SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 133026. February 20, 2001.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . EDWARD ENDINO

(at large) and GERRY GALGARIN alias TOTO, accused.

GERRY GALGARIN alias TOTO , accused-appellant.

Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Atty. Robert Y. Peneyra for accused-appellant.

SYNOPSIS

Accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin was convicted of murder quali ed by treachery

for the killing of a certain Dennis Aquino and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. In convicting accused, the trial court relied on the videotaped
confession made by appellant aired over the TV news program TV Patrol. The trial court
admitted the video footages on the strength of the testimony of the police o cers that no
force or compulsion was exerted on appellant and upon a nding that his confession was
made before a group of newsmen that could have dissipated any semblance of hostility
towards him. The court gave credence to the arresting o cers' assertion that it was even
appellant who pleaded with them that he be allowed to air his appeal on national television
for Edward to surrender. The alibi of appellant was likewise rejected since there was no
convincing evidence to support his allegation that he was not at the locus criminis on the
evening of 16 October 1991. In his appeal before the Court, appellant Galgarin assails the
trial court for rejecting his alibi and admitting his videotaped confession as evidence
against him.
The Supreme Court a rmed the decision of the trial court convicting appellant of
murder. According to the Court, the trial court's admission of appellant's videotape
confession was proper. The interview was recorded on video and it showed appellant
unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of newsmen. Such
confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not given to police
o cers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the
public. If appellant had indeed been forced into confessing, he could have easily sought
succor from the newsmen who, in all likelihood, would have been sympathetic with him.
There was also no showing that the interview of appellant was coerced or against his will.
Hence, the Court concluded there is basis to accept the truth of his statements therein.
The Court also ruled that with appellant having been positively identi ed by the
prosecution witnesses as the one who stabbed the victim, his bare denial and alibi proves
futile and unavailing.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; DEFENSES OF ALIBI AND DENIAL; CANNOT

PREVAIL OVER POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION. — The argument that accused-appellant could
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 not be at the scene of the crime on 16 October 1991 as he was in Antipolo assisting his
wife who was giving birth on the 14th of that month, is not persuasive. Alibi is a weak
defense. The testimony of Cornelio Tejero Jr. Philippine Airlines Load Controller of the
Puerto Princesa City, that the name of "Gerry Galgarin" did not appear on their passenger
manifest for the 16 October 1991 Manila-Puerto Princesa ight, could not be relied upon
inasmuch as he himself admitted that they could not be sure of their passengers' real
identities. The testimonies of accused-appellant's co-workers that he was in Antipolo on
14 October 1991 did not fortify his defense either since these witnesses did not
categorically state that they saw him in Antipolo in the evening of 16 October 1991. With
accused appellant having been positively identi ed by the prosecution witnesses as the
one who stabbed Dennis, his bare denial proves futile and unavailing.
2. ID.; ID.; ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS; ADMISSION OF APPELLANT'S
VIDEOTAPED CONFESSION, PROPER. — Apropos the court a quo's admission of accused-
appellant's videotaped confession, we nd such admission proper. The interview was
recorded on video and it showed accused-appellant unburdening his guilt willingly, openly
and publicly in the presence of newsmen. Such confession does not form part of custodial
investigation as it was not given to police o cers but to media men in an attempt to elicit
sympathy and forgiveness from the public. Besides, if he had indeed been forced into
confessing, he could have easily sought succor from the newsmen who, in all likelihood,
would have been sympathetic with him. As the trial court stated in its Decision—
Furthermore, accused, in his TV interview (Exh. H), freely admitted that he had stabbed
Dennis Aquino, and that Edward Endino had shot him (Aquino). There is no showing that
the interview of accused was coerced or against his will. Hence, there is basis to accept
the truth of his statements therein.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXTRA JUDICIAL MEDIA CONFESSIONS SHOULD BE
THOROUGHLY EXAMINED AND SCRUTINIZED; COURTS SHOULD NOT PRESUME THAT
ALL MEDIA CONFESSIONS DESCRIBED AS VOLUNTARY HAVE BEEN FREELY GIVEN. —
Because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a medium for admitting one's
guilt, and the recurrence of this phenomenon in several cases, it is prudent that trial courts
are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions.
For in all probability, the police, with the connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners,
may attempt to legitimize coerced extra judicial confessions and place them beyond the
exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an offense on television. Such a situation
would be detrimental to the guaranteed rights of the accused and thus imperil our criminal
justice system. We do not suggest that videotaped confessions given before media men
by an accused with the knowledge of and in the presence of police o cers are
impermissible. Indeed, the line between proper and invalid police techniques and conduct
is a di cult one to draw, particularly in cases such as this where it is essential to make
sharp judgments in determining whether a confession was given under coercive physical
or psychological atmosphere. A word of counsel then to lower courts: we should never
presume that all media confessions described as voluntary have been freely given. This
type of confession always remains suspect and therefore should be thoroughly examined
and scrutinized. Detection of coerced confessions is admittedly a di cult and arduous
task for the courts to make. It requires persistence and determination in separating
polluted confessions from untainted ones. We have a sworn duty to be vigilant and
protective of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
4. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY;
SHOWN BY SUDDENNESS OF ASSAULT ON UNSUSPECTING VICTIM, WITHOUT
SLIGHTEST PROVOCATION FROM HIM WHO HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO PARRY ATTACK.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 — The question that next presents itself is whether the trial court correctly denominated
the crime as murder quali ed by treachery. Doubtless, the crime committed is one of
murder considering that the victim was stabbed while he was simply standing on the
pavement with his girlfriend waiting for a ride, blissfully oblivious of the accused's criminal
design. The suddenness of the assault on an unsuspecting victim, without the slightest
provocation from him who had no opportunity to parry the attack, certainly quali es the
killing to murder.

DECISION

BELLOSILLO , J : p

YIELDING to man's brutish instinct for revenge, Edward Endino, with the aid of Gerry
Galgarin alias Toto, slew Dennis Aquino in the presence of a lady whose love they once
shared.
On a busy street in Puerto Princesa City in the evening of 16 October 1991, an
emboldened Gerry Galgarin, uncle of accused Edward Endino, suddenly and without
warning lunged at Dennis and stabbed him repeatedly on the chest. Dennis' girlfriend Clara
Agagas who was with him, stunned by the unexpected attack, pleaded to Galgarin to stop.
Dennis struggled and succeeded momentarily to free himself from his attacker. Dennis
dashed towards the nearby Midtown Sales but his escape was foiled when from out of
nowhere Edward Endino appeared and red at Dennis. As Dennis staggered for safety, the
two (2) assailants fled in the direction of the airport.
Meanwhile, Dennis, wounded and bleeding, sought refuge inside the Elohim Store
where he collapsed on the oor. He was grasping for breath and near death. Clara with the
help of some onlookers took him to the hospital but Dennis expired even before he could
receive medical attention. According to the autopsy report of Dr. Josephine Goh-Cruz,
cause of death was "cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to hypovolemic shock secondary
to a stab wound which penetrated the heart." 1
On 18 October 1991, an Information for the murder of Dennis Aquino was led
against Edward Endino and accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin and warrants were issued
for their arrest. However, as both accused remained at large, the trial court issued on 26
December 1991 an order putting the case in the archives without prejudice to its
reinstatement upon their apprehension.
On 19 November 1992, Gerry Galgarin was arrested through the combined efforts
of the Antipolo and Palawan police forces at a house in Sitio Sto. Niño, Antipolo, Rizal. He
was immediately taken into temporary custody by the Antipolo Police. Early in the evening
of the following day, he was fetched from the Antipolo Police Station by PO3 Gaudencio
Manlavi and PO3 Edwin Magbanua of the Palawan police force to be taken to Palawan and
be tried accordingly.
On their way to the airport, they stopped at the ABS-CBN television station where
accused Galgarin was interviewed by reporters. Video footages of the interview were
taken showing Galgarin admitting his guilt while pointing to his nephew Edward Endino as
the gunman. According to Galgarin, after attacking Aquino, they left for Roxas, Palawan,
where his sister Langging who is Edward's mother, was waiting. Langging gave them
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 money for their fare for Manila. They took the boat for Batangas, where they stayed for a
few days, and proceeded to Manila where they separated, with him heading for Antipolo.
Galgarin appealed for Edward to give himself up to the authorities. His interview was
shown over the ABS-CBN evening news program TV Patrol.
The case against accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin was established through the
testimony of Clara Agagas who said that she was with the victim Dennis Aquino standing
outside the Soundlab Recording Studio, a barhouse owned by him, when Galgarin suddenly
approached them and without any prior warning stabbed Dennis. Dennis tried to run away,
but Edward, a spurned lover who harbored ill-feelings towards her and Dennis, shot Dennis.
She recognized Edward and Gerry because the street was sufficiently lighted. 2
The testimony of Clara Agagas was corroborated by Anita Leong, next-door
neighbor of Dennis, who testi ed that a little past six o'clock in the evening of 16 October
1991 Gerry Galgarin together with a companion went to her house looking for Dennis. She
instructed them to proceed to the Soundlab Recording Studio as Dennis might still be
there. But a few minutes later she heard a Instinctively, she instructed her two (2) young
daughters to duck for cover while she anxiously waited for her seven (7)-year old daughter
Josephine who was out of the house for an errand for her. Soon enough she heard
Josephine knocking at their door. She was crying because she said her Kuya Dennis had
been shot and stabbed. 3
Josephine con rmed her mother's testimony and even said that she had seen Gerry
Galgarin stab her Kuya Dennis and she could remember Gerry very well because of the
mole below his nose. 4
For his part, accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin disclaimed having taking part in the
slaying of Dennis. Gerry asserted that on 14 October 1991 he was in Antipolo to help his
common-law wife Maria Marasigan give birth to their first born. He stayed with her until the
16th of October when she was discharged from the Pedragoza Maternity Clinic. 5
Clarita Florentino Pedragoza, the midwife who delivered his son, supported the alibi
of accused-appellant. However, she admitted that when she registered the child's birth on
13 December 1993 or more than two (2) years after the delivery, she informed the civil
registrar that the child's father was "unknown." 6 His story was also con rmed by Dolores
Arciaga and Maria Tomenio, his co-workers at the Kainan sa Kubo Sing Along Restaurant,
who testi ed that accused-appellant was fetched by a neighbor from the restaurant in the
early afternoon of 14 October with the news that his wife was having labor pains. 7
Accused-appellant disowned the confession which he made over TV Patrol and
claimed that it was induced by the threats of the arresting police o cers. He asserted that
the videotaped confession was constitutionally in rmed and inadmissible under the
exclusionary rule provided in Sec. 12, Art. III, of the Constitution. 8
The trial court however admitted the video footages on the strength of the
testimony of the police o cers that no force or compulsion was exerted on accused-
appellant and upon a nding that his confession was made before a group of newsmen
that could have dissipated any semblance of hostility towards him. The court gave
credence to the arresting o cers' assertion that it was even accused-appellant who
pleaded with them that he be allowed to air his appeal on national television for Edward to
surrender. SETaHC

The alibi of Galgarin was likewise rejected since there was no convincing evidence
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 to support his allegation that he was not at the locus criminis on the evening of 16 October
1991. Accordingly, accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin was convicted of murder quali ed by
treachery 9 and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Additionally, he was ordered to indemnify
the heirs of Dennis Aquino P50,000.00 as compensatory damages and P72,725.35 as
actual damages. The case against his nephew and co-accused Edward Endino remained in
the archives without prejudice to its reinstatement as soon as he could be arrested. 1 0
In his Appellant's Brief, Gerry Galgarin assails the trial court for rejecting his alibi and
admitting his videotaped confession as evidence against him.
The argument that accused-appellant could not be at the scene of the crime on 16
October 1991 as he was in Antipolo assisting his wife who was giving birth on the 14th of
that month, is not persuasive. Alibi is a weak defense. The testimony of Cornelio Tejero Jr.,
1 1 Philippine Airlines Load Controller of the Puerto Princesa City, that the name of "Gerry
Galgarin" did not appear on their passenger manifest for the 16 October 1991 Manila-
Puerto Princesa ight, could not be relied upon inasmuch as he himself admitted that they
could not be sure of their passengers' real identities. The testimonies of accused-
appellant's co-workers that he was in Antipolo on 14 October 1991 did not fortify his
defense either since these witnesses did not categorically state that they saw him in
Antipolo in the evening of 16 October 1991.
With accused-appellant having been positively identi ed by the prosecution
witnesses as the one who stabbed Dennis, his bare denial proves futile and unavailing.
Josephine Leong's identi cation of accused-appellant was given in a very categorical and
spontaneous manner. Her confidence as to the attacker's identity was clearly shown by her
vivid recollection of him having a mole below his nose, which is correct. Moreover, it is
inconceivable for Josephine and Anita to implicate accused-appellant, a complete stranger
to them, if there was no truth to their assertion. As for Clara, her naming of accused-
appellant as her boyfriend's assailant was not done out of spite, but was impelled by her
desire to seek justice for Dennis.
Corroborating further accused-appellant's guilt, probably with intense incriminating
effect, were his immediate flight after the slaying, and his attempt at jailbreak 1 2 revealing a
guilty conscience, hence, his persistent effort to evade the clutches of the law.
Apropos the court a quo's admission of accused-appellant's videotaped confession,
we nd such admission proper. The interview was recorded on video and it showed
accused-appellant unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of
newsmen. Such confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not
given to police o cers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness
from the public. Besides, if he had indeed been forced into confessing, he could have easily
sought succor from the newsmen who, in all likelihood, would have been sympathetic with
him. As the trial court stated in its Decision 1 3 —
Furthermore, accused, in his TV interview (Exh. H), freely admitted that he
had stabbed Dennis Aquino, and that Edward Endino had shot him (Aquino).
There is no showing that the interview of accused was coerced or against his will.
Hence, there is basis to accept the truth of his statements therein.

We agree. However, because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a

medium for admitting one's guilt, and the recurrence of this phenomenon in several cases,
1 4 it is prudent that trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further
admitting similar confessions. For in all probability, the police, with the connivance of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 unscrupulous media practitioners, may attempt to legitimize coerced extra-judicial
confessions and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an
offense on television. Such a situation would be detrimental to the guaranteed rights of the
accused and thus imperil our criminal justice system.
We do not suggest that videotaped confessions given before media men by an
accused with the knowledge of and in the presence of police o cers are impermissible.
Indeed, the line between proper and invalid police techniques and conduct is a di cult one
to draw, particularly in cases such as this where it is essential to make sharp judgments in
determining whether a confession was given under coercive physical or psychological
atmosphere.
A word of counsel then to lower courts: we should never presume that all media
confessions described as voluntary have been freely given. This type of confession always
remains suspect and therefore should be thoroughly examined and scrutinized. Detection
of coerced confessions is admittedly a di cult and arduous task for the courts to make. It
requires persistence and determination in separating polluted confessions from untainted
ones. We have a sworn duty to be vigilant and protective of the rights guaranteed by the
Constitution.
With all the evidence tightly ringed around accused-appellant, the question that next
presents itself is whether the trial court correctly denominated the crime as murder
quali ed by treachery. Doubtless, the crime committed is one of murder considering that
the victim was stabbed while he was simply standing on the pavement with his girlfriend
waiting for a ride, blissfully oblivious of the accused's criminal design. The suddenness of
the assault on an unsuspecting victim, without the slightest provocation from him who had
no opportunity to parry the attack, certainly qualifies the killing to murder. 1 5
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo nding accused-appellant GERRY
GALGARIN alias Toto guilty of Murder quali ed by Treachery, sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua, and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Dennis Aquino in the amount of
P50,000.00 as compensatory damages and P72,725.35 as actual damages, is AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is further ordered to compensate the
decedent's heirs P50,000.00 as moral damages for their emotional and mental anguish.
Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. See Exh. "C;" Original Records, p. 75.

2. TSN, 19 March 1993, pp. 80-126.

3. TSN, 25 June 1993, pp. 127-155.
4. TSN, 28 July 1993, pp. 156-186.
5. TSN, 3 February 1994, pp. 322-350.
6. TSN, 28 August 1995, p. 365.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 7. TSN, 22 November 1993, pp. 228-266.

8. SECTION 12. . . . . (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
9. The lower court characterized the attack against Dennis Aquino as sudden and
unexpected; Rollo, p. 32.
10. Decision penned by Judge Panfilo S. Salva, RTC-Br. 49, Puerto Princesa City; Rollo, pp.
25-33.
11. TSN, 7 February 1996, pp. 389-399.
12. In his Order dated 9 March 1994 then Presiding Judge Sabas R. Acosta took note of
accused-appellant's attempted escape from the PNP Headquarters Detention Cell
sometime in October of 1993; Original Records, p. 180.
13. See Exh. "H," p. 8; Rollo, p. 32.
14. People v. Vizcarra, No. L-38859, 30 July 1982, 115 SCRA 743; People v. Bernardo, G.R.
No. 97393, 17 March 1993, 220 SCRA 31; People v. Andan, G.R. No. 116437, 3 March
1997, 269 SCRA 95.
15. People v. Sumalpong, G.R. No. 124705, 20 January 1998, 284 SCRA 464; People v.
Medina, G.R. No. 113691, 6 February 1998, 286 SCRA 44; People v. Ebrada, G.R. No.
122774, 25 September 1998, 296 SCRA 353.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com