PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 185710
Appellee,
Present:
Carpio, J., Chairperson,
- versus - Brion,
Del Castillo,
Abad, and
Perez, JJ.
ROMULO
TUNIACO, JEFFREY
DATULAYTA
and ALEX ALEMAN,
Accused.
Promulgated:
ALEX ALEMAN,
Appellant. January 19, 2010
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This case is about the requirements of
a valid extrajudicial confession and the establishment of the existence of corpus
delicti in murder cases.
The Facts and the Case
The city prosecutor of
Based on the findings of the RTC, in the morning of June 13, 1992 some
police officers from the Lagao Police Sub-Station requested police officer Jaime
Tabucon of the Central Police Station of General Santos City homicide division to
take the statement of accused Alex Aleman regarding the slaying of a certain
Dondon Cortez. On his arrival at the
sub-station, Tabucon noted the presence of Atty. Ruperto Besinga, Jr. of the
Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) who was conversing with those taken into custody
for the offense. When queried if the
suspects would be willing to give their statements, Atty. Besinga said that
they were.
Some other police officer first took the statement of accused Jeffrey Datulayta. Officer Tabucon next took the statement of accused
Aleman, whom he observed to be in good physical shape.
Before anything else, officer Tabucon informed accused Aleman in Cebuano
of his constitutional right to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel
of his own choice and asked him if he was willing to give a statement. Aleman answered in the affirmative. When asked if he had any complaint to make,
Aleman said that he had none. When
Aleman said that he had no lawyer, Tabucon pointed to Atty. Besinga who claimed
that he was assisting all the suspects in the case. Tabucon warned Aleman that anything he would say
may be used against him later in court.
Afterwards, the police officer started taking down Aleman’s statement.
Accused Aleman said that in the course of a drinking bout with accused
Datulayta and Tuniaco at around 9 p.m. on June 6, 1992, Dondon Cortez
threatened to report his drinking companions’ illegal activities to the police
unless they gave him money for his forthcoming marriage. According to Aleman, Datulayta and Tuniaco had
already planned to kill Cortez in Tupi,
The three accused brought Cortez to Apopong near the dump site and, as they
were walking, accused Aleman turned on Cortez and stabbed him on the stomach. Accused Datulayta, on the other hand, drew
out his single shot homemade M16 pistol[1] and
shot Cortez on the head, causing him to fall.
Datulayta handed over the gun to Aleman who fired another shot on Cortez’s
head. Accused Tuniaco used the same gun
to pump some bullets into Cortez’s body.
Then they covered him with rice husks.
After taking down the statement, Tabucon explained the substance of it to
accused Aleman who then signed it in the presence of Atty. Besinga.
On June 15, 1992 the police brought Aleman to the City Prosecutor’s
Office where he swore to his statement before an assistant city prosecutor. In the afternoon, accused Datulayta and
Aleman led Tabucon, the city prosecutor, and a police inspector, to the dump
site where they left their victim’s body.
After some search, the group found a spot covered with burnt rice husks
and a partially burnt body of a man.
About a foot from the body, they found the shells of a 5.56 caliber gun
and an armalite rifle.
On being arraigned, all three accused, assisted by Atty. Besinga, pleaded
not guilty to the murder charge. After
the prosecution rested its case, accused Tuniaco filed a demurrer to evidence
which the Court granted, resulting in the dismissal of the case against him. On being re-arraigned at his request, accused
Datulayta pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of Homicide. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment
of six years and one day and to pay P50,000.00 to the victim’s family.
For some reason, the trial court had Aleman
subjected to psychiatric examination at the
Although the prosecution and defense
stipulated that Atty. Besinga assisted accused Aleman during the taking of his
extrajudicial confession, the latter, however, recanted what he said to the
police during the trial. He testified
that sometime in 1992, some police officers took him from his aunt’s house in
Purok Palen, Labangal,
Accused Aleman also testified that he could not remember having been
assisted by Atty. Besinga during the police investigation. He even denied ever knowing the lawyer. Aleman further denied prior association with accused
Tuniaco and Datulayta. He said that he
met them only at the city jail where they were detained for the death of
Cortez.
On October 8, 2001 the RTC rendered judgment,
finding accused Aleman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The court also ordered him to pay death
indemnity of P70,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 to the
heirs of Cortez.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00311, the court rendered judgment on January 21, 2008,
affirming the decision of the RTC with the modification that directed accused Aleman
and Datulayta to indemnify the heirs of Cortez, jointly and severally, in the
amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral
damages; P25,000.00 as temperate damages; and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages. Aleman appealed to
this Court.
The Issues Presented
Accused Aleman raises two issues: a) whether or not the prosecution was
able to present evidence of corpus delicti; and b) whether or not
accused Aleman’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence.
The Rulings of the Court
1. Corpus delicti has been defined
as the body, foundation, or substance of a crime. The evidence of a dead body with a gunshot
wound on its back would be evidence that murder has been committed.[2] Corpus
delicti has two elements: (a) that a certain result has been established,
for example, that a man has died and (b) that some person is criminally
responsible for it.[3] The prosecution is burdened to prove corpus
delicti beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or by
circumstantial or presumptive evidence.[4]
The defense claims that the prosecution failed
to prove corpus delicti since it did not bother to present a medical
certificate identifying the remains found at the dump site and an autopsy
report showing such remains sustained gunshot and stab wounds that resulted in death;
and the shells of the guns used in killing the victim.
But corpus
delicti need not be proved by an autopsy report of the dead victim’s body or
even by the testimony of the physician who examined such body.[5] While such report or testimony is useful for
understanding the nature of the injuries the victim suffered, they are not
indispensable proof of such injuries or of the fact of death.[6] Nor is the presentation of the murder weapons
also indispensable since the physical existence of such weapons is not an
element of the crime of murder.[7]
Here, the police authorities found the remains
of Cortez at the place pointed to by accused Aleman. That physical confirmation, coming after his
testimony of the gruesome murder, sufficiently establishes the corpus delicti of the crime. Of course, that statement must be admissible
in evidence.
2. There
is no reason for it not to be. Confession to be admissible must be a)
voluntary; b) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; c)
express; and d) in writing.[8] These requirements were met here. A lawyer, not working with or was not beholden
to the police, Atty. Besinga, assisted accused Aleman during the custodial investigation. Officer Tabucon testified that he saw accused
Aleman, before the taking of his statement, conversing with counsel at the
police station. Atty. Besinga did not
dispute this claim.
Aleman alleges torture as the reason for the execution of the
confession. The appellate court is
correct in ruling that such allegation is baseless. It is a settled rule that where the defendant
did not present evidence of compulsion, where he did not institute any criminal
or administrative action against his supposed intimidators, where no physical
evidence of violence was presented, all these will be considered as indicating
voluntariness.[9] Here, although Aleman claimed that he bore torture
marks on his head, he never brought this to the attention of his counsel, his relatives,
or the prosecutor who administered his oath.
Accused Aleman claims, citing People v. Galit,[10]
that long questions followed by monosyllabic answers do not satisfy the
requirement that the accused is amply informed of his rights. But this does not apply here. Tabucon testified that he spoke to Aleman clearly
in the language he knew. Aleman, joined
by Atty. Besinga, even signed a certification that the investigator
sufficiently explained to him his constitutional rights and that he was still
willing to give his statement.
Further, Aleman asserts that he was lacking in education and so he did
not fully realize the consequences of a confession. But as the CA said, no law or jurisprudence
requires the police officer to ascertain the educational attainment of the
accused. All that is needed is an
effective communication between the interrogator and the suspect to the end
that the latter is able to understand his rights.[11] This
appears to have been done in this case.
Moreover, as the lower court noted, it is improbable that the police
fabricated Aleman’s confession and just forced him to sign it. The confession has details that only the
person who committed the crime could have possibly known.[12] What is more, accused Datulayta’s confession
corroborate that of Aleman in important details. Under the doctrine of interlocking
confessions, such corroboration is circumstantial evidence against the
person implicated in it.[13]
The Court notes that, when it modified
the award of civil damages to the heirs of Cortez, the CA made both accused Aleman
and Datulayta, jointly and severally liable, for the damages as modified. But the appeal by one or more of several accused
cannot affect those who did not appeal, except if the judgment of the appellate
court is favorable and applicable to them.[14] Here accused Datulayta pleaded guilty to the
lesser offense of homicide and the trial court ordered him to pay only P50,000.00
in civil indemnity to the heirs of Cortez.
The CA erred in expanding that liability when he did not appeal from his
conviction.[15]
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the Court
AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals’
judgment in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00311 dated January 21, 2008 against accused Alex
Aleman. The Court, however, DELETES from such judgment the portion
increasing the civil liability of accused Jeffrey Datulayta who did not appeal
from the RTC decision against him.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
JOSE P. PEREZ
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] CA rollo, p. 11.
[2] People v. Cariño, 438 Phil. 771, 777 (2002).
[3] People v. Cabodoc, 331 Phil. 491, 509-510 (1996).
[4] People v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 123939, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 52, 77.
[5] People v. Cariño, supra note 2.
[6] People v. Barro, Sr., 392 Phil. 857, 873 (2000).
[7] People v. Piedad, 441 Phil. 818, 836
(2002).
[8] People v. Gallardo, 380 Phil. 182, 194 (2000).
[9] People v. Del Rosario, 411 Phil. 676, 690-691 (2001).
[10] 220 Phil. 143, 150-151 (1985).
[11] People v. Muleta, 368 Phil. 451, 464 (1999).
[12] People v. Villanueva, 334 Phil. 324, 330 (1997).
[13] People v. Lising, 340 Phil. 530, 560-561 (1998).
[14] Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 122, Sec. 11.
[15] People v. Napud, Jr., 418 Phil. 268, 284 (2001).