People of the Philippines vs. Gallardo, et al.

An extra-judicial confession is admissible in evidence where it satisfies all four fundamental requirements: (1) it is voluntary; (2) it is made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it is express; and (4) it is in writing. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where the latter never raised any objection to his appointment during the investigation and thereafter subscribed to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer.

The appeal is governed by Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution, which guarantees that any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, and that these rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. The victim, Edmundo Orizal, was a strong campaigner and bodyguard of retired Gen. Prospero Olivas, who was then running for mayor of Camalaniugan, Cagayan against the re-electionist wife of Congressman Domingo Tuzon. The accused-appellants, Armando Gallardo y Gander and Alfredo Columna y Correa, were detained at the Camalaniugan Municipal Jail on other criminal charges when they were identified as suspects in Orizal's killing.

On July 28, 1991, the lifeless body of Edmundo Orizal was found in the rest house of Ronnie Balao in Balzain, Tuguegarao, Cagayan. An autopsy performed by Dr. Edmundo Borja, the Tuguegarao Municipal Health Officer, disclosed seven gunshot wounds in the chest, abdomen, back, left and right thighs, and two grazing wounds on the left arm and back.

Investigation by the Tuguegarao police identified Armando Gallardo y Gander, Alfredo Columna y Correa, and Jessie Micate y Orteza as suspects. Learning that the suspects were detained at the Camalaniugan Police Station on other criminal charges, elements of the Tuguegarao police went there in August 1991 to fetch them; only Gallardo and Columna, the latter also known as Fermin, were in the custody of that station. The two were brought to the Tuguegarao Police Department, and on August 18, 1991, Police Investigator SPO4 Isidro Marcos investigated them. They gave statements admitting that they, together with Jessie Micate, had killed Orizal. The investigation was conducted in Ilocano, the native tongue of the accused; Atty. Rolando Velasco assisted them; Judge Vilma Pauig was present and administered the oath on the jurat of the statements, which the accused signed.

According to the accused-appellants, the killing was planned and executed as follows. At about 10:00 in the morning of July 26, 1991, Pat. Dennis Molina, Gallardo, Columna, Jessie Micate, and Asoy (Nelson) Hidalgo met at Columna's house in Ziminilla, Camalaniugan, Cagayan. Pat. Molina conveyed the desire of Congressman Domingo Tuzon that Orizal be killed because the latter was planning to ambush him and grab his land. Orizal was a strong campaigner and bodyguard of retired Gen. Prospero Olivas, who was running for mayor of Camalaniugan against the congressman's re-electionist wife. Pat. Molina told the group that if they accepted the job and succeeded in their mission, Congressman Tuzon would work for their acquittal in all their criminal cases and would give cash rewards.

The accused-appellants accepted the job. The following day, July 27, 1991, they, together with Jessie Micate, Asoy Hidalgo, and Pat. Molina, set out to accomplish their mission. Pat. Molina accompanied them to Dugo, Camalaniugan, to the Where Else Beauty Salon, where he showed them their weapons: a .38 caliber and a .45 caliber handgun and a folded carbine, placed inside a box. At around 2:00 in the afternoon of the same day, at the house of Dadoy Micate, Pat. Molina gave the .38 caliber revolver to Gallardo, the .45 caliber pistol to Columna, and the folded carbine to Micate, and instructed the three to look for Orizal and kill him.

The three boarded a tricycle and proceeded to Orizal's boarding house at Caritan, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, but he was not there; he was then at the house of Aping on Lecaros Street, Centro, Tuguegarao. The three went to that place, where Gallardo engaged Orizal in conversation while all of them drank San Miguel beer; in the course of their conversation, and probably to gain Orizal's trust, Gallardo told him that he had already killed Inyong Orteza, whom Orizal wanted dead. At around 5:00 in the afternoon, the group moved to the rest house of Ronnie Balao in Balzain, Tuguegarao. Orizal ordered Gallardo to get his M-14 armalite rifle from Ronnie Balao, but Balao did not give the firearm and instead went with Gallardo to the rest house to talk to Orizal, after which Balao went home. Meanwhile, Orizal tried to convince the two accused-appellants and Jessie Micate to join him as bodyguards of Gen. Olivas during the election campaign. At this point, Jessie Micate leveled his carbine at Orizal and successively fired at him; Alfredo Columna drew his .45 caliber pistol and shot Orizal five times; and Armando Gallardo shot Orizal once with his .38 caliber revolver. The three fled to the house of Dadoy Micate in Caggay, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, where Pat. Molina was waiting for them, and informed him that the mission was accomplished.

Early the next morning, July 28, 1991, the three accused and Pat. Molina boarded a Manny Trans bus and proceeded to Camalaniugan. They stopped at Dugo, Camalaniugan, and proceeded to the house of Congressman Tuzon to report the killing. Congressman Tuzon was out of his house attending the town fiesta of Buguey, Cagayan. When he arrived, Pat. Molina informed him that Edmundo Orizal was dead. Congressman Tuzon was very happy and promised them that he would work for their acquittal in their pending cases and, after confirming the death of Orizal, would give them their cash rewards.

Nelson Hidalgo, a friend of Manuel Columna, Jr., testified that on July 26, 1991, at around 4:30 in the afternoon, at the house of Manuel Columna, Jr., he was asked by the accused to join them in their mission to kill Edmundo Orizal. He resolved to join the group, but while on his way home from the meeting he met his bosom friend Reynald Micate and told the latter about the plan to kill Orizal. Reynald Micate advised him not to participate, for it would just add to his other criminal cases, and Hidalgo heeded the advice. Realizing that because of his knowledge of the plan he would be a target for elimination so that the plan would not be revealed, he left Camalaniugan for Buguey, then Aparri, and finally Manila. It was only after three months that he returned to Camalaniugan and learned that Orizal had been killed.

Accused Armando Gallardo and Alfredo Columna testified in their defense and gave a common version. According to them, on August 18, 1991, elements of the Tuguegarao Police Station went to Camalaniugan to fetch them from the Camalaniugan Municipal Jail, where they were detained in connection with other criminal cases, and brought them to the Tuguegarao Police Station to be questioned on the killing of Orizal. Investigator Isidro Marcos investigated them and took their statements at the police station but did not inform them of their constitutional rights. After the statements had been typewritten, Marcos neither read to them nor allowed them to read the contents; he simply told them to sign. Gallardo signed the confessional statement because he was harmed by Marcos, while Columna signed because he was afraid he might be harmed.

The trial court found accused Armando Gallardo and Alfredo Columna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by evident premeditation and aggravated by treachery, and acquitted Jessie Micate for lack of evidence. It credited the prosecution's evidence, including the extra-judicial confessions and the testimony of Nelson Hidalgo, and rejected the defense claim that the confessions had been extracted in violation of the accused's constitutional rights.

• Admissibility of Extra-Judicial Confessions: Accused-appellants imputed error to the trial court in admitting their extra-judicial confessions in evidence against them. In their demurrer to evidence, they argued that the prosecution failed to establish that the signed statements of the accused were procured in violation of Article III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution.
• Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Accused-appellants imputed error to the trial court in finding that their guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• Admissibility of Extra-Judicial Confessions: Whether the trial court erred in admitting the extra-judicial confessions of the accused in evidence against them.
• Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the trial court erred in finding that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• Admissibility of Extra-Judicial Confessions: No. The confessions were admissible, having complied with all four fundamental requirements — they were voluntary, made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel, express, and in writing — and the accused having been apprised of their constitutional rights.
• Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: No. The guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt, the testimony of prosecution witness Nelson Hidalgo having remained uncontroverted.

• Admissibility of Extra-Judicial Confessions: The extra-judicial confessions were given after the accused were completely and clearly apprised of their constitutional rights. Atty. Rolando Velasco testified that he interrogated Gallardo first, asked whether he could understand Tagalog, told him he had the right to give a statement and that it could be used against him in court, and asked whether he wanted the services of a lawyer of his own choice or whether he would accept Velasco's assistance; Gallardo readily accepted. The same procedure was followed with Columna. Velasco was present and made sure that no force or intimidation was exerted by the police, and the questions and answers were in Ilocano. He voluntarily signed the document. Questioned by Judge Aquino on how the accused were informed of their rights, Velasco stated that he asked whether they had been forced or intimidated, that they were detention prisoners apprehended without a warrant of arrest, that they complained of no harassment, that he was present when Judge Pauig administered the oath the following day, and that he advised them of their rights in Tagalog because they answered in Tagalog and spoke good Tagalog, telling them: "May karapatan kayong hindi magbigay ng salaysay sa pulis, may karapatan kayong magkaroon ng abogado na sarili ninyo kung magbigay kayo." While the initial choice of counsel where the person under custodial investigation cannot afford one is lodged in the police investigators, the accused retains the final choice, as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another; a lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection to the appointment during the investigation and thereafter subscribed to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. Although Atty. Velasco was provided by the State, the accused were given the opportunity to accept or reject him, and they immediately agreed. Nothing in the Constitution requires that the lawyer be previously known to the accused; it requires only that counsel be competent and independent. On the effectiveness of counsel, a lawyer need not challenge all the questions propounded to his client, since the presence of counsel is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything incriminating but to preclude the slightest coercion that would lead him to admit something false; counsel should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. Judge Vilma Pauig likewise testified that when she administered the oath, she asked the accused whether they understood the contents of their statements and whether they were forced by the police investigators, and they answered in the negative. The Court enumerated the four fundamental requirements of an admissible confession — voluntary, made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel, express, and in writing — and found all complied with. The case was distinguished from one in which the accused are merely asked whether they waive their rights without any explanation from the assisting counsel; here, Atty. Velasco asked whether they were aware of their rights, informed them of those rights, and asked whether they were giving their statements willingly after being so informed.
• Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The testimony of prosecution witness Nelson Hidalgo remained uncontroverted, and the defense was unable to produce any evidence to prove that Hidalgo was biased and not credible. The Court reiterated the well-entrenched rule that it will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses absent any indication or showing that the trial court overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion. Consequently, the trial court correctly found accused-appellants Alfredo Columna and Armando Gallardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the treacherous murder of Edmundo Orizal. Separately, the Court addressed the liability of other persons: the extra-judicial confessions of Gallardo and Columna are not admissible against Congressman Tuzon and Pat. Molina under the res inter alios acta rule, but the interlocking confessions of the accused are confirmatory evidence of the possible involvement of Tuzon and Molina in the crime. The order of inquest Judge Dominador L. Garcia dropping Tuzon and Molina from the criminal complaint did not persuade the Court that they were not liable as co-principals, and the case was referred to the Department of Justice for investigation of their involvement.

• Four requisites of an admissible extra-judicial confession — Under the Constitution, existing laws, and jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible must satisfy all four fundamental requirements: (1) the confession must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing. The Court found all four requisites satisfied by the confessions of Gallardo and Columna, which were given in Ilocano after they were informed of their rights, with Atty. Velasco assisting them, and sworn before Judge Pauig.
• Counsel provided by investigators is deemed engaged by the accused — While the initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused has the final choice, as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection against the former's appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. The Court applied this rule to hold that Atty. Velasco, though State-provided, was validly engaged because the accused were asked and immediately agreed to have him as counsel, and the Constitution requires only that counsel be competent and independent, not that he be previously known to the accused.
• Effectiveness of counsel during custodial investigation — To be an effective counsel, a lawyer need not challenge all the questions being propounded to his client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him; rather, it was adopted in the Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. The counsel, however, should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.
• Deference to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility — The Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses absent any indication or showing that the trial court overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion. The rule was applied to sustain the trial court's reliance on the uncontroverted testimony of prosecution witness Nelson Hidalgo.
• Res inter alios acta — The extra-judicial confessions of the accused Gallardo and Columna are not admissible against Congressman Tuzon and Pat. Molina, who were not parties to the confessions. The Court applied this rule to explain why the confessions could not themselves establish the liability of Tuzon and Molina.
• Interlocking confessions as confirmatory evidence — Although extra-judicial confessions are inadmissible against persons other than the declarants, the interlocking confessions of the accused are confirmatory evidence of the possible involvement of other persons in the crime. The Court relied on this principle to refer the case to the Department of Justice for investigation of the involvement of former Congressman Tuzon and Pat. Molina in the killing of Edmundo Orizal.

• "while the initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection against the former's appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on why the State-provided counsel, Atty. Velasco, was validly engaged by the accused, and is the controlling formulation on the accused's final choice of counsel during custodial investigation.
• "to be an effective counsel, a lawyer need not challenge all the questions being propounded to his client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. The counsel, however, should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth." — This defines the standard of effective assistance of counsel during custodial investigation and disposes of the argument that Atty. Velasco's assistance was inadequate.
• "Under rules laid by the Constitution, existing laws and jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible must satisfy all four fundamental requirements, namely: (1) the confession must be voluntary; (2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) the confession must be express; and (4) the confession must be in writing." — This is the canonical enumeration of the requisites of an admissible extra-judicial confession applied by the Court in upholding the conviction.
• "the Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses absent any indication or showing that the trial court overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion." — This states the settled standard of appellate review of credibility findings, which the Court invoked in sustaining the trial court's reliance on Nelson Hidalgo's uncontroverted testimony.

• People vs. Suarez, 267 SCRA 136 (1997), citing People vs. Parojinog, 203 SCRA 673 (1991) — Cited as the source of the rule that a lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where the latter never objected to the appointment during the investigation and thereafter subscribed to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer; followed by the Court in upholding the validity of Atty. Velasco's assistance.
• People vs. Layuso, 175 SCRA 47 (1989) — Cited for the rule that an effective counsel need not challenge all the questions propounded to his client, and that the presence of counsel is meant to preclude coercion rather than to stop the accused from incriminating himself; followed in rejecting the challenge to the adequacy of the assistance rendered.
• People vs. Deniega, 251 SCRA 628, 637 (1995) — Cited as authority for the four fundamental requirements of an admissible confession — voluntary, made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel, express, and in writing; applied to validate the confessions of Gallardo and Columna.
• People vs. Pelen, G.R. No. 131827, September 3, 1999, citing People vs. Sabalones, 294 SCRA 751, 781 (1998) — Cited for the rule that the Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses absent a showing that the trial court overlooked material facts or gravely abused its discretion; followed in sustaining the finding of guilt.
• People vs. Argana, 119 Phil. 573 [1964]; People vs. Barlis, 231 SCRA 426 [1994]; People vs. Encipido, 146 SCRA 478 [1986]; People vs. Suarez, 267 SCRA 119 [1997]; People vs. 285 SCRA 595 [1998] — Cited collectively in connection with the treatment of the interlocking confessions of the accused as confirmatory evidence of the possible involvement of other persons in the crime.

• Article III, Section 12(1), 1987 Constitution — Guarantees that any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice; if he cannot afford the services of counsel, one must be provided; and these rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. The Court applied this provision in holding that the extra-judicial confessions of Gallardo and Columna were admissible, the accused having been apprised of their rights, assisted by a competent and independent counsel in Atty. Velasco, and made to sign their statements in writing in the presence of counsel and the swearing officer.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.