People vs. Camat, et al.

An extrajudicial confession obtained during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence, regardless of its truth or voluntariness; nonetheless, a conviction may rest solely on the positive, credible testimony of a single eyewitness, which prevails over the inherently weak defense of alibi absent proof of physical impossibility.

On the evening of September 1, 1985, two Philippine Marines, Nelson Sinoy and Gonzalo Penalver, were walking along Quirino Avenue in Parañaque, Metro Manila, after attending a birthday party. They were trailed by two men, later identified as appellants Armando Rodriguez Camat and Wilfredo Tanyag del Rosario. Camat stabbed Sinoy and Penalver; Del Rosario grabbed Penalver’s clutch bag containing an electric tester. Sinoy died of stab wounds; Penalver survived after hospital treatment. Camat and Del Rosario were charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide.

• The Incident: Around 9:00 p.m. on September 1, 1985, Philippine Marines Nelson Sinoy and Gonzalo Penalver, in civilian attire, were walking along Quirino Avenue, Parañaque. They noticed two men approximately ten meters behind them. Despite crossing the street to avoid the pursuers, Wilfredo del Rosario rushed forward and kicked Sinoy; Armando Camat followed and stabbed Sinoy. When Penalver kicked Camat, Camat stabbed Penalver in the right rib. Del Rosario then grabbed Penalver’s black leather clutch bag containing a Sanwa electric tester, pliers, a test valve, and longnose pliers, valued at ₱150. Sinoy and Penalver fled and were assisted by a person identifying himself as a policeman, who brought them to San Juan de Dios Hospital.
• Death and Injuries: Nelson Sinoy died at the hospital despite exploratory laparotomy and blood transfusion; the autopsy revealed massive abdominal bleeding, partial damage to the kidney, pancreas, and diaphragm. Gonzalo Penalver was transferred to the AFP Medical Center, where he was treated and discharged on March 15, 1986.
• Investigation and Arrest: Patrolman Odeo Cariño investigated the case. Camat was arrested on October 11, 1985, for acts of lasciviousness; an unnamed vendor‑witness pointed to Camat as one of the assailants. At the police station, Camat orally admitted participation and named Del Rosario and a certain Roland as co‑conspirators, identifying Del Rosario as the one who stabbed Sinoy. Police then located Del Rosario, who allegedly confessed and disclosed that the electric tester could be recovered from his relatives.
• Defense of Alibi: Armando Camat claimed he was at his house on Bagong Silang Street, Baclaran, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., after working as a card dealer. His mother‑in‑law corroborated his presence at home. Wilfredo del Rosario claimed he sold vegetables along Quirino Avenue until 7:00 p.m., then went home to Sanchez Street, Baclaran, and never left. His mother supported this account. Both appellants asserted they did not know each other before the incident and met only at the police precinct.
• Trial Court Findings: The RTC gave full credence to the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Gonzalo Penalver, finding it categorical, candid, and free from inconsistencies. The court rejected the alibis as weak and uncorroborated by disinterested witnesses. It also relied on the extrajudicial confessions to discredit appellants’ denials.

• Inadmissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions: Appellants argued that the oral confessions to Patrolman Cariño were obtained during custodial investigation without informing them of their rights to silence and to counsel, contrary to Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, and were therefore inadmissible.
• Hearsay and Res Inter Alios Acta: They maintained that Camat’s confession implicating Del Rosario was hearsay and inadmissible against the latter, being a statement by a co‑accused made after the conspiracy.
• Violation of Right of Confrontation: Appellants contended that the prosecution’s failure to present the police informer who identified Camat deprived them of the constitutional right to meet witnesses face to face.
• Insufficiency of Identification: They claimed that witness Penalver failed to identify them adequately.
• Viability of Alibi: Appellants argued that their alibis should have been given more weight, insisting they were elsewhere at the time of the crime.

• Independent Eyewitness Testimony: The prosecution countered that even without the extrajudicial confessions, the clear, positive, and credible testimony of surviving victim Gonzalo Penalver was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Weakness of Alibi: The People asserted that alibi cannot defeat positive identification, especially where the accused failed to prove physical impossibility of being at the scene; both appellants were within the same district, mere meters from the locus of the crime.
• Discretion in Choosing Witnesses: The prosecution had no obligation to present the unnamed informer; the choice of witnesses is a prerogative of the prosecution, and appellants could have compelled the informer’s attendance if they deemed it necessary.

• Custodial Investigation Rights: Whether the extrajudicial confessions taken from appellants without counsel were admissible.
• Sufficiency of Eyewitness Testimony: Whether the testimony of a single eyewitness, Gonzalo Penalver, sufficed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Right of Confrontation: Whether the non‑presentation of the anonymous police informer violated appellants’ right to confrontation.
• Defense of Alibi: Whether the alibis presented by appellants should have been credited, given that they were supported by relatives and the alleged distance from the crime scene.
• Proper Designation of the Offense: Whether the information and the trial court correctly characterized the crime as robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide rather than solely robbery with homicide.

• Custodial Investigation Rights: The extrajudicial confessions were inadmissible. Under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution and the procedure mandated in Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, any confession obtained during a custodial investigation without the presence of counsel is inadmissible, even if voluntarily given or containing the truth. The prosecution failed to prove that appellants were informed of their rights and had the assistance of counsel. Consequently, the lower court could not rely on those confessions to impugn appellants’ credibility. Camat’s extrajudicial statements implicating Del Rosario were also excluded as hearsay under the res inter alios acta rule.
• Sufficiency of Eyewitness Testimony: Notwithstanding the exclusion of the confessions, the conviction was sustained on the independent strength of Penalver’s testimony. The trial court found his account credible, candid, and untainted by inconsistency. The testimony of a single eyewitness, if positive and trustworthy, is sufficient to support a conviction. The trial judge’s assessment of credibility is accorded great respect on appeal.
• Right of Confrontation: The right to meet witnesses face to face under Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution applies to proceedings at trial, not during the police investigation or custodial phase. The prosecution’s decision not to present the anonymous informer was a legitimate exercise of its prerogative to choose its witnesses. Appellants could have subpoenaed the informer if they believed the person harbored ill motives.
• Defense of Alibi: The alibis were properly rejected. Alibi is an inherently weak defense and must show not only that the accused was elsewhere but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Here, both appellants were in Baclaran, within a short distance from Quirino Avenue; it was not impossible for them to be present. Moreover, alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification made by a credible eyewitness. The corroboration by close relatives further weakened the defense.
• Proper Designation of the Offense: The information charged robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide, but the correct denomination is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code. The term “homicide” in that article is used in its generic sense, absorbing all killings and physical injuries committed on the occasion of the robbery. The frustrated homicide merged into the single complex crime.

• Custodial Investigation Safeguards (Morales Jr. vs. Enrile) — During a custodial investigation, the accused must be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel. No investigation shall be conducted without counsel, and any waiver of counsel must be made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of these procedural safeguards, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, is inadmissible in evidence.
• Presumption of Regularity Inapplicable in Custodial Interrogation — The presumption of regularity of official acts does not apply during in‑custody investigations; the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the accused was advised of his constitutional rights prior to questioning.
• Absolute Inadmissibility of Uncounselled Confession — Even if a confession is “gospel truth,” its absence of coercive extraction or its voluntary nature does not cure the lack of counsel; it remains inadmissible in evidence.
• Res Inter Alios Acta Rule on Extrajudicial Confessions — An extrajudicial confession binds only the confessant and is inadmissible against a co‑accused; as to the latter, it is hearsay. Imputations made after the supposed conspiracy do not fall under the exceptions.
• Sufficiency of a Single Eyewitness — The positive and credible testimony of a single eyewitness is enough to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
• Alibi vs. Positive Identification — Alibi is the weakest defense; it must prove physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene, not merely distance. Positive identification by an unbiased eyewitness defeats an alibi, particularly when corroborated by no disinterested witnesses.
• Right of Confrontation Limited to Trial — The constitutional right to meet witnesses face to face pertains to trial proceedings, from arraignment to judgment, and does not extend to the custodial-investigation stage. The prosecution has the prerogative to select its witnesses; the accused may employ compulsory process to secure witnesses.
• Robbery with Homicide — Generic Sense of “Homicide” — Under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, “homicide” comprehends all deaths and physical injuries inflicted on the occasion of the robbery. There is no separate crime of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide; the latter is merged into the single special complex crime.

• “Any confession obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.” (Citing Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile) — This sets the custodial‑investigation exclusionary rule.
• “even if the confession of the accused is gospel truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.” — The Court underscores the absolute nature of the exclusionary sanction.
• “It is well settled that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if found convincing and trustworthy by the trial court, is sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” — This confirms the jurisprudential rule on witness sufficiency.
• “For a defense of alibi to prosper, … it must not only be shown that the accused was not at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at that time.” — The definitive standard for alibi.
• “The term ‘homicide’ in paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code is to be understood in its generic sense, absorbing not only the act which results in death but also all other acts producing anything short of death, assuming that death occurs by reason or on the occasion of the robbery…” — The doctrine merging frustrated homicide into the complex crime.

• Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, et al., G.R. No. 61016, April 26, 1983 (121 SCRA 538) — Established the detailed procedural safeguards during custodial investigation; followed to exclude the uncounselled confessions.
• People vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. 50103, November 24, 1986 (145 SCRA 597) — Held that the presumption of regularity of official acts does not apply to in‑custody interrogations; applied to shift the burden of proving compliance to the prosecution.
• People vs. Pineda, G.R. No. 72400, January 15, 1988 (157 SCRA 71) — Declared that even a voluntary confession without counsel is inadmissible; cited to reject the confessions.
• People vs. Pamon, G.R. No. 102005, January 25, 1993 (217 SCRA 501) — Reiterated that an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is hearsay against co‑accused; used to exclude Camat’s statements against Del Rosario.
• People vs. Servillon, G.R. No. 92154, September 12, 1994 (236 SCRA 385) — Ruled that “homicide” in robbery with homicide absorbs frustrated homicide; followed to correct the designation of the offense.
• People vs. Silong, et al., G.R. No. 110830, May 23, 1994 (232 SCRA 487) — Emphasized that alibi is inherently weak and requires physical impossibility; applied to reject appellants’ defense.
• People vs. Bongadillo, G.R. No. 96687, July 20, 1994 (234 SCRA 233) — Affirmed the respect accorded to trial court findings on witness credibility; relied upon to sustain reliance on Penalver’s testimony.

• Section 20, Article IV, 1973 Constitution — Right against self‑incrimination and right to remain silent and to counsel during custodial investigation; applied to render the uncounselled extrajudicial confessions inadmissible.
• Section 19, Article IV, 1973 Constitution — Right of confrontation in criminal prosecutions; interpreted to apply only at trial, not during police investigation.
• Article 294, Paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Punishes robbery with homicide; construed to treat “homicide” in its generic sense, absorbing all resulting deaths and physical injuries, thereby merging the frustrated homicide.
• Sections 28–31, Rule 130, Rules of Court — The res inter alios acta rule; applied to bar the extrajudicial admission of Camat from being used against Del Rosario.

Romero, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concurred. Torres, Jr., J., was on leave.