THIRD DIVISION WHEREFORE, the evidence not being strong at exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by

the (sic) stage of the trial, this court is reason of passion, prejudice, or personal
[G.R. No. 131909. February 18, 1999] constrained to grant bail for the provisional hostility amounting to an evasion of positive
liberty of the accused Roderick Odiamar in the duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
amount of P30,000.00. (Italics supplied) enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of
vs. HON. ALFREDO CABRAL, Presiding Judge,
law. We do not find this to be so in this case.
RTC, Branch 30, Camarines Sur and RODERICK Believing that accused-respondent was not Our ruling is based not only on the respect to
ODIAMAR, Respondents. entitled to bail as the evidence against him be accorded the findings of facts of the trial
was strong, the prosecution filed the two court, which had the advantage (not available
DECISION
abovementioned motions which the lower court to Us) of having observed first-hand the quality
disposed of, thus: of the autoptic proference and the
ROMERO, J.:
documentary exhibits of the parties, as well as
WHEREFORE, the motions dated 10 May 1995
Assailed before this Court is the August 1, the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand,
and 15 May 1995 both filed by Atty. Romulo
1997 decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA but is grounded on the liberal slant given by
Tolentino, State Prosecutor, are hereby denied,
GR. No. 42318 which affirmed the March 24, the law in favor of the accused. Differently
for lack of merit.
1995 and June 14, 1996 orders2 of the lower stated, in the absence of clear, potent and

court granting accused-respondents Motion for compelling reasons, We are not prepared to
The above-cited orders prompted petitioner to
Bail and denying petitioner Peoples Motions to supplant the exercise of the respondent courts
file a petition before the Court of Appeals with
Recall and Invalidate Order of March 24, 1995 discretion with that of Our own.
prayer for temporary restraining order and
and to Recall and/or Reconsider the Order of
preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals
Still convinced by the merit of its case,
May 5, 1995 confirming the hospitalization of
denied the petition reasoning thus:
petitioner filed the instant petition submitting
accused-respondent.
the following sole issue:
We have examined in close and painstaking
Accused-respondent Roderick Odiamar was
detail the records of this case, and find that
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS
charged with rape upon the complaint of
the claim of the People that the respondent
ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
Cecille Buenafe. In a bid to secure temporary
judge had over-stepped the exercise of his
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
liberty, accused-respondent filed a motion
jurisdiction in issuing the questioned orders, is
JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED
praying that he be released on bail which
unimpressed with merit. We are not inclined to
DECISION AND RESOLUTION DESPITE A
petitioner opposed by presenting real,
declare that there was grave abuse in
SHOWING BY THE PROSECUTION THAT THERE
documentary and testimonial evidence. The
respondent courts exercise of its discretion in
IS STRONG EVIDENCE PROVING
lower court, however, granted the motion for
allowing accused to obtain bail. There is grave
RESPONDENTS GUILT FOR THE CRIME
bail in an order, the dispositive portion of
abuse of discretion where the power is
CHARGED.
which reads:
The above-submitted issue pertains to the Rightly so, because in the commission of the her part, a fact which shows voluntariness on
orders of the lower court granting accused- offense of rape the facts and circumstances the part of the offended party and, therefore,
respondents application for bail which it occuring either prior, during and subsequent to the mind of the court her claim of rape
justified through its summary of the evidence thereto may provide conclusion whether they should not be received with precipitate
presented during the hearing. Said order may negate the commission thereof by the credulity. On the contrary, an insight into the
states, thus: accused (People v. Flores, L-6065, October 26, human nature is necessary (People v. Barbo,
1986). If they negate, they do presuppose that 56 SCRA 495). And it is only when the
Now going over the evidence adduced in the evidence for the prosecution is not strong. testimony is impeccable and rings true
conjunction with the petition for bail filed by More so, because in the instant case, the facts throughout where it shall be believed (People
the accused through counsel, the court and circumstances showing that they do seem v. Tapao, G.R. No. L-41704, October 23,
believes that the evidence so far presented by to negate the commission thereof were mostly 1981). Rightly so, because the aphorism that
the prosecution is not strong. This is so brought out during the cross-examination. As evidence to be believed must not only proceed
because the crime of rape is not to be such, they deserve full faith and credence from the mouth of a credible witness but it
presumed; consent and not physical force is because the purpose thereof is to test accuracy must be credible in itself in conformity with the
the common origin of acts between man and and truthfulness and freedom from interest common experience and observation of
woman. Strong evidence and indication of and bias or the reverse (Rule 132, Sec. 6, mankind is nowhere of moral relevance than in
great weight alone support such presumption. Revised Rules of Evidence). The facts and cases involving prosecution of rape (People v.
It is the teaching of applicable doctrines that circumstances brought up are as follow, to wit: Macatangay, 107 Phil. 188);
form the defense in rape prosecution. In the
final analysis, it is entitled to prevail, not a) That, when the offended party Cecille b) That, in that resort, when the accused
necessarily because the untarnished truth is on Buenafe rode in the jeepney then driven by the Roderick Odiamar and companions allegedly
its side but merely because it can raise accused Roderick Odiamar in that evening of forced the offended party Cecille Buenafe to
reasonable, not fanciful doubts. It has the right July 20, 1994 at about 8:00 oclock from the drink gin, the latter, at first, refused and even
to require the complainant (sic) strong Poblacion, Lagonoy, Camarines Sur the former did not swallow it but later on voluntarily took
evidence and an indication of great weight knew that it was for a joy ride. In fact, she did four (4) shots there shows that there (was) no
(People v. Godoy, G.R. No. L-31177, July 15, not even offer any protest when the said force. And as regards the claim that the
1976), and in the instant case, the reasonable jeepney proceeded to the Pilapil Beach resort accused Roderick Odiamar and companions
doubt is on the evidence of the prosecution, at Telegrafo, San Jose, Camarines Sur instead allegedly forced the said offended party to
more so, because the intrinsic nature of the of Sabang, same municipality, where she and inhale smoke, out of a small cigarette,
crime, the conviction or the acquittal of the Stephen Florece intended to go. And when the presumably a marijuana, it becomes doubtful
accused depends almost entirely on the said jeepney was already inside that resort, because the prosecution, however, failed to
credibility of the complainant (People v. Cecille even followed the accused in going present any portion of that so-called small
Oliquino, G.R. No. 94703, May 31, 1993). down from the jeepney also without protest on cigarette much less did it present an expert
witness to show that inhaling of smoke from d) That, after the alleged commission of rape caused by repeated penetration of a male sex
the said cigarette would cause dizziness. at about 3:00 oclock in the early morning of organ probably showing that the offended
Rightly so, because administration of narcotics July 21, 1994, the offended party, Cecille, party might have experienced sexual
is covered by Art. 335, par. 2 Revised Penal Stephen Florece and the latters companions all intercourse. This piece of testimony coming
Code (People v. Giduces C.A. 38 O.C. 1434 boarded the same jeepney going back to the from an expert, such finding is binding to court
cited in the Revised Penal Code, Aquino, Poblacion of Lagonoy, without the said (Rules of Court, Moran, op.cit, vol 5, 1963, ed.
Vol.III, pp. 392). As such, the burden of proof offended party, protesting, crying or in any pp. 413).
rests with the prosecution but it failed to do way showing sign of grief regarding the alleged
so; commission of the offense of rape until the f) That the offended party, Cecille Buenafe

jeepney reached the house of Roderick accompanied by the Station Commander of

c) That, in that cottage where the accused, Odiamar where the latter parked it. As in other Lagonoy, Camarines Sur, proceeded to Naga
Roderick Odiamar allegedly brought the cases, the testimony of the offended party City and upon the suggestion of Gov. Bulaong,
offended party, Cecille Buenafe, the former shall not be accepted unless her sincerity and the said offended party submitted for medical
was able to consummate the alleged offense of candor are free from suspicion, because the treatment before the same physician per
rape by removing the two (2) hands of the nature of the offense of rape is an accusation medical certificate dated August 1, 1994 but
offended party, placed them on her knee, easy to be made, hard to be proved but harder according to the said physician the lesions near
separating them thereby freeing the said hand to be defended by the party accused though the umbilicus were due to skin diseases but the
and consequently pushed the head of the innocent (People v. Francisco G.R. No. L- said offended party claim they were made by
accused but the latter was able to insert his 43789, July 15, 1981). It becomes necessary, the accused after the sexual acts. As such,
penis when the said offended party was no therefore, for the courts to exercise the most there were contradictions on material points, it
longer moving and the latter became tired. painstaking care in scrutinizing the testimony becomes of doubtful veracity (People v. Palicte
Neither evidence has been presented to show of the witnesses for the prosecution (People v. 83 Phil.) and it also destroys the testimony
that the offended party suffered an injury Dayag, L-30619, March 29, 1974); (People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 13086, March 27,
much less any part of her pants or blouse was 1961). As to the fact that the said lesion was
torn nor evidence to show that there was an e) That the offended party, Cecille Buenafe had made by the accused subsequent to the
overpowering and overbearing moral influence herself physically examined by Dr. Josephine commission of the act, it is immaterial. As
of the accused towards the offended party Decena for medical certificate dated July 27, such, it has no probative value.
(People v. Mabunga, G.R. No. 96441d, March 1994 and it states, among others, that there
13, 1992) more so, because force and violence was a healed laceration on the hymen, her The lower court concluded that the evidence of

in the offense of rape are relative terms, laceration might have been sustained by the guilt was not strong.

depending on the age, size and strength of the said offended party, a month, six (6) months,
The Office of the Solicitor General disagreed
parties and their relation to each other (People and even a year, prior to the said examination
with the lower court. It opined that aside from
v. Erogo, 102077 January 4, 1994); and that the said laceration might have been
failing to include some pieces of evidence in Fifth. The fact that after the conduct of two (2) implying that respondent could not have
the summary, the trial court also misapplied preliminary investigations, no bail was committed the crime is highly misplaced.
some well-established doctrines of criminal recommended in the information constitutes
law. The Office of the Solicitor General pointed clear and strong evidence of the guilt of (all) Dr. Decena herself testified that she cannot tell

out the following circumstances duly presented the accused (Baylon v. Sison, 243 SCRA 284 how old is an old hymenal laceration because

in the hearing for bail: [1995]. she cannot indicate when an old laceration was
inflicted and that from the size of the vagina
First. There was no ill motive on the part of Sixth. Cecille categorically testified on re-cross she could not point the exact cause (Pages 7-
Cecille to impute the heinous crime of rape examination (pages 5-7, Order) that 10, TSN, December 9, 1994). Nevertheless,
against respondent (People v. Paragsa, 83 respondent succeeded in forcibly deflowering proof of hymenal laceration is not
SCRA 105 [1978]; People v. Delovino, 247 her because she was already weak and dizzy indispensable in indictments for rape as a
SCRA 637 [1995]). due to the effect of the smoke and the gin. Her broken hymen is not an essential element of
declarations remain unrebutted. the crime (People v. Echegaray, 257 SCRA 561
Second. Dr. Belmonte, the psychiatrist who [1996]). Further, in crimes against chastity,
attended to Cecille testified that based on her Seventh. Cecille categorically testified that she the medical examination of the victims
psychiatric examination of the latter, Cecille performed acts manifesting her lament, genitalia is not an indispensable element for
manifested psychotic signs and symptoms such torment and suffering due to the rape. She the successful prosecution of the crime. The
as unusual fear, sleeplessness, suicidal went to Stephen Florece, cried and complained examination is merely corroborative in nature.
thoughts, psychomotor retardation, poverty of about the incident. Instead of helping her, (People v. Arce, 227 SCRA 406 [1993]).
thought content as well as depressive signs Florece threatened to harm her and her family.
and symptoms. These abnormal psychological (Pages 9-13, November 17, 1994). The Ninth. With respect to the cigarette wounds,
manifestations, according to Dr. Belmonte, are statements of Cecille are positive statements Dr. Decena positively testified that the wounds
traceable to the rape incident (Pages 5-7, TSN, which, under existing jurisprudence, are could have been caused by cigarette butts as
November 22, 1994.) stronger than the denials put forth by alleged by the victim (Page 6, TSN, December
respondent (Batiquin v. Court of Appeals, 258 9, 1994) which confirms Cecilles testimony
Third. The unrebutted offer of compromise by SCRA 334 [1996]). (quoted in the Order at page 9) that
respondent is an implied admission of guilt respondent burned her right side of the
(People v. Flore, 239 SCRA 83 [1994]). Eight. The reliance by trial court on the stomach thrice.
testimony of Dr. Decena to the effect that the
Fourth. Cecille was threatened by a deadly lacerations suffered by Cecille might have been The above points are well taken and have
weapon and rendered unconscious by sustained by the latter a month, six (6) impressed upon this Court the merits of the
intoxication and inhalation of marijuana months or even a year prior to the examination instant petition.
smoke. (Page 12 (e), Order, March 24, 1995) thus
The 1987 Constitution in Article III, Section 13 of guilt is strong which the lower court should In other words, the test is not whether the
of the Bill of Rights provides: determine in a hearing called for the purpose. evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable
The determination of whether the evidence of doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt
All persons, except those charged with guilt is strong, in this regard, is a matter of or a great presumption of guilt. As such, the
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua judicial discretion. While the lower court would court is ministerially bound to decide which
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before never be deprived of its mandated prerogative circumstances and factors are present which
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or to exercise judicial discretion, this Court would would show evident guilt or presumption of
be released on recognizance as may be unhesitatingly reverse the trial courts findings guilt as defined above.10cräläwvirtualibräry
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be if found to be laced with grave abuse of
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of discretion. This Court has observed that the lower courts
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail order failed to mention and include some
shall not be required. (Italics supplied) By judicial discretion, the law mandates the significant factors and circumstances which, to
determination of whether proof is evident or the mind of this Court are strong, clear and
In view of the above exception to the the presumption of guilt is strong.6 Proof convincing. First, it excluded the testimony of
constitutional guarantee on bail and in evident or Evident proof in this connection Dr. Belmonte about her psychiatric
accordance with its rule-making powers,3 the has been held to mean clear, strong evidence examination of the victim as well as her
Supreme Court, in promulgating the Rules of which leads a well-guarded dispassionate findings that the latter manifested psychotic
Court, adopted the following provision: judgment to the conclusion that the offense signs and symptoms such as unusual fear,
has been committed as charged, that accused sleeplessness, suicidal thoughts, psychomotor
Sec. 7. No person charged with a capital
is the guilty agent, and that he will probably be retardation, poverty of thought content as well
offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
punished capitally if the law is as depressive signs and symptom.11 This
perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence
administered.7 Presumption great exists particular testimony should have been
of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail
when the circumstances testified to are such considered and included in the summary as it
regardless of the stage of the criminal
that the inference of guilt naturally to be drawn was given by an expert witness. Second, the
prosecution.4 (Italics supplied)
therefrom is strong, clear, and convincing to unrebutted offer of compromise by accused-
an unbiased judgment and excludes all respondent is an implied admission of guilt
In this case, accused-respondent was being
reasonable probability of any other which should have been noted as an offer of a
charged with rape qualified by the use of a
conclusion.8 Even though there is a reasonable compromise is generally considered as
deadly weapon punishable by reclusion
doubt as to the guilt of accused, if on an admissible evidence against the party making
perpetua to death.5 As such, bail is
examination of the entire record the it.12cräläwvirtualibräry
discretionary and not a matter of right. The
presumption is great that accused is guilty of a
grant or denial of an application for bail is,
capital offense, bail should be Aside from failing to mention those important
therefore, dependent on whether the evidence
refused.9 (Emphasis and Italics supplied) pieces of evidence and testimonies, this Court
has likewise observed that the lower court It must also be stressed that Cecille testified intoxicated and deprived of will or reason. The
misappplied some doctrines in criminal law. that she was forced by respondent to drink gin resulting weakness and dizziness which
First, the lower court, in its order, intoned the with the help of his friends by holding her hair deprived Cecille of reason, will and freedom
following doctrine that evidence to be believed and putting the glass on her mouth (Pages 5- must be viewed in light of her perception and
must not only proceed from the mouth of a 7, TSN, November 17, 1994). More, judgment at the time of the commission of the
credible witness but it must be credible in itself respondent and his friends blew smoke into her crime, and not by any hard and fast rule
in conformity with common experience and face forcing her to inhale the intoxicating because in rape cases, submission does not
observation of mankind. smoke. Whenever she attempted to leave the necessarily imply volition. (Querido , 229 SCRA
place, she was forced to sit down by Odiamar 745 [1994])
According to the lower court, the credibility of and his friends (Pages 6-7, TSN, November 17,
the complainant is suspect because she 1994). It must likewise be taken into consideration
willingly went with accused-respondent to the that when Cecille went with the group of
resort where she was allegedly raped. In the Similarly, Cecille categorically declared that accused-respondent, she was of the impression
scene of the crime, complainant allegedly she was threatened by Florece with a gun that it was just for a joy ride. The conclusion
voluntarily drank four shots of gin. The (Page 17, TSN, November 17, 1994). made by the trial court that Cecille must have
complainant, likewise, never protested nor consented to the sexual act because she
cried while they were on their way to accused- The requirement of force and intimidation in acquiesced to go with them in the first place is,
respondents house. Because of those findings, the crime of rape are relative and must be therefore, bereft of any legal or factual
the lower court doubted the credibility of viewed in light of the victims perspective and support, if not non sequitur. That she agreed
complainant and stated that the crime of rape the offenders physical condition (People v. to accompany them for a joy ride does not
is not to be presumed and that sexual acts Plaza, 242 SCRA 724 [1995]). Further, mean that she also agreed to the bestial acts
between a man and a woman are presumed to physical resistance need not be established in later committed against her person.
be consensual. In overcoming such rape when intimidation is exercised upon the

presumption, much depends on the credibility victim and the latter submits herself against Second, the lower court stated that force and

of the complainant. her will because of fear for life and personal violence in the offense of rape are relative
safety. (People v. Ramos, 245 SCRA 405 terms, depending on the age, size and strength
This Court cannot agree. First, there was no [1995]) of the parties and their relation to each other.
finding of any ill-motive on the part of The lower court enunciated this doctrine in
complainant in filing the rape charge against In this case, Cecille was only fifteen (15) years finding that the alleged rape was actually a
accused-respondent. This should have been old at the time of the incident in question. At consensual act since the prosecution was
taken into consideration. The following rebuttal her age, it is reasonable to assume that a shot unable to show that complainant suffered any
of petitioner to the findings of the lower court of gin rendered her tipsy. Thus, four (4) shots injury nor show any evidence that her pants or
is more credible: of gin must have rendered her dizzy, blouse was torn. Neither was there any
evidence that accused-respondent exerted expert witness to show that inhaling of smoke intercourse, after the examining physician had
overpowering and overbearing moral influence from the said cigarette would cause the said testified that the hymenal lacerations might
over the offended party. offended party to suffer weakness and have been sustained a month, six months or
dizziness. Said ratiocination is trifling and even a year prior to the examination.
This Court is of the impression that when the unpersuasive. In fact, it is even misleading as Interestingly, the lower court failed to mention
lower court invoked the above doctrine, it complainant categorically asserted that what that Dr. Decena also testified that she cannot
readily concluded that complainant agreed to made her weak and dizzy were the smoke of tell how old is an old hymenal laceration
the sexual act disregarding testimonies lending the cigarette and the intoxicating effect of four because she cannot indicate when an old
credence to complainants allegation that she shots of gin, not the inhalation of the smoke laceration was inflicted and that from the size
was threatened and intimidated as well as alone. In any case, complainant could not be of the vagina she could not point the exact
rendered weak and dizzy, not only by the expected to produce that portion of that so- cause.
smoke of the marijuana cigarette but also by called small cigarette. Moreover, one does not
intoxication, thereby facilitating the need an expert witness to testify on what is This Court views this apparent lapse on the
commission of the crime. It was not imperative common knowledge - that four shots of gin part of the lower court with concern and
for the prosecution, in order to prove the have a weakening and dizzying effect on the agrees with petitioner, in accordance with well
elements of force or intimidation to show that drinker, especially one as young as the fifteen- established jurisprudence, that proof of
Cecille had broken limbs or that her blouse or year old complainant. hymenal laceration is not indispensable in
pants were torn. Her testimony to that effect indictments for rape as a broken hymen is not
would have sufficed. Nevertheless, the More disturbing than the above misapplication an essential element of the crime. Further, in
prosecution still exerted efforts to corroborate of criminal law doctrines is the lower courts crimes against chastity, the medical
Cecilles claim by presenting the examining misinterpretation of the medical findings and examination of the victims genitalia is not an
physician who testified that Cecille suffered deliberate withholding of some testimonies indispensable element for the successful
hymenal lacerations and lesions near the which would have shown a very strong prosecution of the crime. The examination is
umbilicus area. Unfortunately, however, the likelihood that complainant could indeed have merely corroborative in nature.13 And contrary
lower court chose to ignore these telling pieces been raped. The following pieces of evidence to the theory espoused by the lower court, a
of evidence. cited in the summary of the assailed order are hymenal laceration is not conclusive proof that
indications of misleading findings: one is experienced in sexual intercourse.
In addition, the lower court doubted
complainants allegation that she was forced to First, the lower court did not lend any credence Second, the lower court highlighted the
smoke a small cigarette, presumably to the medical certificate issued after testimony of Dr. Decena to the effect that the
marijuana, due to the fact that the prosecution complainants physical examination. On the cigarette burns indicated that the lesions near
failed to present any portion of that so-called contrary, it interpreted it to mean that the complainants umbilicus were due to skin
small cigarette much less did it present an offended party is already experienced in sexual diseases. Notably, however, the lower court
again failed to mention that Dr. Decena governed by rule, not by humour; it must not Lending credence to petitioners case is the fact
likewise positively testified that the wounds be arbitrary, vague and fanciful; but legal and that after the conduct of two (2) preliminary
could have been caused by cigarette butts as regular. investigations, no bail was recommended in
alleged by the victim which corroborates the information. According to Baylon v.
Cecilles testimony that respondent burned her The fact that vital prosecution evidence and Sison,15 such recommendation constitutes
right side of the stomach thrice. testimonies have been irregularly disregarded clear and strong evidence of guilt of the
indicate that they have not been considered at accused.
It is thus indicative from the above all in arriving at the decision to grant bail. This
observations that the lower court abused its irregularity is even more pronounced with the Aside from the apparent abuse of discretion in
discretion and showed manifest bias in favor of misapplication of the two criminal law doctrines determining which circumstances and pieces of
accused-respondent in determining which cited to support the grant of the bail evidence are to be considered, the lower court
circumstances are to be considered in application. This Court cannot help but observe also did not strictly comply with jurisprudential
supporting its decision as to the guilt of that the lower court exerted painstaking efforts guidelines in the exercise of discretion. As
accused-respondent. In this regard, it must be to show that the evidence of guilt of accused- reiterated in Carpio v. Maglalang,16 discretion
remembered that the discretion to be respondent is not strong by its non is guided by: first, the applicable provisions of
exercised in granting or denying bail, according sequitur justifications, misleading or the Constitution and the statutes; second, by
to Basco v. Rapatalo14 is not absolute nor unsupported conclusions, irregular disregard of the rules which this Court may promulgate;
beyond control. It must be sound, and vital prosecution evidence and strained and third, by those principles of equity and
exercised within reasonable bounds. Judicial interpretation, if not misinterpretation, of justice that are deemed to be part of the laws
discretion, by its very nature, involves the criminal law doctrines. of the land.
exercise of the judges individual opinion. It is
because of its very nature that the law has It is the view of this Court that: (1) the The present Constitution, as previously

wisely provided that its exercise be guided by testimony of Dr. Decena confirming adverted to, provides that in crimes punishable

well-known rules which, while allowing the complainants allegation that accused- by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is

judge rational latitude for the operation of his respondent burned the right side of her strong, bail is not a matter of right. This Court

own individual views, prevent them from stomach with cigarette butts, (2) the testimony has reiterated this mandate in Section 7, Rule

getting out of control. An uncontrolled or of Dr. Belmonte stating that complainant 14 of the Rules of Court. Recently, this Court

uncontrollable discretion on the part of a judge exhibited psychological manifestations which laid down the following rules in Basco v. Judge

is a misnomer. It is a fallacy. Lord Mansfield, are traceable to the rape incident, and (3) the Rapatalo17which outlined the duties of a judge

speaking of the discretion to be exercised in unrebutted offer of compromise, are in case an application for bail is filed:

granting or denying bail said: But discretion indications of the strength of the evidence of

when applied to a court of justice, means guilt of accused-respondent.

sound discretion guided by law. It must be

(1) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the prior hearing is formally recognized as having selective inclusion of pieces of evidence for the
application for bail or require him to submit his been presented and most importantly, prosecution in the order cannot be considered
recommendation; considered. The failure to include every piece a summary, for a summary is necessarily a
of evidence in the summary presented by the reasonable recital of any evidence presented
(2) Conduct a hearing of the application for prosecution in their favor during the prior by the prosecution. A summary that is
bail regardless of whether or not the hearing would be tantamount to not giving incomplete is not a summary at all. According
prosecution refuses to present evidence to them the opportunity to be heard in said to Borinaga v. Tamin,22 the absence of a
show that the guilt of the accused is strong for hearing, for the inference would be that they summary in the order would make said order
the purpose of enabling the court to exercise were not considered at all in weighing the defective in form and substance. Corollarily, an
its discretion; evidence of guilt. Such would be a denial of order containing an incomplete summary
due process, for due process means not only would likewise be defective in form and
(3) Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the
giving every contending party the opportunity substance which cannot be sustained or be
accused is strong based on the summary of
to be heard but also for the Court to consider given a semblance of validity. In Carpio v.
evidence of the prosecution; (Italics supplied)
every piece of evidence presented in their Maglalang,23 said order was considered
favor.20 Second, the summary of the evidence defective and voidable. As such, the order
(4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong,
in the order is the basis for the judges granting or denying the application for bail
discharge the accused upon the approval of the
exercising his judicial discretion. Only after may be invalidated.24cräläwvirtualibräry
bailbond. Otherwise, petition should be denied.
weighing the pieces of evidence as contained in
the summary will the judge formulate his own WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Based on the above-cited procedure and
conclusion as to whether the evidence of guilt decision dated August 1, 1997 and the
requirements, after the hearing, the courts
against the accused is strong based on his resolution dated December 22, 1997 in CA
order granting or refusing bail must contain a
discretion.21 (Emphasis supplied) G.R. No. 42318 are REVERSED and the order
summary of the evidence for the
dated March 24, 1995 in Criminal Case No. T-
prosecution.18 A summary is defined as a
Based on the above-stated reasons, the 1417 is declared void for having been issued in
comprehensive and usually brief abstract or
summary should necessarily be a complete grave abuse of discretion. The court a
digest of a text or
compilation or restatement of all the pieces of quo shall immediately issue a warrant for the
statement.19cräläwvirtualibräry
evidence presented during the hearing proper. rearrest of Roderick Odiamar if his bail bond
The lower court cannot exercise judicial has been approved and thereafter, proceed
There are two corollary reasons for the
discretion as to what pieces of evidence should with dispatch in the disposition of said case.
summary. First, the summary of the evidence
be included in the summary. While conceding This resolution is immediately executory.
in the order is an extension of the hearing
that some prosecution evidence were
proper, thus, a part of procedural due process
enumerated, said enumeration was SO ORDERED.
wherein the evidence presented during the
incomplete. An incomplete enumeration or
 EN BANC in an Information dated December 9, 1982. He Barangay Balingasa in
entered a plea of "Not Guilty" with the Balintawak, where he saw
G.R. No. L-69564 January 29, 1988 assistance of counsel Atty. Hipolito de Peralta Amadeo Abuyen in the store
upon arraignment on March 2, 1983. of Colonel Samson drinking
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- beer with three companions,
appellee, On March 29, 1983, the Information was one of whom he later Identified
vs. amended to include accused-appellant as the appellant Macario
JUAN ESCOBER y GERALDE, MACARIO Macario Punzalan, Jr. as one of the accused Punzalan, Jr. [pp. 4-11, tsn,
PUNZALAN, JR., y GUEVARRA, RICHARD therein. He, too, pleaded "Not Guilty" during April 22, 19831.
DOE, PETER DOE AND JUAN DOE, the arraignment on April 22, 1983, assisted by
accused. JUAN ESCOBER y GERALDE and court-appointed counsel, Atty. Benigno After Rocero had left his point,
MACARIO PUNZALAN, JR., y Mariano, who at that time had replaced Atty. (sic) Vicente Chua went to his
GUEVARRA, accused-appellants. Hipolito de Peralta as counsel de parte for office at the Bee Seng
Juan Escober. Electrical Supply as he usually
G.R. No. L-69658 January 29, 1988 does after office hours,
A joint trial of the accused ensued. The accompanied by his 13-year
prosecution presented its evidence, old son Irvin and 6-year old
JUAN ESCOBER y GERALDE, petitioner,
summarized by the Solicitor General in his daughter Tiffany On their way,
vs.
Consolidated Brief, as follows: he saw appellant Escober at
HON. OSCAR LEVISTE, PRESIDING
his post. At the office, the two
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
One of the alleged co- children watched a television
BRANCH XCVII, QUEZON CITY and
conspirator (sic), Amadeo program, as their father
PEOPLE OF THE
Abuyen alias Roberto proceeded to the bathroom to
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Alorte, * was formerly a co-security take a bath [pp. 10-17, tsn,
guard of appellant Juan Escober at the Sept. 14, 1983].
Bee Seng Electrical Supply, Inc., a family
corporation owned by the couple Vicente
Chua and Lina Chua. It is located inside a Meanwhile, Abuyen and his
FERNAN, J.: walled compound about 50 meters away three companions rode a
from the residence of its owner, at 24 Joy
Street, Grace Village, Balintawak, Quezon tricycle and proceeded to the
These consolidated cases originated from the decision rendered
by Judge Oscar Leviste in Criminal Case No. Q-22896 of the
City. About 4 months prior to the incident, Bee Seng Electrical Supply.
Abuyen was relieved by Domingo Rocero
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch XCVII, finding the
for being always absent and found
Upon alighting thereat,
accused-appellants Juan Escober y Geralde and Macario Abuyen knocked at the little
sleeping while on duty. [pp. 5-8, tsn, Aug.
Punzalan, Jr. y Guevarra guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
16, 1983; pp. 2-10, tsn, Sept. 14, 1983; pp. door of the gate. Appellant
crime of Robbery with Homicide, sentencing them to suffer the
6-8, tsn, April 22, 1983).
supreme penalty of DEATH and to pay jointly and severally the Escober, peeped thru the hole
heirs of the victims compensatory damages of P12,000.00 for
each of the victims and moral damages of P200,000.00 G.R. No. and opened the door. Then
69564 is the automatic review of the death sentence while G.R.
At the time of the incident on after Abuyen had talked with
No. 69658 is a petition for review on certiorari of said decision, December 3, 1982, Rocero's Escober, the former asked
the recourse taken by accused-appellant Juan Escober 'to cut tour of duty was from 7:00 in
short that long period of wait for a final resolution of his fate." 1 Punzalan to wait outside, while
the morning to 7:00 in the he (Abuyen) and his two other
evening. He left his post at companions went inside [pp.
Juan Escober, together with four unidentified about 7:30 P.M. that evening
persons designated as John Doe, Peter Doe, 4-5, tsn, Nov. 9, 1983].
after he was relieved by
Richard Doe and Juan Doe, were charged appellant Juan Escober. On
with the crime of Robbery with Homicide At this juncture, the victims'
his way home, he passed by
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City mother, Mrs. Lina B. Chua, left
their residence to join her Immediately, he went out and investigation [pp. 3-9, tsn, July
husband and two children. On shouted for help from his wife 5, 1983].
her way, she noticed that the to bring out the car as their
pedestrian gate was wide children was (sic) stabbed and Corporal Ibuan handed to
open with the appellant bleeding. Forthwith, she got Francisco a blood-stained
Punzalan standing there. She one car, while her eldest son blade of a scissor (Exhibit "E")
shouted why the gate was drove a second one. After which the former said was
opened, but nobody Vicente Chua had brought the found beside the pool of blood
answered. Suddenly, she two wounded children inside inside the room where the
heard of shot coming from the the two cars, they were incident happened. In the
direction of the garage; and brought to the Chinese course of his investigation,
when she looked thereat, she General Hospital where they Francisco noticed that the
saw Abuyen and the appellant were pronounced dead upon drawers inside the office of
Escober walking towards the arrival. [pp. 22-26, tsn, Aug. Vicente Chua were forcibly
gate. So, she rushed back 16, 1983; pp. 13-14, tsn, Sept. opened with its (sic) contents
inside the house to contact her 14, 1983]. scattered. Upon subsequent
husband through the intercom. interview with Vicente, he
But since the intercom was out It was about 8:45 in the likewise learned that cash
of order, she hurriedly went evening of December 3, 1982 amounting to P5,000.00 was
outside and met appellant when Police Investigator taken by the culprits in one of
Escober who volunteered the Oscar Francisco was said drawers [pp. 9-13, Ibid].
information "that he was not dispatched to investigate the
hit." [pp. 9-20, tsn, Aug. 16, incident. And, since the victims Thereafter, Francisco invited
1983]. were already brought to the for questioning at the Police
Chinese General Hospital, he Headquarters appellant
Upon the other hand, Vicente was instructed to proceed Escober, the security guard on
Chua was inside the thereto. When he arrived at duty then at the Bee Seng
bathroom, when he heard the the hospital at past 9.00 Electrical Supply, who
gunshot. He hurriedly went out o'clock P.M., he found the voluntarily gave his version of
and saw her (sic) son Irvin victims already dead. the incident (Exhibit "F").
lying on the sofa while her Whereupon, he conducted a Aside from that of Escober,
(sic) daughter Tiffany was cursory examination of the the written statements of the
lying on the floor, both mortally victim and indicated on two victims' parents, Vicente Chua
wounded. Beside her (sic) separate sketches (Exhibits and Lina B. Chua, were also
daughter, he saw a scissor "C" and "D"), the 12 and 11 taken (Exhibits "G" & "H",
blade [Exhibit 'E' fun of blood. stab wounds sustained by Irvin respectively). Thereafter,
He also observed that Chua and Tiffany Chua, Francisco referred on
everything was scattered in his respectively. From there, he December 8, 1983 [sic]
office, with all Ms drawers proceeded to the scene of the (Exhibit "I") the result of his
opened. Later, he found out crime, where he met Corporal investigation to the City Fiscal
that the P5,000.00 cash he Ibuan Pat. Robanera and a who wrote at the left hand
kept in one of the drawers was police photographer, who margin thereon the following
lost [pp. 1314, 31-36, tsn, arrived to assist him in the notations: "Detained the
Sept. 14, 1983]. accused all prima facie case
exist(s) and that accused is Escober [pp. 25-26, Ibid; pp. security guards used to clean
probably guilty thereof. No bail 2-12, tsn, July 6, 1983]. the guardhouse. As security
recommended. [pp. 13- guard, he had a gun but on
23, Ibid]. Thus, in his second referral this occasion he left it in the
dated December 13, 1983 [sic] locker because he was
Subsequently, on the morning (Exhibit "J") to the Fiscal, cleaning the guardhouse.
of December 10, 1982, the Police Investigator Francisco Then when he was to throw
police apprehended the named the five [5] accused as: the garbage, Alorte arrived
appellant Punzalan, who in a Juan Escober y Geralde, and talked to him because he,
police line-up was readily Macario Punzalan, Jr. y Alorte alias Abuyen, wanted
Identified by the victims' Guevarra, Amadeo Abuyen y to, and two men [also accused
mother, Una Chua, as one of Alorte, alias Florante Bato, named Does as they are also
those she saw standing at the alias Dodong and a certain still at large] entered and one
open gate of their compound Peter Doe, albeit, only the man [co-accused Punzalan]
during the night of the incident herein two appellants were was left at the gate. Escober
on December 2 (sic), 1982. apprehended. [pp. 7-8, tsn, was not able to talk to Alorte
Another statement (Exhibit July 6, 1983]. 2 alias Abuyen because when
"F") was, therefore, taken on Alorte came, one of his
December 10, 1982 from the Thereafter, accused-appellant Juan Escober companions aimed a gun at
victims' mother to supplement took the witness stand to testify in his Escober and also a knife and
the previous statement she defense. His testimony is deed in his Brief, they said they would kill him.
gave on December 8, 1982. thus: He does not know the man
Also taken on even date were who aimed a gun at him. He
the statements of Security only knows Alorte because he
Escober was then a Security
Guard Jesus Zaragosa Alorte used to be his co-guard
guard and belonged to the
(Exhibit "K") and that of at Vising Electrical Supply.
Western Private Detective
Virginia Alorte Abuyen, the They then asked Escober to
Security since January 1, 1982
mother of one of the suspects get into (climbed) the pick- up
and was assigned at Vising
who claimed that her son, car inside the garage and the
Electrical Supply at Joyce St.
Amadeo Abuyen, mentioned other man was pointing a gun
Grace Village, Balintawak,
to her his four [4] companions, at Escober. Alorte and his
Quezon City,owned by Vicente
including the herein two companion went up the Vising
Chua and Lina Saw Chua. On
appellants, in the commission Electrical Supply. Escober
December 3, 1982, at 7 p.m.
of the crime. Even appellant does not know the real name
he reported for work. When his
Punzalan waived his of Alorte; all the (sic) knows is
companion left and he arrived
constitutional rights under Roberto Alorte. Escober does
(to take over) he cleaned the
custodial investigation and not know the man who was left
guardhouse, a routinary work
voluntarily and willingly gave near the gate but he knows
because Mr. and Mrs. Chua
his statement (Exhibit "M") him by face and he was then
did not like to see the
wherein he did not only admit in the courtroom and he
guardhouse dirty and also
his participation in the pointed to the person who
because after the security
commission of the crime, but answered by the name of
guard leaves, the security
also implicated appellant Juan Macario Punzalan, Jr., his co-
guard on duty must clean it.
accused. Escober did not see
There was a janitor but the
what Punzalan was doing Chua went back and got the the precinct to get his
because he, Escober, was car, parked it and returned to statement and there the police
made to climb the vehicle the office. When Mr. Chua was forcing him to adroit he
(pick-up). At this point, his gun went out of the office, he was was the one who robbed and
was in the locker. He was not bringing his son and placed killed the children of the Chuas
able to get that gun when him at the parked car of the and he told them do not know
these four men entered office. When Chua returned to everything. The testimony of
because a gun was already the office (after he called Mrs. Chua that she saw him
pointed at him. Alorte took Escober) and came back out, together with Abuyen Alorte
Escober's gun from the locker Escober saw him with his son inside the garage is not true
because he was formerly a and placed him at the balcony. because he was the one who
security guard at Vising The two children who were told Mrs. Chua that their
Electrical Supply for 3 or 4 stabbed were carried in two children were being stabbed.
months. He does not know cars because there were only When Alorte and his
why Alorte did not continue his two cars at the driveway. companions left, Mrs. Chua
work there. After 5 minutes, Escober opened the gate. He was finding (sic) to call him
after the two men went up the does not know to what hospital (Escober). When he was
office, they came down and they went. After that, he called brought to the precinct, the
talked to the man guarding Jeffrey one of the sons of the investigator was typing
Escober and Alorte fired at Chuas, so he could help him something. Escober could
him. He was not hit for he was (Escober) call the police. recall/remember only his
able to avoid it and after that, Jeffrey was not able to call the signature. He Identified his
the four men suddenly left. police because when Jeffrey statement, Exhibit I for the
Escober went down from the gave him a directory and defense, Exh. F for the
pickup and he heard Vicente asked him (Escober) to look prosecution. He narrated it
Chua calling him and he for the telephone number of there exactly. The signature
responded. Chua asked him to the police but he told Jeffrey to there are his. He knows the
call Mrs. Chua at the house look it up himself because his police who investigated him
because, according to Chua, eyes were blurred. After 15 but he does not know the
their children were stabbed. minutes, the police came and person. Escober was at the
So Escober went to the house after that, the owner of the precinct when he signed his
and called Mrs. Chua. When security agency arrived. Other statement. He was there up
Mr. Chua called him, Alorte policemen not in uniform also (sic) October 3, 1983, the date
and his companions were no arrived. They interviewed he testified in court (tsn, 2-
longer at the place for, after Escober and forced him to go 13). 3
firing, they hurriedly left. with them to the police
Escober was able to call Mrs. precinct. He refused because Accused-appellant Macario Punzalan, Jr.
Chua and she and he, the owner of the agency had likewise testified in his defense. The gist of his
together, returned to Vising not then arrived. When owner testimony is found in his Brief as follows:
Electrical Supply and upon arrived, he called another
reaching the place, Mr. Chua security guard to guard the PUNZALAN testified on his
was shouting and he could not Vising Electrical Supply. The own behalf (his direct
understand him because he police and the owner of the testimony is found in TSN, pp.
was speaking in Chinese. Mrs. security brought Escober to 2-35, Nov. 9, 1983).
PUNZALAN is a fruit vendor at them with blood stains in their when they gave (him) the
"the market of Monumento." In arms;' that ABUYEN/ALORTE electric shock treatment;" and
the afternoon of 3 December and his companions started that the portions of Exh. "M"
1982, according to running and he followed them; which are incorrect are those
PUNZALAN, he accepted the that in response to his query Identified as Exhs.'11-A and
invitation of fugitive AB ABUYEN/ALORTE stated 11-B (TSN, pp. 19-32, Nov. 9,
ABUYEN/ALORTE for a drink, that he stabbed the two [2] 1983 ). 4
in a place near Abonce Beer children'; and that they
House; ABUYEN/ALORTE boarded a taxi and he was On January 10, 1984, the decision under
was with two companions brought back to our place review was promulgated. On February 8,
whom he introduced all his where we are selling apples' 1984, despite his manifestation in open court
relatives; after several drinks, (TSN pp. 14- 18, Nov. 9, 1983) immediately after the promulgation of the
he was requested to join the decision that he was appealing the same to
group to proceed to another PUNZALAN was apprehended this Court, Atty. Mariano filed a motion for
place for which reason they early dawn of 10 December reconsideration. This was opposed by the
boarded a tricycle; and the 1982 at the Monuments prosecution.
group stopped 'at a place with market. No lawyer assisted
a high gate' because him during his custodial Pending resolution of the motion. Atty. A.E.
ABUYEN/ ALORTE wanted 'to investigation despite the fact Dacanay entered his appearance on August
drop by someone' (TSN, pp. 2- that he informed the police 7, 1984 as counsel for accused Escober, and
11, November 9, 1983). officers that he has a lawyer on August 20, 1984, he filed another motion
ABUYEN/ALORTE knocked at by the name of Atty. Valdez for reconsideration for the said accused,
the little door and the security nor was he informed of his which was likewise opposed by the
guard (PUNZALAN Identified constitutional rights to remain prosecution. After an exchange of pleadings
accused Escober as the silent and to counsel. between Atty. Dacanay and the prosecution,
security guard) opened the Nevertheless, the police the trial court issued an Order dated
door and they greeted each investigator proceeded to November 21, 1984 denying the motions.
other; ABUYEN/ALORTE then interrogate him. He disclosed Hence. the petition in G.R. No. 69658 and the
instructed PUNZALAN "to wait that he was invited by Amadeo automatic review.
for him outside;" and thereafter Abuyen for a drink; and that
ABUYEN/ALORTE and his they drank beer 'in a place In G.R. No. 69658, accused-appellant Juan
two companions entered the near Abonce Beer House. Escober contends that:
compound (TSN, pp. 11-14, "PUNZALAN asserted that,
Nov. 9, 1983). when Exh. M was presented
RESPONDENT JUDGE
for his signature he refused to
GRAVELY ERRED IN
PUNZALAN further testified sign (Exh. "M") because 'many
RENDERING HIS TWO-PAGE
that he waited for half an hour statements thereon are not
DECISION IMPOSING
for the group; that while correct that he nevertheless
DEATH SENTENCE IN
waiting he heard the mourn signed Exh. "M" because he
CULPABLE VIOLATION OF
(sic) of a child that he was was already tired and was
THE CONSTITUTION AND
then about to enter the forced to sign it after they hurt
CONSEQUENTLY IT MUST
premises but he met me by boxing me, subjected
BE REVERSED AND SET
ABUYEN/ALORTE and his me to water therapy and he
ASIDE, ACQUITTING
two companions and saw could not endure the pain,
PETITIONER ...;
RESPONDENT JUDGE DECISIONAL LAW ON PRINCI PAL MOTIVE FOR
ERRED IN FINDING AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. THE CRIME WAS ROBBERY;
CONCLUDING THAT
PETITIONER, TOGETHER RESPONDENT JUDGE THE LOWER COURT ERRED
WITH HIS CO-ACCUSED ERRED IN DENYING IN RULING THAT ROBBERY
PUNZALAN AND THREE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR WAS IN FACT COMMITTED;
OTHERS ACTED "AS RECONSIDERATION ... OF
PRINCIPALS BY SAID DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT ERRED
INDISPENSABLE JANUARY 10, 1984. 5 IN NOT ACQUITTING
COOPERATION" PUNZALAN ON THE
CONSIDERING THESE These assigned errors were reiterated in the GROUND OF REASONABLE
CIRCUMSTANCES: FIRST: Brief for Accused-Appellant Juan Escober DOUBT;
(THE) UNLIKELY GARBAGE filed in G.R. No. 69564.
THROWING REASON OF
THERE BEING NO DIRECT
ACCUSED ESCOBER
On his part, Macario Punzalan, Jr. seeks EVIDENCE TO SHOW HOW
(PETITIONER) IN OPENING
reversal of his conviction on the following THE CRIME WAS
THE GATE OF THE
grounds: COMMITTED, THE LOWER
COMPOUND IN QUESTION,
COURT ERRED, AS A
AGAINST THE TESTIMONY
PUNZALAN SHOULD BE MATTER OF LAW, IN
OF HIS CO-ACCUSED
ACQUITTED; OR AT THE RULING THAT THE
MACARIO PUNZALAN, JR.
VERY LEAST, HIS COMMISSION OF THE
OF KNOCKING ON THEIR
CONVICTION SHOULD BE CRIME WAS ATTENDED
PART; SECOND THE RITUAL
NULLIFIED ON THE WITH THE AGGRAVATING
IN AVOIDANCE OF
GROUND THAT PUNZALAN CIRCUMSTANCES OF
SUSPICION OF FIRING A
WAS DENIED HIS RIGHTS CRUELTY, NIGHTTIME,
GUN JUST BEFORE THE
TO RE MAIN SILENT AND TO TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
EXIT OF THE
COUNSEL IN ALL OF THE SUPERIOR STRENGTH,
CONSPIRATORS AND
THREE OF THIS CASE: TREACHERY AND IN BAND. 6
VOLUNTEERING THAT HE
WAS NOT HIT': AND THIRD: CUSTODIAL
'(T)HE VERSION OF JUAN INVESTIGATION We shall deal first with Escober's assigned
ESCOBER 'PETITIONER) PRELIMINARY IN- errors, particularly the objection interposed to
REGARDING HIS INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL the form and substance of the decision under
ACTUATION DURING THE ON THE MERITS; review. Accused-appellant Escober asserts
HALF-HOUR ROBBERY- that said decision is null and void for it does
HOMICIDE WAS REPLETE THE LOWER COURT ERRED not conform with the requirement of Section 9,
WITH CONTRADICTIONS. IN RULING THAT, AS A MAT Article X of the 1973 Constitution and that it
TER OF LAW, PUNZALAN IS was rendered even before all the stenographic
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE notes of the proceedings had been
RESPONDENT JUDGE
CRIME OF ROBBERY; transcribed.
ERRED FURTHERMORE IN
CONVICTING PETITIONER
TO DEATH AS SUCH THE LOWER COURT ERRED We find merit in this contention. The decision
PRINCIPAL UNDER THE IN RULING THAT THE of January 10, 1984 consists of 1-1/2 pages,
typed single-space, with a number of accused above and some of knocking on their part; the
handwritten notations and insertions. It reads: exhibits, contained in ritual in avoidance of suspicion
Pages 1 to 454 of the of firing a gun just before the
The AMENDED Records, Volume 2, Vol. 1 and exit of the co-conspirators of
INFORMATION charged the 3. Juan Escober, and
above-named accused volunteering the information
of Robbery with In view of the foregoing that he was not hit. The
Homicide defined in Article evidence, and considering the version of Juan Escober
294 of the Revised Penal memoranda of both parties, regarding his actuation during
Code. It alleged, among the arguments and authorities the half-hour robbery homicide
others, that on or about cited therein, this Court finds was replete with
December 3, 1982, in Quezon that the material allegations of contradictions. Macario
City, said accused conspiring, the above information are Punzalan admitted being
confederating and mutually facts, and that accused Juan fetched by, going with and
helping one another, with Escober y Geralde and talking to, immediately prior to
intent to gain and by means of Macario Punzalan, Jr. y taking a tricycle to the said
violence and intimidation again Guevarra are guilty of the compound, and later acting as
persons robbed Vicente Chua charges of Robbery with lookout for, his co-
y Ching by entering the Double Homicide, as conspirators. The Court finds
premises of No. 24 Joy St. principals by indispensable further that the group took
Grace Village, Quezon City cooperation as defined in some drinks, not to get drunk
and taking therein P5,000.00 article 17, par. 3, with no admittedly, and therefore to
and (sic) by reason or on the mitigating circumstances, and strengthen their resolve better
occasion of said robbery attended by aggravating to commit the crime planned.
employed personal violence circumstances of cruelty,
upon minors Irvin Chua y Saw nighttime to insure the WHEREFORE, this Court
and Tiffany Chua y Saw, commission of the crime, declares Juan Escober y
stabbing them and inflicting taking advantage of number Geralde and Macario
thereby multiple serious mortal and superior strength, Punzalan, Jr. GUILTY beyond
wounds directly causing their treachery, in band, among reasonable doubt of the crime
immediate deaths, to the others, and that the defenses charged in the amended
damage of their heirs. and excuses of the accused information, this Court holding
are unnatural, incredible, firmly that when a hired
Prosecution evidence contradictory and security guard opens the
consisted of the testimonies of uncorroborated. The compound under his
Vicente Chua, Mrs. Lina Chua, circumstances pointing to the protection to four men who
Domingo Rocero, Oscar (sic) this fact, among others, turn out to be robbers and
Francisco, Amado V. Ramos, are the following: The unlikely murderers or when a former
Teodoro Ibuan Abelardo V. garbage throwing reason of security guard accompanies
Lucero and Dr. Josefina Qua, accused Juan Escober in and meets with said
and Exhibits "A" to "Z" with opening the gate of the malefactors immediately
sub-exhibits; while Defense compound in question, against before the commission of the
evidence consisted of the the testimony of his co- offense and stands guard at
testimonies of the two named accused Macario Punzalan, Jr. the gate and flees with said
malefactors then the burden of moral damages of of the facts alleged and proved
proof is shifted to him to P200,000.00 to the said heirs, at the trial, it is not possible to
exculpate and excuse himself jointly and severally. pass upon and determine the
by clear, satisfactory and issue raised in litigation,
convincing evidence, which SO ORDERED. QUEZON inasmuch as when the facts
the named accused failed to CITY, January 10, 1984. 7 held to be proved are not set
do, but succeeded only in forth in a judicial controversy,
insulting this Forum of Truth Every decision of a court of it is impossible to administer
with their rediculous (sic) record shall clearly and justice, to apply the law to the
justifications for the brutal and distinctly state the facts and points argued, or to uphold the
merciless killing of innocent the law on which it is based ... rights of the litigant who has
and helpless children on the the law on his side.
occasion of that robbery in
The above-quoted decision falls short of this
question, of being held-up at It is not sufficient that the court
standard. The inadequacy stems primarily
gunpoint, of coincidentally or trial judge take into account
from the respondent judge's tendency to
being in the act of throwing the facts brought out in an
generalize and to form conclusions without
garbage and being fired at but action suit, the circumstances
detailing the facts from which such
not getting hit but not knowing of each question raised, and
conclusions are deduced. Thus, he concluded
so many vital details a truthful the nature and condition of the
that the material allegations of the Amended
witness would certainly not proofs furnished by the
Information were the facts without specifying
forget, among others, thus that parties. He must also set out
which of the testimonies or exhibits supported
this court after a total in his decision the facts
this conclusion. He rejected the testimony of
appreciation of all the alleged by the contending
accused-appellant Escober because it was
evidence on record is parties which he finds to have
allegedly replete with contradictions without
convinced that there being been proven. The conclusions
pointing out what these contradictions consist
apple (sic) circumstances deduced therefrom and the
of or what "vital details" Escober should have
present that could only opinion he has formed on the
recalled as a credible witness. He also found
possibly point to the guilt of issues raised; then only can
the crime to have been attended by the
said accused for the most be intelligently set forth the
aggravating circumstances of cruelty,
heinous (sic) crime that legal grounds and
nighttime, superior strength, treachery, in
deserves the highest penalty, considerations proper in his
band, "among others," but did not particularly
Hereby sentences the said opinion for the due
state the factual bases for such findings.
accused Juan Escober y determination of the case.
Geralde and Macario
Punzalan, Jr. to the legal As enunciated by this Court in the case
of Hernandez v. Colayco, 64 SCRA 480, As it is written, the decision renders a review
punishment provided by Article thereof extremely difficult. Without a
294, Paragraph 1 of the reiterating Montelibano v. Director of Lands,
21 Phil. 449; Alindogan v. Insular Government particularization of the evidence, testimonial or
Revised Penal Code of the documentary, upon which the findings of facts
Philippines, which is DEATH 15 Phil. 168; City of Manila v. Insular
Government, 9 Phil. 71; Enriquez v. Enriquez, are based, it is practically impossible for the
and orders the said accused appellate court to determine whether or not
further to pay the heirs of their 3 Phil. 746; Braga v. Millora, 3 Phil. 458:
such findings were sufficiently and logically
victims compensatory supported by the evidence relied upon by the
damages of P12,000.00 each, Without the concrete relation
trial court.
jointly and severally, and or statement in the judgment
Were it not for its dire consequences, we double-spaced and wide- accused-appellants their right to a speedy
would have appreciated the efforts shown by margined. While brevity should disposition of their cases. 8
respondent-judge to administer justice in this characterize a court's decision
case in the most speedy and expeditious and length is not necessarily The prosecution's theory is that Juan Escober
manner. He obviously took to heart our determinative of its quality, the is a principal by indispensable cooperation in
admonition that judges do not have to wait for lower court in deciding this the crime of robbery with homicide. In support
the transcription of stenographic notes before murder case nonetheless thereof, it tried to prove that Escober's
rendering judgments but can rely on the notes should have outlined in greater actuations during the incident in question were
of the proceedings personally taken by them. and more satisfactory detail done with the knowledge of and pursuant to
For this is what respondent judge did. The the evidence presented by said nefahous plan. These acts consist of- [1]
records show that he took copious notes of both prosecution and the his alleged act of opening the gate of the
the testimonies of the witnesses on which he defense, the facts as found by compound to his co-conspirators; [2] his
apparently based this decision, as the the trial judge based on the having been seen by Mrs. Lina Chua behind
transcript of the stenographic notes were not evidence on record and the Alorte/Abuyen, the alleged mastermined, after
yet complete at the time of the rendition of the jurisprudence and the the gunshot; and [3] his having volunteered
judgment. In fact, the review of the case authorities supporting the the information to Mrs. Chua that he was not
suffered some delay due to the failure of court's decision. hit. The prosecution further attempted to show
stenographer Eduardo Bober to submit to this that the gun-firing was a mere ritual in
Court the transcript of stenographic notes of This trial judge failed to do. avoidance of suspicion and that Escober's
some hearings. There is not one single citation version of the incident is too replete with
of authority in the decision. contradictions to merit belief.
Speed in the administration of justice, The issues raised by the
however, is not the sole concern of courts and appellant include allegations of After a thorough review of the evidence, We
judges. More than this is the essentiality of concocted testimony, the find that the guilt of Juan Escober has not
justice and fairness which is the primordial nature of a dying declaration, been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
objective of the courts. Respondent judge premeditation, conspiracy,
lamentably disregarded the latter for the treachery and superior The act of opening a gate upon hearing a
former. strength. The issues raised knock is by itself an innocent gesture. One
are quite serious and they who imputes an evil motive or purpose thereto
The decision of January 10, 1987 calls to deserved better treatment. must prove his allegations convincingly. In the
mind the decision rendered by another trial [Emphasis supplied]. case at bar, even if the version of Macario
court in the case of People v. Banayo, 129 Punzalan, Jr. that Escober opened the gate at
SCRA 725, regarding which We said: With the finding that the decision of January the knock of the alleged mastermind Amadeo
10, 1984 does not conform to the Abuyen/Roberto Alorte were to be believed,
At the onset, this Court takes a requirements of Section 9, Article X of the the same would not constitute sufficient and
rather dim view of the 1973 Constitution, the case should have been convincing proof that Escober had knowledge
apparently indifferent attitude remanded to the court a quo for the rendition of the nefarious plan. The worse that could be
displayed by the trial court of a new judgment. However, since the attributed to him is lack of better judgment or
towards a murder case it has records of the case, including all evidence laxity in the performance of his duties as a
tried as shown by the rendition necessary for a determination of the security guard in having failed to exercise the
of a decision, the body of innocence or guilt of the accused- appellants minimum precaution dictated by his
which contains only 63 lines are now before Us, We deem it wise to render occupation to exclude from the premises
spread out over less than judgment in this case in order to accord the being guarded persons who have not
three typewritten pages, demonstrated any legitimate reason for
getting in. For it must be remembered that mayroon That the gun-firing was not a ritual and that
having been co-employees, Escober knew siyang Escober was not a part of the criminal plan
Abuyen/Alorte. It was therefore not surprising kasamang are further bolstered by the statement made
that he should open the gate for him. In fact, babae at hindi by Macario Punzalan during the preliminary
even Domingo Rocero, the security guard who ko na siya investigation, and extra-judicial statement of
replaced Abuyen/Alorte and who was not as pinapasok sa the alleged mastermind Abuyen /Alorte dated
familiar with Abuyen/Alorte admitted on his loob ng Bee April 16, 1986, submitted by the prosecution
Sworn Statement having allowed Seng Electrical as Exhibit B during the separate trial of said
Abuyen/Alorte into the compound thus: Supply. 9 Abuyen/Alorte. The pertinent portion of
Macario Punzalan's statement reads:
20.T Mula ng The facts of the case likewise do not support
manungkulan the prosecution's theory that the gun-firing FISCAL: Ito ba
ka sa Bee incident was a mere ritual in avoidance of si Abuyen at
Seng Electrical suspicion. We share the keen observation of saka si Juan
Supply, ilang counsel for Escober that "... it is not a Escober at
beses mo ng common experience that a person allows Abuyen ay
nakita si himself to be shot by a gun. He would be the matagal ng
Roberto Alorte stupidest person on earth if he allows that ... magkakilala?
sa malapit sa to avoid suspicion that he was in cahoots [sic]
iyong with malefactors The least or perhaps the PUNZALAN:
pinagguaguard safest way for that evil purpose is to allow Hindi ko po
iayahan? himself to be rendered ineffective, i.e., by alam sir, dahil
tieing [sic] him up, mauling him or wounding po sa guardiya
S Dalawang him so he would live if he were a conspirator. po dati yung
beses ko na po To allow him to be shot by a gun is too risky a Alorte.
siyang nakita ritual for he might get killed. 10
sa lugar na FISCAL: Ito ba
iyon, una Besides, the robbery and homicide were ang
noong buwan perpetrated within a span of 5-10 minutes, not kasalukuyang
ng Septyembre half an hour as found by the trial court, a time guardia
at pangalawa too short to enable Abuyen/Alorte and [referring to
noong buwan Escober to contrive such a ritual or scenario, Escober]
November or if it were a pre-conceived plan, for
1982. Abuyen/Aorte to have remembered it PUNZALAN:
considering the unexpected apprearance of Oho, siya po
21.T Ano ang Lina Chua at the scene and the need for ang naka
dahilan at immediate escape. guardia noon.
nakikita mo [duty]
siya sa lugar Even assuming arguendo that the gun was
na iyan? fired in the air and not at Escober, the same FISCAL:
could have been done to scare Lina Chua Noong
S Una binisita away from the scene of the crime rather than pagkatapos ng
niya ako at to divert suspicion from Escober. pag-uusap nila
pangalawa
ano pa ang PUNZALAN: si KUMANG. Nang
ginawa? Kung Hindi po. nakapuesto na ako sa pintuan
mayroon pa? ay pumalag itong guwardiya
FISCAL: Bakit? na si Escober na hindi an pala
PUNZALAN: ginapos nitong si KUMANG.
Hindi ko na po PUNZALAN: Nang makita ko ay binaril ko
nakikita sir. Ewan ko po, siya pero hindi siya tinamaan.
dahil hindi ko Noong matapos kong barilin si
FISCAL: Ito ng po alam nga ESCOBER ay niyaya ko na
umakyat kayo ang dahilan, sila at tumakbo na kami ... 12
sa bahay ay sir, kasi po ay
sumama ba? gusto kong These exculpatory statements, although
mahuli yung emanating from alleged co- conspirators and
PUNZALAN: Abuyen, therefore may ordinarily be considered
Hindi ho, nasa sapagkat iyon "polluted," deserve credence. Punzalan's
ibaba po rin pong talaga statement, it must be observed, is not even
ako sir. ang utak eh. 11 responsive to the question being asked. The
spontaneous and candid manner by which it
On the other hand, Amadeo Abuyen's was given lends credence to his statement,
FISCAL: Ito
extrajudicial statement reads in part: that Abuyen/Alorte wanted Escober killed.
[referring to
This statement, together with the statement of
Escober nakita
Abuyen/ Alorte that he himself fired at E
mong ... Pagkatapos ay sumakay
scober although the latter was not hit,
umakyat? kami sa tricycle at nakarating
unwittingly corroborates Escober's version
kami sa bahay ni Mr. Chua ng
that the gun was aimed at him. That Escober
PUNZALAN: bandana alas 8:00 ng gabi ng
was not thereby hit should not be taken as
Hind ho, kung petsa 3 ng Desiyembre.
conclusive proof that the gun-firing was a
baga sa ano ay Pagdating namin doon ay
mere ritual because the same could be easily
pinapapatay ho kumatok ako at binuksan
occasioned by a poor aim and/ or the hurried
sa akin ni naman ako ng guwardia dahil
manner of its execution.
Abuyen ni kakilala ko. Kinumusta ko
Alorte. muna siya kong paano ang
buhay-buhay niya. Habang On the other hand, We see no reason why
nagkakamustahan kami ay Abuyen/Alorte should absolve Escober of any
FISCAL: Bakit? complicity in the crime if this were not the
bigla ko siyang tinutukan ng
aking baril sinabi ko sa kanya truth. The usual practice is for a conspirator to
PUNZALAN: exculpate himself and pass on the blame to a
na pasensiya na siya.
Ewan ko po, co-conspirator, particularly in a case such as
Pinakuha ko ngayon kay
hindi ko po this where the crime charged is indeed very
DON-DON iyong baril na .22
alam ang grave and serious. However undesirable a
kalibre sa lalagyan nito.
dahilan. person may seem, there may be left in him a
Pagkatapos ay sabay
pumasok si DON-DON at si sense of justice and fairness. Without passing
FISCAL: Pero REY sa opisina ni Mr. Chua. judgment on Abuyen/Alorte, We believe that it
hindi mo Ako naman ay pumuesto sa was this sense of justice and fairness that
naman pinatay. labas ng opisina at sa gate ay
moved him to disclose the truth in his started running and he [Punzalan] followed the time of its commission is
extrajudicial confession. them. This was precisely the moment when not, by itself, sufficient to
the malefactors were fleeing from the scene of establish his criminal liability.
Escober's unilateral offer of the information the crime, and at which point Escober could To hold the accused guilty as
that he was not hit does not prove either that have felt safe enough to emerge from the co-principal in the crime
he was a co-conspirator. It was but natural pick-up where he was held captive. Thus, Mrs. charged, the existence of
that he would want to inform and assure his Chua claims to have seen Escober about a conspiracy between the
superior who is presumed to be concerned meter behind Abuyen/ Alorte, who was not accused and the actual killers,
with his safety and well-being. The motivation walking, but running away from the scene of must be shown, and the same
attached to said act by the prosecution is the crime. degree of proof required for
therefore too conjectural and far-fetched to establishing the crime is
pass the test of logic and reason. Indeed, it was not unlikely for Mrs. Chua to required to support a finding of
misinterpret the situation she described the presence of the
The only evidence of the prosecution which having seen. She was then in an agitated conspiracy, i.e., it must be
may lead to a conclusion of Escober's condition on seeing the pedestrian gate of the shown to exist as clearly and
complicity is the testimony of Mrs. Lina Chua compound open, which was Escober's duty to convincingly as the
that upon hearing a shot, she looked at the keep closed. Moreover, from the relative commission of the crime
garage where the shot sounded to have come positions of Mrs. Chua, Abuyen/Alorte and itself. 14
from and saw Abuyen/Alorte walking towards Escober, the line of vision of Mrs. Chua was
the gate with Escober about a meter behind. such that it would be difficult for her to The prosecution evidence is glaringly wanting
determine for certain the distance between in this regard. It failed to prove beyond
We have reasons to doubt the veracity and/or Abuyen/Alorte and Escober and whether the reasonable doubt that [1] Escober had
accuracy of this statement. We observe that latter was merely walking behind the former or knowledge of the criminal design and [2] that
Mrs. Lina Chua was the last among the in fact chasing him. his acts during the commission of the crime,
prosecution witnesses to give her statement to such as the opening of the gate and having
the police. She gave her statement on Additionally, in her testimony on August 1, been behind Abuyen after the gunshot, were
December 8, 1983 when none of the accused 1986 in the separate trial of Abuyen/Alorte, performed pursuant to said nefarious plot.
had been apprehended. So, soon after the she declared that 'they [referring to This being the case, the prosecution's reliance
violent incident her appreciation of what she Abuyen/Alorte and Escober] were walking on the alleged inconsistencies in Escober's
saw may have been faulty when she attributed towards the gate; they were nagmamadali [in testimony regarding his actuations during the
the blame on Escober whose lack of better a hurry]." 13 This description given by Lina incident at bar can not improve its case. To
judgment and laxity in the performance of his Chua does not jibe with the impression convict on this basis is repugnant to the
job resulted in the tragic event. gathered from her previous statement of constitutional right of the accused to be
seeing Escober walking behind presumed innocent until the contrary is
Abuyen/Alorte. The element of speed injected proved 15 and its corollary rule that the
Taken in conjunction with the extra-judicial
into the 'walking" by the descriptive term prosecution must rely on the strength of its
confession of Abuyen/Alorte quoted above,
'nagmamadali" corroborates Abuyen/ Alorte's own evidence and not on the weakness of the
Mrs. Chua's narration of the situation would
declaration that after firing the gun, he ran defense. 16
suffer from inaccuracy, aside from being
susceptible to other interpretations. away from the scene of the crime, and tills can
Abuyen/Alorte declared that immediately after be interpreted to mean that Escober was Indeed, the accidents of Escober being on
the shooting, he called his companions and indeed chasing Abuyen/Alorte. duty during the commission of the crime and
ran away from the scene of the crime. his having opened the gate to persons who
Punzalan's testimony was of the same tenor, The fact that the accused was turned out to be robbers and killers make him
i.e., that Abuyen/Alorte and his companions at the scene of the crime at an easy suspect. A less discerning mind could
have been blinded by these suspicions and kayang kumuha ng abogado, kahit na
compassion for the two hapless victims. But at nais mong magkaroon ng walang
convictions can never rest on mere paglilingkod nito maglalaan ng abogado na
suspicions, however, grave and serious. isa para sa iyo ang hukuman sumusubaybay
na hindi mo na kailangang sa iyo habang
We now turn to Macario Punzalan's case. He bayaran ang paglilingkod nito. ikaw ay
contends having been denied his rights to sinisiyasat?
remain silent and to counsel during the 3. Ikaw ay may karapatan na
custodial investigation, the preliminary huwag magbigay ng anomang Sagot— Opo.
investigation and the trial on the merits. pahayag na maaaring
gamiting katibayan laban sa Tanog— Lubos
Punzalan's extra-judicial statement 17 is iyo. mo bang
prefaced by the for lowing: naunawaan na
4. Hindi ka maaaring pilitin,o ikaw ay hindi
PAGPAPAUNAWA NG gamitan ng anomang uring maaaring pilitin
KARAPATAN SA ILALIM NG karahasan o pamilit para ikaw or gamitan ng
SALIGANG BATAS NG ay magbigay ng salaysay. anomang uri
PILIPINAS. ng karahasan
Tanong — upang maging
Ikaw ngayon ay nasa ilalim ng Pagkatapos na saksi laban sa
pagtatanong sa himpilang ito malaman mo, iyong sarili?
ng pulisya hinggil sa isang maipaunawa
usaping kinasasangkutan mo sa iyo at Sagot— Opo.
sa salang PAGNANAKAW NA mapagpaalalah
MAY KASAMANG anan ka ng Tanong— Sa
PAGPATAY. Bago ka iyong mga kabila ng lahat
tanungin ng anoman, karapatan sa ng mga
ipinauunawa ko muna sa iyo ilalim ng karapatang
at pinagpapaalalahanan ka ng Saligang Batas ipinaunawa sa
iyong mga karapatan sa ilalim ng Pilipinas, iyo magbibigay
ng Saligang Batas ng nahahanda ka ka pa rin ba ng
Pilipinas, tulad ng mga bang magbigay salaysay?
sumusunod: ng isang
malaya at Sagot— Opo.
1. Ikaw ay may karapatang kusang loob ng
manatiling tahimik at huwag salaysay?
magsalita o magbigay ng
salaysay kung hindi mo nais. Sagot — Opo.

2. Ikaw ay may karapatang Tanong —

magkaroon ng paglilingkod ng Nahahanda
isang abogado na iyong kang magbigay
mapipili. Kung hindi mo ng salaysay
 fundamental law as to give a semblance of a procedure since the 'absence
compliance thereto. Besides, the phraseology r of such investigation did not
used by the police respecting the appointment i impair the validity of the
of counsel de oficio for Punzalan was o Information or otherwise
misleading. It gives the impression that the render it defective. Much less
services of a counsel de oficio can be availed G did it affect the jurisdiction of
of by Punzalan only during the court . the Court of First Instance.
proceedings, not during the custodial The right to a preliminary
investigation. P investigation, being waivable
u does not argue against the
Not having been fully and truly informed of his n validity of the proceedings, the
right to counsel, the waiver appearing in z most that could have been
Punzalan's extrajudicial statement cannot be a done being to remand the
considered intelligently made. For this reason, l case in order that such
aside from the fact that it was done without a investigation could be
the assistance of counsel, said waiver is not n conducted.
valid. 19 Needless to say, the extrajudicial ,
confession is inadmissible in evidence. 20 ... the proper forum before
J which absence of preliminary
With respect to Punzalan not having been r investigation should be
represented by counsel during the preliminary . ventilated is the Court of First
investigation, suffice it to say that such Instance, not this Court.
Noteworthy is the fact that except for an irregularity which amounts to an absence of Reason is not wanting for this
additional question in Escober's extra-judicial preliminary investigation, should have been view. Absence of preliminary
statement, 18 the latter carried the same raised before the trial court, Philippine investigation does not go to
quoted prefatory statement. This, to our mind, jurisprudence is uniform and consistent in the jurisdiction of the court but
indicates the lack of zeal and initiative on the ruling that: merely to the regularity of the
part of the investigating officers to fully and proceedings. It could even be
truly inform Punzalan of his rights to remain The question of absence of a waived. Indeed, it is frequently
silent and to counsel during the custodial proper preliminary waived. These are matters to
investigation. The Identical manner by which investigation is also better be inquired into by the trial
the police sought to inform Escober and inquired into by the Court courts, not an appellate
Punzalan of their constitutional rights shows a below. When so raised, this court. 21
blatant disregard for individual comprehensive Court, speaking through Mr.
ability arising from differences in intelligence Justice Claudio Teehankee, While it may be conceded that it would have
level, educational background and personal has held that the trial Court is been more judicious for the trial court to
experiences. No effort was exerted to see to it called upon 'not to dismiss the appoint a counsel de oficio for Punzalan other
that Punzalan really understood what was information but hold the case than the counsel de parte of his co-accused
being told, considering his low educational in abeyance and conduct its Escober, such failure did not constitute
attainment of Grade 2 Elementary level. The own investigation or require prejudicial error to warrant nullification of the
so-called "informing" done by the police in the the fiscal to hold a proceedings taken against Punzalan. There is
case at bar was nothing more than a reinvestigation. As stressed in no evidence that Atty. Mariano was biased in
superficial and mechanical act, performed not People vs. Casiano, I SCRA favor of Escober to the prejudice of Punzalan.
so much to attain the objectives of the 478 (1 961), this is the proper The records show that Atty. Mariano defended
both accused with equal zeal and vigor and unless it clearly appeared that they
that Punzalan was able to present his defense endeavored to prevent the homicide. 24
well. In fact, it was Punzalan's version of
having knocked that the trial court believed. In WHEREFORE, the decision dated January
the final analysis, the only prejudice Punzalan 10, 1984 in Criminal Case No. Q-22896 of the
might have suffered was the failure of Atty. Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is hereby
Mariano to cross-examine Escober on the SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Juan Escober
latter's testimony regarding Punzalan's y Geralde is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime
presence at the scene of the of Robbery with Homicide and his immediate
crime. 22 Escober's testimony, however, was release from confinement is ordered, unless
merely corroborative of the testimonies of Lina detained for some other crimes. Accused-
Chua and Domingo Rocero, witnesses for the appellant Macario Punzalan, Jr. y Guevarra is
prosecution who were cross-examined by hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
Atty. Mariano. 23 as principal in the complex crime of Robbery
with Homicide and is accordingly sentenced to
Prosecution witnesses Vicente Chua and Lina suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
Chua had established the fact of robbery and indemnify the heirs of the victims in the
we are convinced beyond reasonable doubt amount of P60,000,00,
that Punzalan knew of such plan. It is
incredible that his three companions would SO ORDERED.
fetch him on the pretext of drinking beer and
just bring him along to the scene of crime, Yap, Narvasa, Cruz, Paras, Gancayco, Bidin
thereby risking another eyewitness to the and Cortes, JJ., concur.
perpetration thereof. Punzalan's flight from the
scene of the crime with his companions and
his failure, if he were truly innocent, to report
to the police what he knew about the crime
after reading it in the newspapers further
demonstrate his knowledge of the plan.

While it has been established that Punzalan's

participation in the crime was to act as a look-
out, and as such, he did not participate in the
killing of the two helpless victims, he cannot
evade responsibility therefor. Well-established
is the rule in this jurisdiction that whenever a
homicide has been committed as a
consequence of or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who took part as principals
in the commission of the robbery are also
guilty as principals in the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide although they
did not actually take part in the homicide
G.R. Nos. 111962-72 December 8, 1995 Executive Director of the PRAMS dated 10. Criminal Case No. 85-40370 — Special
November 7, 1983;4 Presidential Certification dated September 9,
MAXIMINO GAMIDO y 1985; 11 and
BUENAVENTURA, petitioner, 4. Criminal Case No. 85-40364 —
vs. Memorandum to Land, Air and Navigation 11. Criminal Case No. 85-40371 —
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE Transportation Operators in the Philippines Presidential Permission for Free of Fare (sic)
PHILIPPINES, respondents. dated July 11, 1985;5 in any Transportation in the Philippines dated
February 28, 1985. 12
5. Criminal Case No. 85-40365 —
Memorandum Order to all Heads of Ministries, The prosecution was made under Art. 161 of
MENDOZA, J.: Bureaus, Government Corporations, the Revised Penal Code which provides as
Government Agencies and Instrumentalities, follows:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the and Government Controlled Corporations
decision of the Court of Appeals which dated July 29, Art. 161. Counterfeiting the
affirmed with modification1 petitioner Maximino 1985;6 great seal of the Government
B. Gamido's conviction by the Regional Trial of the Philippine Islands,
Court on eleven counts of having forged the 6. Criminal Case No. 85-40366 — forging the signature or stamp
signature of the Chief Executive. Specifically, Memorandum Order No. 1480 — To: Hon. of the Chief Executive. — The
petitioner was accused in 11 cases of forging Maximino B. Gamido, Presidential Regional penalty of reclusion
the signature of the President of the Executive Assistant/Executive Director temporal shall be imposed
Philippines in the following documents and PRAMS-PREMO dated November 23, 1984;7 upon any person who shall
making it appear that the documents were forge the Great Seal of the
genuine official documents of the Republic of 7. Criminal Case No. 85-40367 — Government of the Philippine
the Philippines: Memorandum/Circular to all Operators: (1) Islands or the signature or
Transportation; (2) Shipping Transportation; stamp of the Chief Executive.
1. Criminal Case No. 85-40361 — Special (3) Air Line Transportation dated November
Appointment of Maximino Gamido as 30, 1984;8 It appears that on March 25, 1985, then
Confidential Presidential Representative dated Executive Assistant Juan C. Tuvera issued
November 30, 1984;2 8. Criminal Case No. 85-40368 — A letter Memorandum Circular No. 1281 13 which read:
addressed to President Ferdinand E. Marcos,
2. Criminal Case No. 85-40362 — thru the Minister of the Budget, submitting the INFORMING ALL HEADS OF
Memorandum/Order No. 1489 informing all required STANDARD OPERATING MINISTRIES, AGENCIES,
Heads of Ministries, Bureaus, PROCEDURES (SOP) specifying the GOVERNMENT
Instrumentalities of the Government, and functions and duties of PRAMS personnel and CORPORATIONS AND
Government Controlled Corporations and their salaries allegedly approved by the INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
others on the existence of Presidential President on November 23, 1984;9 THE GOVERNMENT,
Regional Assistant Monitoring Services INCLUDING PROVINCIAL
(PRAMS) dated July 29, 1985;3 9. Criminal Case No. 85-40369 — Executive AND LOCAL
Order No. 820 Creating the Presidential GOVERNMENTS OF THE
3. Criminal Case No. 85-40363 — Regional Assistant Monitoring Services NON-EXISTENCE OF THE
Appointment of Maximino Gamido as (PRAMS) in all Regions of the Philippines PRESIDENTIAL REGIONAL
Presidential Regional Executive Assistant and dated October 11, 1983; 10 ASSISTANT MONITORING
SERVICES (PRAMS) WITHIN
THE OFFICE OF THE issued by alleged PRAMS
PRESIDENT. personnel are likewise
fraudulent.
The Presidential Regional
Assistant Monitoring Services B
(PRAMS) is a non-existent y
agency within the Office of the
President. Its alleged A
Executive Director, Mr. u
Maximino B. Gamido is t
likewise not connected, in any h
capacity, with this Office. o
r
It is gathered that personnel i
from the PRAMS have been t
using Presidential directives, y
particularly Executive Order
No 819; Memorandum Order o
No. 811; and Memorandum f
Circular No. 1278, to support
its fraudulent activities. These t
issuances, however, refer to h
the creation, e
designation/appointment, and
operationalization of the P
Presidential Regional r
Monitoring Officer (PREMO) e
System, the duly authorized s
regional monitoring arm of the i
Office of the President, which d
is charged to provide the e
President with the information n
on development in the region. t
:
Furthermore, Mr. Gamido has
not been given any
authorization to sign for and
on behalf of the President of J
the Philippines. As such, all U
memorandum/directives A
issued by Mr. Gamido on N
behalf of the Office of the Following the issuance of this memorandum,
President are fraudulent. All the Presidential Security Command andCthe
memorandum/directives Office of the President, through the .
Malacañang Complaints and Investigation exist in the Malacañang (1) day of reclusion temporal,
Office (CIO), investigated petitioner. Records Office, and therefore, as maximum, in each of these
are spurious) is an imposition eleven (11) criminal cases, or
On September 27, 1985, upon the invitation of on human belief and all sense a total of eighty (80) years up
Atty. Quirino Sagario, CIO Hearing Officer, of propriety. Further, the to one hundred fifty-four (154)
petitioner appeared and presented the 11 accused does not appear to years, with costs against the
documents, claiming that President Ferdinand the Court, and has not shown accused.
E. Marcos had signed them in his (petitioner's) himself, to be of such stature
presence. as to enjoy the privilege of SO ORDERED.
having the former Chief
The lone witness for the prosecution, Executive sign documents in On appeal, the Special First Division of the
Melquiades T. de la Cruz, Presidential Staff his presence. Moreover, the Court of Appeals 14 affirmed with the
Director of the Malacañang Records Office testimony of the accused in modification already noted on the margin of
(MRO), testified that there were no copies of support of his defense is this opinion.
the documents on file in his office and that the totally untrustworthy and
signatures thereon did not appear to be those unreliable.
In this petition, petitioner argues that the Court
of the former President. of Appeals committed reversible error in
On the basis of the foregoing affirming his conviction for the following
For his part, petitioner said that he was the factual and legal reasons:
Executive Director of the Presidential considerations, the Court is
Regional Assistant Monitoring Services, or convinced, beyond any
(1) The fact that the documents in question
PRAMS, having been appointed by then shadow of doubt, that the
are not on file in the Malacañang Records
President Marcos and that his appointment felony of the forging the
Office does not ipso facto prove that they are
and the related documents, subject of the signature of the President, as
forged but only that they were lost or
prosecution, had been signed by the former defined and penalized under
destroyed.
President in petitioner's presence. Art. 161 of the Revised Penal
Code, was committed by the
accused on eleven (11) (2) The lone prosecution witness, Melquiades
The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 3, T. dela Cruz, is incompetent to testify that the
counts.
in finding the petitioner guilty, held: documents were forgeries since there is no
evidence to show that he had seen then
WHEREFORE, this Court
The defense put up by the President Marcos sign documents. Indeed,
finds the accused guilty
accused, that all the subject this witness could not say with certainty that
beyond reasonable doubt of
documents were actually the signature on each of the 11 documents
the crime forging the signature
signed by then President was not that of President Marcos.
of the Chief Executive, and/or
Ferdinand E. Marcos, in his
violation of Art. 161 of the
office at Malacañang, and in (3) No handwriting expert was presented in
Revised Penal Code, without
the presence of said accused, court to give an opinion as to the genuineness
any mitigating or aggravating
is as preposterous as it is of President Marcos' signatures.
circumstances, and hereby
unbelievable, the said
sentences him to suffer the
defense, besides being (4) The Court of Appeals and the RTC
indeterminate penalty of eight
completely negated and belied committed the fallacy of "argumentum ad
(8) years and one (1) day
by the established facts (that elenchi" in concluding that the signatures in
of prision mayor, as minimum,
subject documents, do not the documents were forgeries from the
to fourteen (14) years and one
documents' "unusual format and atrocious Assistant Monitoring Services as nonexistent challenged signatures. As this Court has once
grammar" when these documents were not and its alleged Executive Director, herein observed, the authenticity of signatures "is not
offered to prove their appearance and petitioner, as not in any capacity connected a highly technical issue in the same sense
grammar. with the Office of the President. From these that questions concerning,
premises it is rational to conclude that the e.g., quantum physics or topology or
(5) Assuming these defects in format and documents in question, which purport to have molecular biology, would constitute matters of
grammar, there is no forgery since the been signed by then President Marcos, are a highly technical nature. The opinion of a
documents could not have deceived any bogus documents. The trial court and Court of handwriting expert on the genuineness of a
person. Appeals correctly found petitioner to be the questioned signature is certainly much less
author of the forgery. The presumption is that compelling upon a judge than an opinion
(6) A writing or instrument in order to the possessor and user of a falsified rendered by a specialist on a highly technical
constitute a forgery must possess some document is the forger thereof . 15 issue. The signatures on a questioned
apparent legal efficacy (36 Am. Jur. 2d 690), document can be sighted by a judge who can
and if PRAMS is a non-existent entity as Second. Petitioner contends that Melquiades and should exercise independent judgment on
Memorandum Circular No. 1281 declared, T. dela Cruz was incompetent to testify as to the issue of authenticity of such
then the documents executed under it cannot whether the signatures on the documents, signatures." 17 Here, as the trial court
acquire such "apparent legal efficacy." purporting to be those of President Marcos, observed, "the forgeries were not only
were forgeries because there is no showing established by the evidence, but they are also
that he had witnessed President Marcos as clearly discernible to the naked eye or
(7) Assuming further that the signature of
signing his name. mere ocular inspection, as they are
former President Marcos on the document
conspicuously evident from their appearance.
creating the PRAMS was a counterfeit (Exh.
What dela Cruz said that is that he was . . . " 18
C), the criminal liability of the author thereof
absorbed all acts of forgery committed under familiar with the signature of President Marcos
the fictitious office, because there was only and that the signatures on the documents in Third. Nor is there merit in petitioner's claim
one intent, i.e. to discharge the imagined question were not those of President that forgery could not be said to exist since
functions of a non-existent office. Marcos. 16 This is sufficient to establish the the documents, because of their "unusual
signatures as forgeries. Under Rule 132, §22 format, atrocious grammar, and misspelled
of the Revised Rules on Evidence, it is not words" could not have defrauded or deceived
(8) Assuming that the signatures of then
required that the person identifying the anyone, and that moreover they lack apparent
President Marcos in the documents were
handwriting of another must have seen the legal efficacy." That is not so. If the
spurious, petitioner, the possessor of the
latter write the document or sign it. It is documents were fanciful or whimsical, as for
documents, must be exempted from criminal
enough, if the witness "has seen writing example, a commission appointing petitioner
responsibility because no person of sound
purporting to be his [the subject's] upon which mayor of a mythical kingdom, the forgery
mind would make it appear that the President
the witness has acted or been charged, and could simply be dismissed as a spoof. But as
created an office and appointed him to that
has thus acquired knowledge of the pointed out by the Solicitor General, the Office
office.
handwriting of such person." De la Cruz has of the President had to issue a memorandum
been record custodian at Malacañang for so denouncing the legality of PRAMS because of
The petition has no merit. the possibility that the less wary would be
many years; it is inconceivable he had not
acquired familiarity with the signature not only deceived, especially because that the
First. Melquiades T. de la Cruz, Director of the of President Marcos but of other Presidents documents pertaining to it bear the Great Seal
Malacañang Records Office, testified that his under whom he had served. and were typed on stationary which have the
office did not have a record of the documents. appearance of official stationery of the Office
For his part Executive Secretary Juan C. of the President.
There was thus no necessity for a handwriting
Tuvera declared the Presidential Regional
expert testify on the genuineness of the
Fourth. Petitioner also argues that he should
have been charged under only one
information because there was only one intent
"to discharge the imagined functions of a non-
existent office." The argument has no merit.
The documents in this case were forged on
different dates. One act was not done to
commit another. There is therefore no basis
for considering the various acts as constituting
only one crime of forgery.

Fifth. As a last-ditch effort of sorts to escape

criminal liability, petitioner claims that since
"no person of sound mind would [make] it
appear that the Chief Executive created an
office for him and appointed him thereto," he
must be exempt from criminal liability under
Art. 12, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
This, again, is not necessarily so since the
purpose may be to deceive others. Moreover,
this defense now invoked should have been
raised below. At all events, the presumption is
in favor of sanity. 19 In this case there is no
evidence to show that petitioner was insane at
the time he committed the acts for which he is
being prosecuted.

WHEREFORE, petitioner's petition for review

and petition for bail pending appeal are
DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.