People of the Philippines vs. Jessie Maliao y Masakit

An accused may be convicted as an accomplice to rape with homicide despite the inadmissibility of his extrajudicial confession, where his judicial admissions and independent evidence establish beyond reasonable doubt community of design and performance of previous or simultaneous acts not indispensable to the crime.

AAA was born on December 21, 1991, the daughter of BBB and DDD, and resided at Block 12, Lot 6, Gordon Heights, Olongapo City. At about 8:00 p.m. on March 17, 1998, she left her house to watch a television show in the adjacent house of her grandaunt, CCC, wearing a white blouse. BBB and CCC subsequently left for a mini-carnival. When CCC returned, AAA was no longer there; when BBB and DDD returned home, AAA was still missing, and the spouses searched the neighborhood without finding her.

At about noontime on March 18, 1998, AAA's naked and lifeless body was found between two banana plants in a vacant lot near her house. The matter was reported to Police Precinct 5, Sta. Rita, Olongapo City, and an investigation followed, including the preparation of a cartographic sketch by an NBI artist. On March 21, 1998, the desk officer of Precinct 5 received a telephone call from a concerned citizen reporting that a bloodstained shirt had been found in a vacant lot being used as a carnival. SPO2 Norberto Maninang, Jr., SPO4 Bonifacio Chavez, and SPO2 Godofredo Ducut proceeded to the area and found the t-shirt hanging on a plant. BBB was called and identified the t-shirt as the one AAA had worn on the evening of March 17, 1998. While the police were investigating, SPO2 Maninang noticed a man who resembled the person in the cartographic sketch and arrested him; the man turned out to be accused-appellant Jessie Maliao. Upon interrogation, Maliao told the police officers that he was bothered by his conscience.

On March 21, 1998, Maliao executed an extrajudicial confession before SPO3 Orlando C. Reyes. Before proceeding with the investigation, SPO3 Reyes advised Maliao of his constitutional rights in the presence of Atty. Areuela Bundang Ortiz. In the confession, Maliao declared that he went home at about 10:00 p.m. on March 17, 1998 after a drinking session with accused Bohol and Chiong and several others. After twenty minutes, Bohol and Chiong, together with AAA, arrived at his house and asked if he still wanted to drink, but he declined; the three then entered his house. He went out because he did not want to drink anymore, but when he heard a groan, he went back inside and saw Bohol on top of AAA, who was already naked, while Chiong sat on the wooden bed watching. When Bohol stood up, Chiong laid on top of AAA. Maliao confessed that he stood beside a cabinet and masturbated. He then watched Chiong stand up, take a small stool, and use it to hit AAA on the chest and head. Bohol and Chiong carried the bloodied body and told him to clean the room. He wiped the bloodstains in the room, on AAA's clothes, and on the wooden bed and small stool. He threw AAA's t-shirt at the lot behind his house and placed her short pants inside a sack containing garbage. He also threw the curtains he used in wiping bloodstains at his house and hid the small stool. He did not know where Bohol and Chiong brought the body but was aware that it was found the following day in a vacant lot in front of his house. After AAA was found, Bohol approached him and told him not to say anything or else he would be killed; he also saw Chiong standing near a store. Maliao identified the t-shirt, curtains, small stool, wooden bench, and human figures representing Bohol and AAA while the former was on top of the latter.

Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez, Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI, performed the autopsy on AAA's body on March 20, 1998. His autopsy report stated that AAA's cause of death was traumatic head injury. He testified that AAA sustained numerous abrasions and contusions on different parts of her body, hematoma on the forehead and scalp, fractures on the skull, and complete laceration of her hymen at the 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions.

After the prosecution rested its case, accused Bohol and Chiong filed a Motion for Express Leave of Court to File Judgment on Demurrer, which the RTC denied. Among the accused, only Maliao put up a defense. On cross-examination, Maliao admitted that all the answers he gave to the questions propounded on him by the police investigator were true and correct of his own personal knowledge. He admitted that he saw Bohol and Chiong rape AAA; that Chiong picked up a wooden stool and hit AAA with it on the chest and head; that Bohol and Chiong carried the bloodied body of AAA, instructed him to clean the floor, and then went out of the house; that he cleaned the room by wiping the bloodstains; and that he threw AAA's t-shirt, placed her short pants inside a sack containing garbage, threw the curtains he used in wiping the bloodstains, and hid the wooden stool. He likewise admitted that he led the police officers to the place where he threw the pieces of clothes used in wiping the bloodstains in his house and that he accompanied the police officers to his house and pointed to them the wooden stool he hid. The prosecution's evidence, including the autopsy report and the testimonies of other witnesses, and Maliao's own admissions formed the factual basis for the lower courts' conclusion that he participated in the crime.

• Guilt Not Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Accused-appellant Maliao argued that the court a quo gravely erred in finding that his guilt for the crime charged had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confession: He argued that the court a quo gravely erred in admitting in evidence his alleged extrajudicial confession.
• Conspiracy: He argued that the court a quo gravely erred in finding that there was conspiracy in the case.

• Accomplice Liability: Whether accused-appellant Maliao's guilt as an accomplice in the crime of rape with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Accomplice Liability: Yes. The conviction as accomplice in rape with homicide was sustained because the inadmissible extrajudicial confession did not preclude conviction; Maliao's judicial admissions and independent evidence established community of design and cooperative acts.

• Accomplice Liability: The Court of Appeals correctly held that despite the inadmissibility of Maliao's extrajudicial confession, he was not entitled to acquittal. Citing People vs. Culala, an extrajudicial confession of an accused assisted by a Municipal Attorney during custodial investigation is not admissible because the Municipal Attorney cannot be considered an independent attorney. However, when Maliao testified on cross-examination, he admitted that all the answers he gave to the police investigator were true and correct of his own personal knowledge. He admitted seeing Bohol and Chiong rape AAA; that Chiong picked up a wooden stool and hit AAA with it on the chest and head; that Bohol and Chiong carried the bloodied body, instructed him to clean the floor, and then went out; that he cleaned the room by wiping the bloodstains; and that he threw AAA's t-shirt, placed her short pants inside a sack containing garbage, threw the curtains used in wiping the bloodstains, and hid the wooden stool. He also admitted leading the police to the place where he threw the pieces of clothes used in wiping the bloodstains and accompanying them to his house to point out the wooden stool he hid. Under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court on Evidence, an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof and may be contradicted only by showing palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur: (1) community of design, meaning the accomplice knows of and concurs with the criminal design of the principal by direct participation; and (2) the performance by the accomplice of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime, as stated in People vs. Cachola. Maliao facilitated the commission of the crime by providing his own house as the venue. His presence throughout the commission of the heinous offense, without doing anything to prevent the malefactors or help the victim, indubitably showed community of design and cooperation, although he had no direct participation in the execution. Considering his admissions and the prosecution evidence, including the autopsy report and testimonies, his guilt as an accomplice to rape with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Judicial Admissions — Under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court on Evidence, an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof; it may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. The Court applied this rule to Maliao's cross-examination admissions, which established his presence, knowledge, and acts of cooperation despite the inadmissibility of his extrajudicial confession.
• Inadmissibility of Extrajudicial Confession Assisted by a Municipal Attorney — An extrajudicial confession of an accused assisted by a Municipal Attorney during custodial investigation is not admissible in evidence because the Municipal Attorney cannot be considered an independent attorney. The Court relied on People vs. Culala and held Maliao's confession inadmissible, but ruled that the inadmissibility did not entitle him to acquittal.
• Accomplice Liability — To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur: (1) community of design, which means that the accomplice knows of, and concurs with, the criminal design of the principal by direct participation; and (2) the performance by the accomplice of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. The Court found both elements present because Maliao provided his house as the venue and remained present throughout the commission without preventing the malefactors or helping the victim, showing community of design and cooperation although he had no direct participation in the execution.

• "The Court of Appeals correctly held that despite the inadmissibility of his extrajudicial confession, Maliao is not entitled to an acquittal." — This states the ratio that an inadmissible extrajudicial confession does not automatically require acquittal where other evidence establishes guilt.
• "To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur: (1) community of design, which means that the accomplice knows of, and concurs with, the criminal design of the principal by direct participation; and (2) the performance by the accomplice of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime." — This is the Court's canonical formulation of accomplice liability, drawn from People vs. Cachola.
• "In this case, Maliao facilitated the commission of the crime by providing his own house as the venue thereof. His presence throughout the commission of the heinous offense, without him doing anything to prevent the malefactors or help the victim, indubitably show community of design and cooperation, although he had no direct participation in the execution thereof." — This applies the accomplice elements to Maliao's conduct and explains why his non-participation in the actual rape and killing did not absolve him.
• "Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court on Evidence provides that an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made." — This sets out the judicial-admission rule that allowed the Court to rely on Maliao's cross-examination statements despite the inadmissible confession.

• People vs. Culala, G.R. No. 83466, October 13, 1999, 316 SCRA 582 — Cited for the rule that an extrajudicial confession of an accused assisted by a Municipal Attorney during custodial investigation is not admissible because the latter cannot be considered an independent attorney.
• People vs. Cachola, G.R. Nos. 148712-15, January 21, 2004, 420 SCRA 520, 525 — Cited for the two elements of accomplice liability: community of design and performance of previous or simultaneous acts not indispensable to the commission of the crime.
• People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640 — Cited as the basis for referring the case first to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.

• Section 4, Rule 129, Revised Rules of Court on Evidence — Provides that an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof; it may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. The Court applied this provision to Maliao's cross-examination admissions, which established his participation despite the inadmissibility of his extrajudicial confession.

• Justice Carpio Morales
• Justice Chico-Nazario
• Justice Leonardo-De Castro
• Justice Peralta