People of the Philippines vs. Felicito Tawat and Leo Tawat

An oral extrajudicial confession made to a private person who is not a peace officer is admissible in evidence and may be proved by the testimony of a person who heard and understood its substance; it is not subject to custodial-interrogation safeguards. In an automatic review of a death sentence, the death penalty may be validly imposed only with the necessary ten votes; absent that number, the accused is sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Felicito Tawat and Leo Tawat, first cousins, were charged with robbery with triple homicide before the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes. Felicito had a prior criminal record and was separately convicted in People vs. Tawat, G.R. No. 62547, December 21, 1983, for another robbery with homicide, where the death penalty was commuted to reclusion perpetua. The present case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review because the trial court imposed the death penalty on Felicito; Leo did not appeal.

On January 23, 1980, Andrea Magdaraog-Siao and her nephew Luis Magdaraog went from the barrio proper of Agban, Baras, Catanduanes to Andrea's hut in Sitio Banog to check on her mother, Bernarda Salvador Magdaraog, 79, and her two grandchildren who were staying with the old woman. They found the bodies of Bernarda, Andrea's son Lito Siao, 13, and Luis' brother Jose Magdaraog, 15, sprawled on the floor of the small hut, bathed in blood. The hut's door was destroyed and belongings were scattered. Bernarda was prostrate, teeth showing, waist slashed, and naked from the waist down; the cloth-belt where she kept her money was missing. Missing also were a pig, four chickens, a mosquito net, three kettles, one frying pan, and plates and spoons, all valued at P705. A black underwear with garter belt marked "Armin" and "No. 7" was found and later proven to have been worn by Felicito Tawat.

Bernarda had fourteen wounds: six stab wounds in the chest, two stab wounds in the abdomen, one of which was gaping, a hack wound in the forehead, fractures on the left temple, mandible and ribs, and a hack wound in the lower left leg that severed the bone with only a thread of skin remaining. Lito had fifteen wounds: eight stab, gaping wounds in the chest that penetrated his lungs, six stab wounds in the neck that cut the carotid arteries, and a hack wound in the head that fractured the skull. Jose had five serious wounds: three stab wounds in the chest that injured his lungs, a hack wound in the occipital region that fractured the bone, and a stab wound that penetrated his heart.

At about three o'clock in the afternoon of January 23, 1980, Felicito Tawat, 23, and his first cousin Leo Tawat, 16, arrived at the hut of Floro Ogalesco, an abaca and rattan stripper, in the remote forest of Sitio Capipian, Barrio Paraiso, San Miguel, Catanduanes. In Leo's presence, Felicito confessed to Ogalesco that they were taking refuge because the night before they had killed an old woman and two boys at Sitio Banog, Barrio Agban, Baras, one of whom was Andrea Siao's son. Felicito recounted that they were drunk; as they passed Siao's hut, a dog barked and he killed it; an old woman shouted at him, so he stabbed and killed her; the two boys also shouted, and Felicito killed one while Leo killed the other. They took the dead dog, chickens, pork, and other belongings from the hut, proceeded to the house of Julio Tawat, Leo's father, in Barrio Agban, and then repaired to Capipian. Ogalesco narrated this in court and linked Felicito and Leo to the robbery with triple homicide committed on the evening of January 22, 1980.

Felicito's confession to Ogalesco was partly corroborated by the sworn statement of Alejo Tawat, Felicito's father. Alejo declared that at about eight o'clock in the morning of January 23, 1980, he and his brother Julio, Leo's father, went to their abaca plantation in Sitio Calabiga, where he found Felicito and Leo cooking chickens in a kettle; he saw a mosquito net in the hut, and a pig had been killed and was about to be cooked. After Felicito and Leo ate, Alejo and Julio accompanied them to the forest of Capipian and then left them there, returning to Barrio J.M. Alberto, Baras. From neighbors, Alejo later learned that the mother-in-law of Jovito Siao, his son Lito, and his wife's nephew Jose had been killed, and that Jovito Siao's pig, blanket, mosquito net, kettle, and chickens had been stolen. The connection of Felicito to the crime was further supported by the black shorts with belt found at the scene: Luis Magdaraog testified that Felicito wore them on the morning of January 22, 1980, when Luis gave cigarettes to Felicito and Leo, and Leo confirmed in his sworn statement that the shorts belonged to Felicito.

Felicito relied on alibi, testifying that he was in Mercedes, Camarines Norte from 1963 to October 1980. The claim was manifestly false because he was only seven years old in 1963, he finished sixth grade at Barrio Agban, Baras in 1972, and his father saw him on January 22, 1980 at Barrio J.M. Alberto, Baras. The trial court concluded that although there was no eyewitness testimony, the totality of the circumstantial evidence was so overwhelming as to prove Felicito's guilt to a moral certainty. Felicito was not immediately arrested. He, with Nestor Rojo and Jimmy Tarraya, committed another robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide on November 30, 1980 at Barrio Bugao, Bagamanoc, Catanduanes; Felicito stabbed to death with a dagger Jovita Lim, a storekeeper, while a companion got the loot of P110. He was convicted and sentenced to death, and this Court affirmed the conviction but commuted the death penalty to reclusion perpetua in People vs. Tawat, G.R. No. 62547, December 21, 1983. In connection with that case, Felicito executed a confession on January 9, 1981 before the chief of police of Bagamanoc, Catanduanes, in which he incidentally stated that he wanted to get out of Catanduanes because he was wanted by the police for the killing of three persons in Barrio Agban, Baras, and that he had hidden in Ogalesco's hut in Capipian, San Miguel.

Defense counsel de oficio contended that the trial court erred in relying on Felicito's admission in his confession before the chief of police, which he later repudiated, because a confession during custodial interrogation cannot be admissible under Morales vs. Ponce Enrile. The trial court, however, only alluded to that admission in passing; it was not the basis for Felicito's conviction. His guilt was predicated on his confession to Ogalesco, which was not taken during custodial interrogation because Ogalesco was not a peace officer. The Court also noted Felicito's criminal career: in 1975 he was charged in the Baras municipal court with theft of two cocks, alimbuyogon and balawon, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 15 days' imprisonment; he was suspected of implication in a December 1979 murder and frustrated murder in Tigaon, Camarines Sur; and he was convicted in the November 30, 1980 robbery with homicide. The crime in this case may be mitigated by drunkenness but was aggravated by dwelling, abuse of superiority, despoblado, and disregard of sex and old age in the case of the 79-year-old woman victim; the second and third homicides may also be regarded as an additional aggravating circumstance.

• Repudiated Custodial Confession: Counsel de oficio for Felicito Tawat contended that the trial court erred in relying on Felicito's admission in his confession before the chief of police, which he later repudiated, because a confession taken during custodial interrogation cannot be admissible in evidence under Morales vs. Ponce Enrile.
• Alibi: Felicito relied on an alibi, testifying that he was in Mercedes, Camarines Norte from 1963 to October 1980.

• Admissibility of Custodial Confession: Whether the trial court erred in relying on Felicito Tawat's admission in his confession before the chief of police, which he later repudiated, as evidence against him.
• Admissibility of Oral Confession to a Private Person: Whether Felicito Tawat's oral confession to Floro Ogalesco, a private person and not a peace officer, is admissible in evidence and competent to prove his guilt.
• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish Felicito Tawat's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for robbery with triple homicide.
• Imposition of Death Penalty: Whether the death penalty could be validly imposed on Felicito Tawat in the absence of the necessary ten votes.

• Admissibility of Custodial Confession: No error. The admission in the custodial confession was only alluded to in passing and was not the basis for conviction; guilt was predicated on the confession to Ogalesco, which was not custodial.
• Admissibility of Oral Confession to a Private Person: Yes. An oral extrajudicial confession to a private person not a peace officer is admissible under Section 29, Rule 130, and may be proved by the testimony of a person who heard and understood its substance; it may also be regarded as part of the res gestae.
• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Yes. The totality of circumstantial evidence, including the oral confession, corroboration, discovery of Felicito's shorts at the scene, and his false alibi, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Imposition of Death Penalty: No, not validly imposed in this case. Although the trial court correctly imposed death under the facts, the absence of the necessary ten votes required the sentence of reclusion perpetua.

• Admissibility of Custodial Confession: Counsel de oficio invoked Morales vs. Ponce Enrile to argue that the confession before the chief of police, later repudiated, was inadmissible. The Court found that the trial court only alluded to that admission in passing and did not base the conviction on it. The conviction rested on Felicito's confession to Ogalesco, which was not taken during custodial interrogation because Ogalesco was not a peace officer. Thus, the custodial-interrogation objection did not affect the judgment.
• Admissibility of Oral Confession to a Private Person: Section 29, Rule 130 provides that the declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged may be given in evidence against him. The Court held that what Felicito told Ogalesco may also be regarded as part of the res gestae. It applied the rule that any person otherwise competent as a witness who heard the confession is competent to testify as to its substance if he heard and understood all of it; an oral confession need not be repeated verbatim but must be given in substance. Proof of the contents of an oral extrajudicial confession may be made by the testimony of a person who was present, heard, understood, and remembers the substance of the statement. The Court cited U.S. vs. Corrales, where an auditor's testimony on the accused's confession was held admissible. Because Ogalesco was a private person, the confession was not subject to custodial-interrogation safeguards.
• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: The trial court found no eyewitness testimony but concluded that the totality of circumstantial evidence proved Felicito's guilt to a moral certainty. The Court agreed that guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence included Felicito's oral confession to Ogalesco; Alejo Tawat's sworn statement that he found Felicito and Leo cooking chickens, saw a mosquito net, and observed a killed pig, and that he and Julio accompanied the two to Capipian; the black shorts with belt found at the scene, which Luis Magdaraog testified Felicito wore on January 22, 1980 and which Leo confirmed belonged to Felicito; and the rejection of Felicito's alibi as manifestly false. Felicito's later confession in the other case also incidentally stated that he was wanted for killing three persons in Barrio Agban, Baras and had hidden in Ogalesco's hut. These circumstances sufficiently linked Felicito to the robbery with triple homicide.
• Imposition of Death Penalty: The Court noted that the crime may be mitigated by drunkenness but was aggravated by dwelling, abuse of superiority, despoblado, and disregard of sex and old age in the case of the 79-year-old woman victim; the second and third homicides may also be regarded as an additional aggravating circumstance under People vs. Pedroso. The trial judge acted correctly in imposing the death penalty. However, in automatic review, the death sentence could not be validly imposed without the necessary ten votes. Fernando, C.J., voted for reclusion perpetua, and the required ten votes were absent. Accordingly, Felicito was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The trial court's judgment was affirmed with the slight modification that Felicito also pay the heirs of Bernarda Magdaraog P705, the value of the articles taken, with no costs.

• Oral extrajudicial confession to a private person — An oral confession made to a private individual who is not a peace officer is admissible under Section 29, Rule 130, and may be proved by the testimony of a person who heard and understood its substance; it need not be repeated verbatim. It may also be regarded as part of the res gestae. The Court applied this to Felicito's confession to Ogalesco, an abaca and rattan stripper, and held it competent evidence of guilt.
• Custodial interrogation safeguards — Confessions taken during custodial interrogation are subject to constitutional safeguards, but the rule does not apply to a confession made to a private person not a peace officer. The Court found that the custodial confession before the chief of police was not the basis of conviction; the oral confession to Ogalesco was not custodial.
• Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence — Guilt may be established by circumstantial evidence if the totality of the evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the conviction based on the oral confession, corroborating testimony, discovery of the accused's clothing at the scene, and the false alibi.
• Ten-vote requirement for death penalty — The death penalty cannot be validly imposed unless at least ten justices vote for it; absent the required votes, the penalty is reclusion perpetua. Although the trial court correctly imposed death under the facts, the absence of ten votes led to reclusion perpetua for Felicito.
• Aggravating circumstances in robbery with homicide — Dwelling, abuse of superiority, despoblado, disregard of sex and old age, and additional homicides may aggravate the crime. The Court noted these aggravating circumstances, offset by drunkenness as a mitigating circumstance, but the final penalty was controlled by the ten-vote requirement.

• "The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, may be given in evidence against him" (Sec. 29, Rule 130, Rules of Court). — States the evidentiary rule admitting an accused's declaration of guilt, which the Court applied to Felicito's oral confession to Ogalesco.
• "What Felicito told Ogalesco may in a sense be also regarded as part of the res gestae." — Characterizes the oral confession as res gestae, reinforcing its admissibility despite not being made during custodial interrogation.
• "The rule is that "any person, otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood all of it. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such case it must be given in its substance." (23 C.J.S. 196.) — Sets out the canonical rule for proving an oral extrajudicial confession through the testimony of a person who heard and understood it.
• "Accordingly, in the absence of the necessary ten votes for the death sentence to be validly imposed, Felicito Tawat is sentenced to reclusion perpetua." — States the dispositive penalty after the Court found the required votes for death absent.

• Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, G.R. No. 61016, April 26, 1983, 121 SCRA 538 — Cited by counsel de oficio for the rule that a confession during custodial interrogation cannot be admissible; the Court found it inapplicable because the custodial confession was not the basis of conviction and the oral confession to Ogalesco was not custodial.
• U.S. vs. Corrales, 28 Phil. 362 — Cited as authority that the testimony of a person who heard the accused's confession is admissible; the Court used it to support admitting Ogalesco's testimony on Felicito's oral confession.
• People vs. Pedroso, L-32997, July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA 599, 609 — Cited for the rule that the second and third homicides may be regarded as an additional aggravating circumstance.
• People vs. Tawat, G.R. No. 62547, December 21, 1983 — Prior conviction of Felicito Tawat for another robbery with homicide; the death penalty was commuted to reclusion perpetua. The Court cited it as part of Felicito's criminal record and related litigation.
• People vs. Carillo and Raquenio, 85 Phil. 611, 635 — Cited for the proposition that courts should impose the death penalty where the law requires, as an example and warning to others.
• People vs. Limaco, 88 Phil. 35, 43 — Cited for Justice Montemayor's statement that judicial officers must respect and apply the law regardless of their private opinions on the death penalty.

• Section 29, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Provides that the declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged may be given in evidence against him. The Court applied this to admit Felicito Tawat's oral confession to Floro Ogalesco.

Makasiar, Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concurred. Teehankee, Concepcion, Jr., Relova, and De la Fuente, JJ., took no part. Fernando, C.J., voted for the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua.