People vs. Bariquit

The Court held that extrajudicial admissions obtained during custodial investigation without informing the accused of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and the physical evidence derived therefrom, are inadmissible under the exclusionary rule and the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Furthermore, the Court held that conspiracy cannot be presumed from mere presence at the crime scene, especially when the accused was coerced and threatened into joining the group and did not perform overt acts indicating intentional participation in the criminal design.

Around 2:00 AM of February 8, 1994, spouses Simon and Corazon Hermida were killed inside their residence in Naga, Cebu. The perpetrators robbed the couple of a gold necklace, cash, and a blanket from their wooden trunk. Pedro Bariquit, Cristituto Bariquit, Emegdio Lascuña, Jr., Baselino Repe, and Rogelio Lascuña were subsequently implicated and charged. Rogelio Lascuña, a minor and Emegdio's brother, was discharged to serve as a state witness.

• The Conspiracy: Around midnight of February 7, 1994, Cristituto Bariquit fetched Rogelio Lascuña to look for Emegdio Lascuña. They found Emegdio, Pedro Bariquit, and Baselino Repe at an upper hill area. Emegdio invited Rogelio to join a planned robbery; when Rogelio refused and sought to leave, Cristituto and Emegdio prevented him, fearing he would reveal the plan. Pedro and Emegdio threatened to kill Baselino if he did not participate, and Cristituto, armed with a bolo, physically restrained Baselino to prevent his escape.
• The Robbery and Killing: The group trekked to the Hermida residence and waited nearby until drinking guests left. Pedro approached the house under the pretext of buying cigarettes and requesting a light. Once Simon Hermida opened the door and lit Pedro's cigarette, Pedro stabbed Simon. Emegdio followed and hacked Simon. Corazon Hermida fought back, stabbing Pedro's palm, but Pedro eventually stabbed her to death. Cristituto stayed outside the house, holding Baselino at bolo-point. After the killing, Pedro, Emegdio, and Cristituto took the victims' wooden trunk, divided the loot inside, and brought the proceeds to Emegdio's house.
• The Investigation and Arrest: Police responded to the scene and conducted a hot pursuit. Pedro was arrested in Sitio Nangka, with cash recovered from his possession. Emegdio and Baselino were arrested jointly in Sitio Isabela. While walking along the highway en route to the police station, police officers questioned Emegdio and Baselino regarding their participation and companions without apprising them of their constitutional rights or providing counsel. Emegdio admitted they planned the robbery. At the station, SPO4 Marcelino Perez, Jr. conducted further questioning behind closed doors, again without counsel. Money and a necklace were subsequently recovered from the accused.
• Defenses: Pedro, Emegdio, and Cristituto interposed alibi and denial, claiming they were asleep or at home at the time of the incident. Baselino admitted his presence at the crime scene but denied participation, claiming he was coerced and threatened into joining the group and was physically restrained by Cristituto throughout the ordeal.

• Accused-appellants Pedro, Cristituto, and Emegdio argued that the trial court erred in giving weight and credit to the testimony of state witness Rogelio Lascuña due to an alleged lack of corroboration in its material points, claiming this violated the requisites for discharge under Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court.
• Accused-appellants contended that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, challenging the admissibility of the police officers' testimonies pertaining to uncounselled custodial investigations and the physical evidence recovered as a result thereof.

• The prosecution maintained that the testimony of Rogelio Lascuña was substantially corroborated by the testimony of co-accused Baselino Repe and the autopsy findings of Dr. Florencio Ubas.
• The prosecution argued that the evidence on record, independent of the contested uncounselled admissions, sufficiently established the conspiracy and the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the discharge of Rogelio Lascuña as state witness was proper despite alleged lack of corroboration in material points.
  • Whether the uncounselled extrajudicial admissions of the accused and the physical evidence derived therefrom are admissible.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellants Pedro, Cristituto, and Emegdio for Robbery with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Whether conspiracy existed among the accused.
  • Whether accused Baselino Repe was part of the conspiracy.
  • Whether the aggravating circumstances of treachery, band, fraud, dwelling, and evident premeditation were properly appreciated.

• Procedural:
  • The Court held that the discharge of Rogelio Lascuña as state witness was proper, as his testimony was substantially corroborated in its material points by Baselino Repe and Dr. Ubas. The Court additionally ruled that even if the discharge was erroneous, such error does not affect the competency or admissibility of the witness's testimony.
  • The Court ruled that the extrajudicial admissions of Emegdio and Baselino, made while walking along the highway and at the police station without counsel, are inadmissible for violating Section 12, Article III of the Constitution. The questioning constituted custodial investigation because the police had singled them out as suspects; the exclusionary rule applies regardless of the informality of the setting or the absence of coercion. Consequently, the physical evidence (money, necklace) recovered as a result of these admissions is also inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that, excluding the inadmissible evidence, the prosecution proved the guilt of Pedro, Cristituto, and Emegdio beyond reasonable doubt through the eyewitness account of Rogelio Lascuña, corroborated by Baselino Repe and the autopsy findings.
  • The Court found that conspiracy existed among Pedro, Emegdio, and Cristituto, as demonstrated by their concerted acts before, during, and after the crime, including planning the robbery, executing the killings, and dividing the loot.
  • The Court held that Baselino Repe was not part of the conspiracy. Mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient to establish conspiracy. Because Repe was coerced, threatened, and physically restrained by the armed conspirators, he performed no overt acts indicating intentional participation.
  • The Court ruled that treachery cannot be appreciated because Robbery with Homicide is a crime against property, and treachery applies only to crimes against persons. Band was not appreciated because only three armed malefactors acted, and the law requires more than three. However, the Court appreciated fraud (using the pretext of buying cigarettes to gain entry), dwelling (the crime was committed in the victims' home without provocation), and evident premeditation (the accused planned the robbery two hours prior to its execution).

• Fruit of the Poisonous Tree — Once the primary source of evidence is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence derived from it is also inadmissible. Illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, whereas the "fruit" is the indirect result, but both are equally inadmissible. The Court applied this to exclude the money and necklace recovered from the accused, which were derived from their uncounselled admissions.
• Custodial Investigation — Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. The Court held that this covers any stage of the investigation where the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from a suspect, including informal questioning along the highway, and requires the observance of constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent.
• Conspiracy; Mere Presence — Mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission is not sufficient to establish conspiracy. Overt acts demonstrating intentional participation, active participation, moral assistance, or moral ascendancy are required. The Court applied this to acquit Baselino Repe, who was merely present under threat and coercion.
• Discharge of State Witness — The improper discharge of an accused to be a state witness does not render the witness's testimony inadmissible or incompetent. The Court held that even if the discharge was erroneous, the testimony remains admissible if otherwise credible, because the error does not affect the competency and quality of the testimony.

• "Courts are not allowed to distinguish between preliminary questioning and custodial investigation proper when applying the exclusionary rule. Any information or admission given by a person while in custody - which may appear harmless or innocuous at the time without the competent assistance of an independent counsel - should be struck down as inadmissible."
• "According to this rule, once the primary source (the 'tree') is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the 'fruit') derived from it is also inadmissible... The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained."
• "By itself, mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission is not sufficient to establish conspiracy."

• People v. Bolanos, 211 SCRA 262 (1992) — Held that verbal admissions made while on board a police patrol jeep without Miranda warnings are inadmissible. The Court followed this to rule that admissions made while walking along the highway under police custody are similarly inadmissible.
• People v. Bravo, G.R. No. 135562 (1999) — Held that statements made during an "informal talk" prior to custodial investigation proper are inadmissible if the accused is already under arrest. The Court followed this ruling.
• People v. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 (1995) — Adopted the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine in Philippine jurisdiction. The Court applied this doctrine to exclude the physical evidence derived from the uncounselled admissions.
• People v. Aniñon, 158 SCRA 701 (1988) — Held that the improper discharge of an accused does not detract from the competency of the witness. The Court followed this to uphold the admissibility of Rogelio Lascuña's testimony.

• Section 12, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel during custodial investigation, and renders inadmissible any confession or admission obtained in violation thereof. The Court applied this to exclude the uncounselled admissions of the accused and the derivative physical evidence.
• Section 9, Rule 119, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Enumerates the requisites for the discharge of an accused to be a state witness. The Court found these substantially complied with, but noted that even if discharge was erroneous, the testimony remains admissible.
• Article 14, Revised Penal Code — Defines aggravating circumstances. The Court applied this to appreciate fraud, dwelling, and evident premeditation, while rejecting treachery and band.
• Republic Act No. 7438 — Defines the rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation. The Court cited this to support the finding that custodial investigation exists even when a person is merely "invited for questioning" or questioned along the highway.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ. Four Justices maintained the unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the death penalty but submitted to the ruling of the majority.