Resolution dated January 11, 2005 denying the motion
motion for bill of particulars by a co- for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.
accused should not be attributable to
them as they did not join the same, and
consequently such is a violation of their
SO ORDERED.
right to speedy trial. They have
forgotten that they themselves had
caused a long delay in this case by filing
A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC September 13, 2001 the motion for reconsideration of the Secretary of
Justice.
RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE RADIO-TV COVERAGE
OF THE TRIAL IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE In lieu of live TV and radio coverage of the trial, the
PLUNDER CASES AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT Court, by the vote of eight (8) Justices,2 has resolved to
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA order the audio-visual recording of the trial.

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE HERNANDO PEREZ, What follows is the opinion of the majority.lawphil.net
KAPISANAN NG MGA BRODKASTER NG
PILIPINAS, CESAR SARINO, RENATO Considering the significance of the trial before the
CAYETANO, and ATTY. RICARDO Sandiganbayan of former President Estrada and the
ROMULO, petitioners, importance of preserving the records thereof, the Court
vs. believes that there should be an audio-visual recording
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA and INTEGRATED BAR OF of the proceedings. The recordings will not be for live or
THE PHILIPPINES,oppositors. real time broadcast but for documentary purposes. Only
later will they be available for public showing, after the
RESOLUTION Sandiganbayan shall have promulgated its decision in
every case to which the recording pertains. The master
MENDOZA, J.: film shall be deposited in the National Museum and the
Records Management and Archives Office for historical
This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision preservation and exhibition pursuant to law.4
denying petitioners' request for permission to televise
and broadcast live the trial of former President Estrada For the purpose of recording the proceedings, cameras
before the Sandiganbayan. The motion was filed by the will be inconspicuously installed in the courtroom and
Secretary of Justice, as one of the petitioners, who the movement of TV crews will be regulated, consistent
argues that there is really no conflict between the right of with the dignity and solemnity of the proceedings. The
the people to public information and the freedom of the trial shall be recorded in its entirety, except such
press, on the one hand, and, on the other, the right of the portions thereof as the Sandiganbayan may decide
accused to a fair trial; that if there is a clash between should not be held public pursuant to Rule 119, §21 of
these rights, it must be resolved in favor of the right of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. No comment
the people and the press because the people, as the shall be included in the documentary except annotations
repository of sovereignty, are entitled to information; which may be necessary to explain certain scenes which
and that live media coverage is a safeguard against are depicted. The audio-visual recordings shall be made
attempts by any party to use the courts as instruments for under the supervision and control of the Sandiganbayan
the pursuit of selfish interests. or its Division as the case may be.

On the other hand, former President Joseph E. Estrada There are several reasons for such televised
reiterates his objection to the live TV and radio coverage recording.1awphil.net First, the hearings are of historic
of his trial on the ground that its allowance will violate significance. They are an affirmation of our commitment
the sub judice rule and that, based on his experience with to the rule that "the King is under no man, but he is
the impeachment trial, live media coverage will only under God and the law." (Quod Rex non debet esse sub
pave the way for so-called "expert commentary" which homine, sed sub Deo et Lege.) Second, the Estrada cases
can trigger massive demonstrations aimed at pressuring involve matters of vital concern to our people who have
the Sandiganbayan to render a decision one way or the a fundamental right to know how their government is
other. Mr. Estrada contends that the right of the people conducted. This right can be enhanced by audio visual
to information may be served through other means less presentation. Third, audio-visual presentation is essential
distracting, degrading, and prejudicial than live TV and for the education and civic training of the people.
radio coverage.1âwphi1.nêt
Above all, there is the need to keep audio-visual records
The Court has considered the arguments of the parties on of the hearings for documentary purposes. The
this important issue and, after due deliberation, finds no recordings will be useful in preserving the essence of the
reason to alter or in any way modify its decision proceedings in a way that the cold print cannot quite do
prohibiting live or real time broadcast by radio or because it cannot capture the sights and sounds of
television of the trial of the former president. By a vote events. They will be primarily for the use of appellate
of nine (9) to six (6) of its members,1 the Court denies courts in the event a review of the proceedings, rulings,
or decisions of the Sandiganbayan is sought or becomes
necessary. The accuracy of the transcripts of In fairness let me refer to an American
stenographic notes taken during the trial can be checked experience many of my lay friends found
by reference to the tapes. similarly moving. An educational television
network filmed a trial in Denver of a Black
On the other hand, by delaying the release of the tapes Panther leader on charges of resisting arrest, and
for broadcast, concerns that those taking part in the broadcast the document in full, in four
proceedings will be playing to the cameras and will thus installments, several months after the case was
be distracted from the proper performance of their roles - concluded -- concluded incidentally, with a
- whether as counsel, witnesses, court personnel, or verdict of acquittal.
judges -- will be allayed. The possibility that parallel
trials before the bar of justice and the bar of public No one could witness the trial without a feeling
opinion may jeopardize, or even prevent, the just of profound respect for the painstaking way in
determination of the cases can be minimized. The which the truth was searched for, for the ways
possibility that judgment will be rendered by the popular whereby law copes with uncertainties and
tribunal before the court of justice can render its own ambiguities through presumptions and burden of
will be avoided. proof, and the sense of gravity with which judge
and jury carried out their responsibilities.
At the same time, concerns about the regularity and
fairness of the trial -- which, it may be assumed, is the I agree in general with the exclusion of
concern of those opposed to, as much as of those in television from the courtroom, for the familiar
favor of, televised trials - will be addressed since the good reasons. And yet the use of television at a
tapes will not be released for public showing until after trial for documentary purposes, not for the
the decision of the cases by the Sandiganbayan. By broadcast of live news, and with the safeguards
delaying the release of the tapes, much of the problem of completeness and consent, is an educational
posed by real time TV and radio broadcast will be experiment that I would be prepared to welcome.
avoided. Properly safeguarded and with suitable
commentary, the depiction of an actual trial is an
Thus, many important purposes for preserving the record agency of enlightenment that could have few
of the trial can be served by audio-visual recordings equals in its impact on the public understanding.
without impairing the right of the accused to a fair trial.
Understanding of our legal process, so rarely
Nor is the right of privacy of the accused a bar to the provided by our educational system, is now a
production of such documentary. In Ayer Productions desperate need.7
Pty. Ltd. V. Capulong,5 this Court set aside a lower
court's injunction restraining the filming of "Four Day Professor Freund's observation is as valid today as when
Revolution," a documentary film depicting, among other it was made thirty years ago. It is perceptive for its
things, the role of then Minister of National Defense recognition of the serious risks posed to the fair
Juan Ponce Enrile in the 1986 EDSA people power. This administration of justice by live TV and radio
Court held: "A limited intrusion into a person's privacy broadcasts, especially when emotions are running high
has long been regarded as permissible where that person on the issues stirred by a case, while at the same time
is a public figure and the information sought to be acknowledging the necessity of keeping audio-visual
elicited from him or to be published about him constitute recordings of the proceedings of celebrated cases, for
matters of a public character."6 public information and exhibition, after passions have
subsided.
No one can prevent the making of a movie based on the
trial. But, at least, if a documentary record is made of the WHEREFORE, an audio-visual recording of the trial of
proceedings, any movie that may later be produced can former President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan is
be checked for its accuracy against such documentary hereby ordered to be made, for the account of the
and any attempt to distort the truth can thus be averted. Sandiganbayan, under the following conditions: (a) the
trial shall be recorded in its entirety, excepting such
Indeed, a somewhat similar proposal for documentary portions thereof as the Sandiganbayan may determine
recording of celebrated cases or causes célèbres was should not be held public under Rule 119, §21 of the
made was made way back in 1971 by Paul Freund of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; (b) cameras shall be
Harvard Law School. As he explained: installed inconspicuously inside the courtroom and the
movement of TV crews shall be regulated consistent
with the dignity and solemnity of the proceedings; (c)
 JUSTICE DAVIDE, JR. and JUSTICES BELLOSILLO, MELO, PUNO,
the audio-visual recordings shall be made for
PANGANIBAN, and QUISUMBING, vote to grant a reconsideration.
documentary purposes only and shall be made without
comment except such annotations of scenes depicted
therein as may be necessary to explain them; (d) the live 2 CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE, JR. and JUSTICES BELLOSILLO, MELO, PUNO,

broadcast of the recordings before the Sandiganbayan MENDOZA, PANGANIBAN, QUISUMBING, and GONZAGA-REYES.

shall have rendered its decision in all the cases against

the former President shall be prohibited under pain of 3 JUSTICES VITUG, KAPUNAN, PARDO, BUENA, YNARES-SANTIAGO, DE

contempt of court and other sanctions in case of LEON, and SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ.

violations of the prohibition; (e) to ensure that the

conditions are observed, the audio-visual recording of 4 R.A. No. 8492 provides in pertinent parts:
the proceedings shall be made under the supervision and
control of the Sandiganbayan or its Division concerned SEC. 7. Duties and Function. - The [National] Museum shall have the following duties
and shall be made pursuant to rules promulgated by it; and functions:
and (f) simultaneously with the release of the audio-
visual recordings for public broadcast, the original 7.1. Acquire documents, collect, preserve, maintain, administer and exhibit to the public,
thereof shall be deposited in the National Museum and cultural materials, objects of art, archaeological artifacts, ecofacts, relics and other
the Records Management and Archives Office for materials embodying the cultural and natural heritage of the Filipino national, as well as
preservation and exhibition in accordance with law. those of foreign origin. Materials relevant to the recent history of the country shall be
likewise acquired, collected, preserved, maintained, advertised and exhibited by the
SO ORDERED. Museum. (Emphasis added)

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Panganiban, and DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 13-A, dated May, 9, 1985, of the Department of Education
Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur. Culture and Sports provides:

Bellosillo, J. I am for full live coverage hence I maintain Rule 7. Transfer of Records to Archives. -
my original view; nonetheless. I concur.
7.5 Preservation of Archival Records.
Kapunan, J. I maintain my original view prohibiting live
T.V. and radio coverage and concur with the separate 7.5.1 Archival records shall be stored under one roof and authorize their accessibility to
opinion of Justice Vitug. the public, subject to certain security and safety measures to preserve the integrity of the
records.
Quisumbing, J. Although earlier I respectfully Dissented
as I favor live TV coverage, I now concur in the result. 7.5.2 It shall be the responsibility of the Archives Division to protect archival documents
in its custody and undertake corrective measures to rehabilitate weakened or brittled
Pardo, J. I concur with the denial of the motion for documents in accordance with modern techniques.
reconsideration only. The conditions are inadequate. I
join J. Vitug's opinion. 5 160 SCRA 861 (1988). Cf. Lagunzad v. Soto Vda. De Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476 (1979),
involving the novelized film on the life of Mioses Padilla, a majoralty candidate of
Buena, J. I concur with the Separate Opinion of Justice Magallon, Negros Occidental, who was murdered for political reasons at the instance of
Vitug. then Governor Rafael Lacson.

Ynares-Santiago, J. I concur with the separate opinion of 6 Id. At 870.

J. Jose Vitug.
7 Paul A. Freund, Contempt Power: Prevention, Not Retribution, TRIAL, January-
De Leon, Jr., J. I concur with Separate Opinion of February 1971 at 13.
Justice Vitug.
Separate Opinion
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. I concur but only in the denial
with finality of the MR. VITUG, J.:

Footnote Due Process is timeless. It is a precious fundamental right that secures and protects, under
a rule of law, the life, and liberty of a person from the oppression of power. A cherished
1 Nine (9) members of the Court, namely, JUSTICES VITUG, KAPUNAN, MENDOZA,
fixture in our bill of rights, its encompassing guarantee will not be diminished by
PARDO, BUENA, GONZAGA-REYES, YNARES-SANTIAGO, DE LEON, and
advances in science and technology. I fail to perceive it to be otherwise.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, vote to deny reconsideration, while six (6), namely, CHIEF
Precisely, in its 29th June 2001 decision, the Court did not consider it propitous to allow
live television and radio coverage of the trial in order to help ensure a just and fair trial.
The Court felt it judicious to insulate not only the Sandiganbayan but also the trial
participants, the lawyers and witnesses, from being unduly influenced by possible adverse
effects that such a coverage could bring. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of
the above ruling and countered that, if one must be pitted against the other, the right to
public information of grave national interest should be held more paramount than the
right of the accused to a "fair and public trial," the former being appurtenant to the
sovereign and latter being merely a privilege bestowed to an individual.

I am not ready to accept such a notion. I see it as being an implicit retreat, unwisely, from
an age-old struggle of the individual against the tyranny of the sovereign.1 The right of
the public to information, in any event, is not here really being sacrified. The right to
know can very well be achieved via other media coverage; the windows of information
through which the public might observe and learn are not closed.

In addressing the present motion for reconsideration, colleagues on the Court opine that
there should be an audio-visual recording of the proceedings for documentary purposes
because, first, the hearings are of historic significance, second, the Estrada cases involve
matters of vital concern to our people who have a fundamental right to know how their
government works; third, the audio-visual presentation is essential for education and civil
training of the people; and fourth, such recording can be used by appellate courts in the
event that the review of the proceedings, ruling, or decisions of the Sandiganbayan is
sought or becomes necessary.lawphil.net2

The proposition has novel features, regrettably, I still find it hard to believe that the
presence of the cameras inside the courtroom will not have an untoward impact on the
court proceedings. No empirical data has been shown to suggest otherwise. To the
contrary, experience attests to the intimidating effect of cameras and electronic devices in
courtrooms on the litigants, witnesses and jurors.3 In addition, the natural reticence of
witnesses at the stand can even easily be exacerbated by placing them on camera in
contravention of normal experience.4 The demeanor of the witnesses can also have an
abstruse effect on the ability of the judge to accurately assess the credibility of such
witnesses.5 The presence of cameras, for whatever reason, may not adequately address
the dangers mentioned in the Court's decision of 29 June 2001. There are just too many
imponderables.

Most importantly, it does not seem right to single out and make a spectacle of the cases
against Mr. Estrada. Dignity is a precious part of personability innate in ever human
being, and there can be no cogent excuse for impinging it even to the slightest degree. It
is not the problem of privacy that can cause concern more than the erosion of reality that
cameras tend to cast.

In the petition, albeit entitled an administrative matter, the only issue raised is whether
the case of a former President pending before the Sandiganbayan can be covered by live
television and radio broadcast. The matter now being sought to be addressed by my
esteemed colleagues is not even an issue. If it has to be considered at all, the rule must be
of general application and promulgated after a thorough study and deliberation, certainly
far more than what have been said and done in this case. Hearings, where expert opinion
is sought and given, should prove to be helpful and of value.1âwphi1.nêt

WHEREFORE, I concur but only in the denial with finality of the motion for
reconsideration.