Bansilan vs. People of the Philippines

An extrajudicial oral confession spontaneously and voluntarily made to a private person, outside the context of custodial investigation, is admissible in evidence as a party admission under Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules of Court; testimony as to the fact of such utterance is not hearsay, and failure to object at trial waives any hearsay objection. Additionally, in robbery under Article 299 as amended by R.A. No. 10951, where the offender is unarmed and the value of the property taken does not exceed ₱50,000, the prescribed penalty is prision mayor in its minimum period, and the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence must be taken from the full range of prision correccional to avoid an absurd disparity with armed offenders.

On May 18, 2012, the house of Jayme Malayo was burglarized; a laptop, its charger, and ₱500.00 cash were taken after a jalousie window was broken. More than a month later, Alemar Bansilan was apprehended by police for robbery and carnapping. Malayo visited the station, questioned Bansilan at a distance from officers, and Bansilan admitted committing the burglary and pawning the laptop. Acting on this information, police recovered the laptop from a woman who identified Bansilan as the pawner. Bansilan was charged with Robbery in an Inhabited House under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code. At trial, he denied involvement and presented an alibi. The RTC convicted him, and the CA affirmed. Bansilan sought review by the Supreme Court but subsequently moved to withdraw his appeal to pursue parole; the Court granted the withdrawal, affirmed the conviction’s finality, but adjusted the penalty in light of R.A. No. 10951.

• The Robbery Incident: On May 18, 2012, at about 1:30 a.m., private complainant Jayme Malayo and his wife were awakened by noise from the living room of their house. They discovered that a jalousie window had been broken and that Malayo’s laptop, its charger, and ₱500.00 cash left on a divider were missing. The incident was reported to the police the following day.
• Apprehension and Extrajudicial Admission:
  • On June 30, 2012, Bansilan was apprehended by Marilog police as a suspect for robbery and carnapping. Malayo learned of the arrest, went to the Marilog Police Station, sought permission, and questioned Bansilan at a distance of about 20 meters from the police officers.
  • Bansilan voluntarily admitted that he was responsible for the robbery in Malayo’s residence and disclosed that he had pawned the missing laptop to a woman along Sta. Cruz Crossing General Santos Highway. Malayo transmitted this information to the police via text message.
• Recovery of the Laptop:
  • SPO1 Arado, accompanied by other officers and with Bansilan guiding them, proceeded to Sta. Cruz Crossing, Barangay Binugao, Toril District. They located Lanie Maduay, a carinderia owner, who admitted that a laptop had been pawned to her for ₱500.00 and identified Bansilan as the person who transacted with her.
  • Maduay surrendered the laptop to the police; it was returned to Malayo a week later.
  • Defense of Denial and Alibi: Bansilan denied any involvement and asserted alibi. He claimed that on May 17, 2012, he left Baguio District for Barangay Sinuda, Bukidnon, to visit his girlfriend’s mother and stayed there for one week, thus making it impossible for him to commit the crime on May 18, 2012. He also denied pawning the laptop.
• Lower Courts’ Findings:
  • The RTC found the prosecution evidence credible and held that Bansilan’s extrajudicial admission to Malayo was voluntary, richly detailed, and corroborated by the recovery of the laptop and Maduay’s identification. The RTC convicted Bansilan of Robbery in an Inhabited House.
  • The CA affirmed. It ruled the admission admissible because it was not made during custodial investigation or to police authorities but was freely given to a private individual; it also held that the circumstantial evidence sufficiently supported the conviction. The CA rejected the defenses of denial and alibi and imposed an indeterminate penalty of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum, with an order to pay ₱500.00.

• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Admission: Petitioner contended that Malayo’s testimony about his alleged oral admission was hearsay and uncorroborated. He further argued that even if true, the admission was elicited without the presence of counsel, violating his rights under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution on custodial investigation.
• Hearsay Nature of Identification: Petitioner maintained that SPO1 Arado’s testimony that Lanie Maduay identified him as the person who pawned the laptop was inadmissible hearsay because Maduay was never presented in court to confirm the identification.
• Prayer for Withdrawal and Alternative Relief: Petitioner sought the withdrawal of his appeal to facilitate parole review and, alternatively, prayed that if his conviction be affirmed, the Court order his release on the ground that his continued detention already exceeded the minimum period of the indeterminate sentence imposed.

• Admissibility of Admission: Respondent counters that the oral admission was spontaneously and voluntarily made to Malayo, a private individual, not during custodial investigation, and thus not covered by the constitutional requirements on custodial investigation. It qualified as a party admission under Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
• Not Hearsay: Respondent argued that Malayo’s testimony was not hearsay because it was offered to prove the fact that Bansilan made the statement, not the truth of its contents. Similarly, SPO1 Arado’s testimony about Maduay’s identification was based on personal perception of the statement made in his presence.
• Waiver of Objection: Respondent pointed out that petitioner failed to object to the admission of these testimonies at the time they were offered during trial, thereby waiving any hearsay objection.

• Withdrawal of Appeal: Whether Bansilan’s letter seeking to withdraw his petition for review on certiorari should be granted and what effect such withdrawal has on the finality of the CA decision.
• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confession: Whether Bansilan’s oral admission of guilt to private complainant Malayo is admissible despite being made without counsel and outside a formal custodial investigation.
• Hearsay Rule: Whether the testimonies of Malayo concerning the admission and of SPO1 Arado concerning Maduay’s out-of-court identification constitute inadmissible hearsay.
• Penalty Modification: Whether the penalty imposed by the lower courts should be modified in accordance with Republic Act No. 10951.

• Withdrawal of Appeal: The withdrawal was granted. Under Section 1, Rule 13 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, the case is deemed submitted for decision only upon the filing of the last required pleading. Because the letter to withdraw was filed before the case was submitted, it was permissible. An appellant who withdraws his appeal must accept that the decision of the court a quo becomes final and executory.
• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confession: The extrajudicial admission was admissible. Bansilan’s spontaneous, voluntary oral confession was given to an ordinary individual, Malayo, and not elicited through questioning by authorities during custodial investigation. Consequently, the constitutional safeguards under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution did not apply. The statement fell squarely under Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court as an admission of a party against his interest.
• Hearsay Rule: The challenged testimonies were not hearsay. Malayo personally heard Bansilan’s admission and SPO1 Arado personally heard Maduay’s identification; both testified from their own perception. The evidence was offered to prove the fact that the statements were made, not the truth of the matters asserted, which is permissible. Even assuming they were hearsay, Bansilan’s failure to object at the time the evidence was offered constituted a waiver of the objection, rendering the testimony competent.
• Penalty Modification: The penalty was modified. Under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 79 of R.A. No. 10951, for an unarmed robbery in an inhabited house where the value taken does not exceed ₱50,000, the prescribed penalty is prision mayor in its minimum period. With no modifying circumstances, the maximum term was taken from the medium period of that minimum period (6 years, 8 months and 1 day to 7 years and 4 months). The minimum term, under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, was taken from the full range of the penalty next lower in degree — the entirety of prision correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) — not merely its maximum period, to avoid the absurd result that an unarmed robber would face a higher minimum term than an armed robber. The penalty was thus fixed at 3 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 6 years and 10 months of prision mayor in its minimum period, as maximum.

• Hearsay and Proof of Utterance — Testimony concerning what a party said is not hearsay if offered solely to prove that the statement was made, rather than to establish the truth of its contents. It may serve as circumstantial evidence of an admission.
• Party Admission — Under Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, an act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact is admissible in evidence against him, based on the presumption that no person would make a declaration against his own interest unless it is true.
• Custodial Investigation Rights and Spontaneous Confessions — The constitutional rights to silence and counsel during custodial investigation, guaranteed by Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, apply exclusively to statements elicited by police authorities during custodial interrogation. Spontaneous, voluntary oral confessions made to a private individual outside this context are not constitutionally infirm.
• Waiver of Hearsay Objection — An objection to hearsay testimonial evidence must be raised as soon as the grounds become apparent. Failure to object at the time the evidence is offered constitutes a waiver, and the evidence will be treated as competent and part of the record.
• Retroactivity of R.A. No. 10951 — Republic Act No. 10951, which adjusts penalties based on the value of property taken or damage caused, applies retroactively not only to pending cases but also to those already serving final sentences, as expressly provided by its Section 100 and as held in Hernan v. Sandiganbayan.
• Computation of Indeterminate Penalty for Unarmed Robbery under Amended Article 299 — Where the prescribed penalty for unarmed robbery in an inhabited house involving property not exceeding ₱50,000 is prision mayor in its minimum period, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence must be taken from the whole range of prision correccional (the penalty next lower in degree), not solely its maximum period, to prevent the absurdity of imposing a higher minimum term on unarmed offenders than on armed offenders, consistent with legislative intent.

• “Testimony of what one heard a party say is not necessarily hearsay. It is admissible in evidence, not to show that the statement was true, but that it was in fact made. If credible, it may form part of the circumstantial evidence necessary to convict the accused.” — Bon v. People, applied to uphold the admissibility of Malayo’s account of Bansilan’s confession.
• “The constitutional procedure on custodial investigation does not apply to spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally admitted having committed the crime.” — Reaffirming that a voluntary admission to a private person lies outside the custodial investigation framework.
• “It is a general rule of statutory construction that a law should not be so construed as to produce an absurd result. The law does not intend an absurdity or that an absurd consequence shall flow from the enactment.” — Basis for taking the minimum term from the full range of prision correccional to avoid irrational penalty disparity.

• Bon v. People, 464 Phil. 125 (2004) — Followed for the rule that testimony about a party’s statement is not hearsay when offered to prove that the statement was uttered.
• Maunlad Savings & Loan Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 399 Phil. 590 (2000) — Relied upon for the principle that failure to object to hearsay evidence constitutes a waiver.
• People v. Licayan, 428 Phil. 332 (2002) — Applied for the doctrine that custodial investigation rights do not extend to spontaneous oral confessions made to private individuals.
• Southwestern University v. Hon. Salvador, 179 Phil. 252 (1979) — Cited to support the consequence that an appellant who withdraws his appeal must accept the finality and executory nature of the appealed decision.
• Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, December 5, 2017 — Applied as controlling authority for the retroactive application of R.A. No. 10951.

• Article III, Section 12, 1987 Constitution — Rights during custodial investigation; held inapplicable to a spontaneous extrajudicial confession addressed to a private person.
• Section 26, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Admission of a party; served as the basis for admitting Bansilan’s oral confession to Malayo as an admission against interest.
• Hearsay Rule, Rule 130, Rules of Court — The general exclusionary rule; clarified that testimony as to the fact of utterance falls outside the rule’s prohibition.
• Article 299, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 79 of Republic Act No. 10951 — Robbery in an inhabited house; prescribed penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period for unarmed offenders when the value taken does not exceed ₱50,000, forming the basis for the modified indeterminate sentence.
• Section 1, Indeterminate Sentence Law — Directed that the minimum term be taken from the penalty next lower than that prescribed for the offense; interpreted to mean the whole range of prision correccional to avoid an absurd outcome.
• Section 100, Republic Act No. 10951 — Retroactivity provision; applied to recompute the penalty even after the conviction had become final.

Caguioa, Carandang, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ., concurred.