People vs. Suarez

An extrajudicial confession shown to have been given with constitutional safeguards is presumed voluntary and admissible; but where the accused’s role is merely to introduce the robbers to the mastermind and there is no proof of conspiracy or principal participation, he is only an accomplice in robbery with homicide.

Estrellita Guzman maintained a household at 22 Sta. Teresita Street, Barrio Capitolyo, Pasig, Metro Manila, where her adopted daughters Babyruth and Marivic, Marivic’s husband Ferdinand Suarez, their children, her niece Cristy, and domestic helper Arlene Tuyor lived. The charge was robbery with homicide under the Revised Penal Code, and the prosecution’s evidence included extrajudicial confessions taken during custodial investigation, governed by Section 12, Article III of the Constitution.

In the early hours of December 8, 1987, Arlene Tuyor, a domestic helper in Estrellita Guzman’s bungalow at 22 Sta. Teresita Street, Barrio Capitolyo, Pasig, Metro Manila, was awakened by loud knocking on her room door. Also in the house were Estrellita’s nieces and adopted daughters — Maria Prescilla Guzman (Babyruth), Maria Cristina Guzman (Cristy), and Maria Victoria Suarez (Marivic) — as well as Marivic’s husband Ferdinand Suarez (Jojo) and their three children. When Tuyor opened the door, she saw Ferdinand Suarez surrounded by two men wearing black nylon cloths over their heads and faces, one with a big body frame and the other with a small physique. The men entered her room, tied her up, asked for her money, and asked if she knew Jojo; getting no response, they left her room bringing Suarez with them. Tuyor then heard the microwave oven in the kitchen, the main door slamming, and someone crying. She went out and saw Marivic weeping in the living room; she proceeded to Estrellita’s bedroom and found Estrellita bleeding on her bed, while Suarez was sitting on the chair of the piano. Estrellita later died due to severe hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds; post-mortem examinations revealed an elliptical and gaping wound on the right side of her abdomen, another wound of the same nature on the left side of her back, and an incised wound on her left thumb. Police investigators found a half-eaten chicken on the dining table, four pieces of black nylon cloth, pieces of blue and white ropes, three pieces of cloth, and two strands of ordinary wire. They initially surmised that the intruders had forcibly entered through the back door in the kitchen after finding a piece of wire inserted in the knob of the kitchen door and its chain lock’s anchor detached from the doorjamb, although the door’s dead bolt lock was intact and in perfect condition.

Ferdinand Suarez narrated to Patrolman Pablo Roxas of the Eastern Police District at Meralco Avenue, Pasig that at around 3:00 A.M. of December 8, 1987, he was awakened by someone holding his hands and putting a piece of rag in his mouth. When he opened his eyes, he saw somebody pointing a knife at him and another at his wife, and he saw six men with nylon cloths over their faces inside their room. When he was about to resist, one of the men hit him on the face and threatened to kill him, his wife, and his children. After they tied and gagged him and covered his eyes, the men brought him out to the dining room; he heard the door of Estrellita being pushed open and Estrellita shouting. He was brought to the room shared by Cristy and Babyruth and mauled in front of them, then to Arlene Tuyor’s room, then back to the dining room where he was tied to a chair. From there he heard the men cooking with the microwave oven, and later heard Estrellita cry loudly and call for Marivic. He later heard the running of the engine of one of their cars and the main door being slammed shut. After the men left at about five o’clock in the morning, he discovered that the trespassers had taken a television set, a radio, a betamax, and other household items.

As the police were getting no leads, the lawyer of the family of the deceased sought the help of the National Bureau of Investigation, and the case was assigned to Atty. Salvador Ranin. Ranin concluded that the perpetrators could not have entered the house without the aid of somebody inside because the bolt lock of the kitchen door can only be released from within, and he had one suspect in mind: Ferdinand Suarez. Ranin discovered that there were no signs of injuries or rope marks on Suarez, that Suarez was not on good terms with Estrellita when the crime happened, and that Suarez was found positive for deception after taking the polygraph test at the NBI. Suarez eventually revealed his involvement after Ranin told him that he had damaging information that Suarez had left the house in the evening of December 7, 1987. In his sworn statement before the NBI, Suarez said that Loreto Reyes, alias “Dondon” or Larry, approached him during the last week of November 1987 and asked him to allow Reyes and his group to rob their house because they badly needed money for the Christmas season. It was only after the group threatened to kill him that Suarez acceded, on the condition that they would only steal and should not kill him. On November 29, 1987, Suarez gave Reyes and his gang the keys to the door of the house, the door of Babyruth’s and Cristy’s room, and the door of Estrellita’s room in order to have them duplicated. He returned to Reyes and the others on December 5, 1987 to receive instructions and was told that the group would go to their place in the early morning of December 8, 1987. On the agreed date, at around twelve o’clock noon, Suarez disengaged the bolt lock of the kitchen door and unlocked the door of their rooms as instructed. The felons arrived at the house at around two o’clock in the morning and proceeded to Suarez and Marivic’s room. Suarez saw four men with covers on their faces but recognized one of them as Reyes through his voice and build. They bound Marivic, and when one of the gang was about to tie Suarez, Reyes stopped him. After Suarez was dragged out, he told the group who were the occupants of the different rooms. Two men entered the room of Babyruth and Cristy while Reyes and the fourth man went to Estrellita’s room; they entered with a duplicate key after kicking open the door, and Estrellita shrieked. The two men brought Suarez to his sisters-in-law’s room to point out what they could get, then brought him to the dining table. From there he saw the men asking Estrellita for the keys of the gate and the car. After they brought Estrellita back to her room, two men brought Suarez to the maid’s quarters. Reyes asked Suarez to cook a chicken found in the refrigerator; while Suarez was cooking it in the microwave oven, the men took off the covers on their faces, smoked marijuana, and drank liquor. They did not finish eating the chicken because it was not evenly cooked. When Estrellita shouted the name of Marivic, Rodriguez went to her room, and Suarez heard only soft and fading moans from Estrellita after that. Before leaving, the marauders told Suarez not to tell the police or the NBI or else they would kill his mother. They slammed the front door shut and used Estrellita’s car to leave the house at around five o’clock in the morning.

The NBI soon found out that “Dondon” or Larry was Loreto Reyes, a former neighbor of Suarez in San Miguel, Pasig, where Suarez used to live before transferring to his wife’s residence at Barrio Capitolyo. Reyes also admitted his participation and gave a written statement to the NBI. He began by implicating Wilfredo Lara: while Reyes, Arthur Lara, Morris Santos, and Eduardo Lozada were doing nothing in their place in San Miguel, Pasig, Lara approached them and told them he had some good news. Lara said that Suarez asked him to look for men who could kill his Auntie Estrellita. Reyes could not believe what he heard, so Lara called Suarez to let him tell the gang about his offer. Apparently, Suarez wanted his aunt killed so that he and his wife could get at once any property that Marivic might inherit from Estrellita upon the latter’s demise; in exchange, Suarez would allow them to steal what they wanted from the house, in addition to giving them P100,000 after one month from the killing of Estrellita. They initially planned to carry out the plot on December 5, 1987, but the group of Reyes backed out when they felt unsure about the plan; they had duplicates made of the keys to the house, which keys had been left by Suarez under one of Estrellita’s cars. The plan finally materialized on December 8, 1987 at about two o’clock in the morning. The persons who were to execute the plan were Noli Licsi, Vicente Rodriguez, Morris Santos, and Reyes. Before going to Capitolyo, the group took prohibited drugs and smoked marijuana. Aided by the sketch of the house provided by Suarez, the group went directly to the back of the house and opened the back door with their duplicate key; as agreed, Suarez had released the bolt and chain lock of the said door. Once inside, Suarez, who was waiting for them, instructed them to tie him and his wife. After doing so, they opened the bedrooms of Babyruth, Cristy, and Estrellita and tied them up inside their respective rooms. Since Santos and Licsi were the ones who entered Cristy’s and Babyruth’s room, Reyes could not be sure what they got from those rooms. Reyes further revealed that before they went into the house, Suarez had earlier loosened the screws of the chain lock on the door of Estrellita’s room; with their duplicate key and a little push from outside, Reyes and Rodriguez easily entered Estrellita’s room. As Estrellita was surprised by the entry of the two men, she instinctively held the knife being brandished by Reyes, which cut her thumb. The two men then tied Estrellita. After the gang tied all the occupants, they started taking the betamax, jewelry, computer machine, camera, watches, and other things inside the house. Estrellita pointed out where they could find her jewelry; they brought Suarez inside her room so he could also show them where Estrellita’s other jewelry and valuables were, and then they covered her with a blanket. After taking what they wanted, the men ate the chicken Suarez had cooked for them and drank the imported liquor he offered; they also smoked marijuana. While they were drinking, Suarez remembered the maid Tuyor, so he and two men went to her room and staged a show of their mauling Suarez in front of her. They then tied the maid and continued drinking outside. Thereafter, Suarez told the gang to kill Estrellita. Reyes said that Santos and Rodriguez were the ones who stabbed Estrellita because they later told him that each of them stabbed the old lady once. Before Reyes and the gang left, Marivic told them to get their television ranger and to disarrange the things in their room to show that the couple was not spared by the criminals. Suarez ordered them to cut the telephone line and Reyes did so. Then Suarez told Reyes to pull the chain lock of the kitchen door to make it appear that the door had been forced open from outside; Reyes complied. To hide the fact that a duplicate key was used in opening the kitchen door, the perpetrators inserted a wire in the doorknob keyhole of the kitchen door upon the prodding of Suarez. The intruders left the house at around four o’clock in the morning, using the front door and riding in one of Estrellita’s cars. From Reyes’s statement, it appears that the cabal wore black nylon cloths over their heads and faces when they committed the crime.

Atty. Ranin was able to retrieve the duplicate keys used by the gang from the father of Reyes after Reyes admitted that the keys could be found in his father’s house in Montalban. Wilfredo Lara was arrested by the NBI at the house of his parents-in-law in Northern Samar. When brought to the NBI office at Taft Avenue, Manila, he likewise confessed his participation in the crime and gave a sworn statement. According to Lara, Suarez went to his house at San Miguel, Pasig on December 2, 1987 to ask him if he knew people who would be willing and capable of robbing a house. Lara told him that there were some persons he knew who could do the job and brought Suarez to the group of Larry Reyes, Noli Licsi, Morris Santos, and Vicente Rodriguez at Dr. Pilapil Street, San Miguel, Pasig. When Reyes and Suarez started talking, Lara left the place. On December 4, 1987, Lara saw Suarez talking with the same group in front of a store; he overheard them planning the robbery of a house in Barrio Capitolyo on December 8, 1987. On December 7, 1987, he again saw Suarez and the gang when they agreed to consummate their earlier plan. Lara denied that he joined the group that robbed the house in Barrio Capitolyo and added that he never received any share of the loot. He did not report the matter to the police for fear of reprisal and even went to the place of his in-laws at Nabas, Samar to avoid the group.

Based on the foregoing statements and other evidence submitted by the NBI to the then provincial fiscal of the former municipality of Pasig, an information for robbery with homicide was filed against Ferdinand Suarez, Loreto Reyes, Wilfredo Lara, Maria Victoria G. Suarez, Noli Licsi, Vicente Rodriguez, and Morris Santos. The case was raffled to Branch 152 of the RTC of Pasig and docketed as Criminal Case No. 72249. As stated in the information, which was twice amended, the felony was allegedly committed on or about December 8, 1987 in Pasig, Metro Manila, by the accused conspiring and confederating with one Mauro Santos, whose true identity and whereabouts were still unknown, and mutually helping and aiding one another, by means of force, violence, and intimidation upon Estrellita Guzman, taking and carrying away jewelry, a computer machine, a TC Sony Ranger, a radio cassette, five assorted cameras, and other valuables in the total amount of P650,000 more or less; and that on the occasion of the robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take the articles, the accused, armed with bladed weapons and with intent to kill, stabbed Estrellita Guzman, causing fatal injuries that directly caused her death. Only Suarez, Reyes, and Lara were brought within the jurisdiction of the lower court, as the other accused went into hiding and evaded the joint manhunt set up by the police and the NBI. Suarez, Reyes, and Lara pleaded not guilty despite their earlier confessions before the NBI. Although they admitted signing and placing their thumbmarks on their respective statements, they tried to show during trial that those statements were procured through coercion, intimidation, and violence by the NBI agents and without the assistance of counsel. Suarez reiterated the version he gave to the EPD, while Reyes and Lara raised alibi by claiming that they were respectively at Montalban, Rizal and Samar at the time the crime was committed. The prosecution presented witnesses who were present during the taking of the statements and testified that those statements were given freely and voluntarily and were taken with observance of the constitutional guarantees during custodial investigation. The RTC found the extrajudicial confessions of Reyes and Lara freely and voluntarily given and treated them as interlocking confessions; it also concluded that Lara acted as a lookout during the commission of the special complex crime.

• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions: Lara questioned the admissibility of extrajudicial declarations marked Exhibits O, P, and Q, claiming they were obtained through force and intimidation and without the benefit of an effective counsel.
• Constitutional Compliance: He maintained that his co-accused’s confessions must comply with Section 12, Article III of the Constitution before they can be considered probative of his guilt.
• Choice and Timing of Counsel: He contended that Atty. Saunar was not Reyes’s own choice as counsel for the interrogation, and that the lawyer who assisted him in his waiver came in only after he had executed his waiver.
• Coercion: He claimed violence, torture, and maltreatment by the NBI agents in obtaining the confessions.
• Alibi: At trial, Lara claimed he was at Samar at the time the crime was committed.

• Lookout Participation: The prosecution theorized that Lara acted as a lookout during the commission of the special complex crime.
• Voluntariness of Confessions: The prosecution maintained that the extrajudicial statements were given freely and voluntarily, as shown by witnesses present during the taking of the statements and by observance of constitutional guarantees during custodial investigation.

• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions: Whether the extrajudicial confessions of Reyes and Lara were admissible despite claims of force, intimidation, and lack of effective counsel.
• Interlocking Confessions: Whether Reyes’s extrajudicial confession was admissible against Lara as corroborative evidence under the doctrine of interlocking confessions.
• Principal or Accomplice Liability: Whether Lara was a co-conspirator or principal by inducement or indispensable cooperation, or merely an accomplice, in robbery with homicide.
• Reenactment Evidence: Whether the pictures of the reenactment could be used as evidence of Lara’s participation as a principal despite the absence of counsel during the reenactment.
• Penalty and Death Indemnity: Whether Lara’s penalty should be modified and the death indemnity increased to P50,000.

• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions: Yes. The confessions were admissible; the prosecution showed compliance with the constitutional pre-interrogation advisories, and Lara failed to prove coercion or ineffective counsel.
• Interlocking Confessions: Yes. Reyes’s confession was admissible against Lara as corroborative evidence of the probability of his participation, as an exception to the res inter alios acta and hearsay rules.
• Principal or Accomplice Liability: No. Lara was not a co-conspirator or principal by inducement or indispensable cooperation; he was only an accomplice because he merely introduced the Reyes group to Suarez.
• Reenactment Evidence: No. The reenactment pictures could not be used as evidence of Lara’s participation as a principal because the reenactment was conducted without counsel and is covered by the right against self-incrimination.
• Penalty and Death Indemnity: Modified. Lara was sentenced as an accomplice to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, and the death indemnity was increased to P50,000.

• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions: Under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, a confession is presumed voluntary once the prosecution shows compliance with the pre-interrogation advisories; the burden shifts to the accused to prove that it was involuntary and untrue. The SC found that Reyes and Lara were informed of their rights, were assisted by counsel, and that prosecution witnesses present during the custodial investigation testified that the statements were freely and voluntarily given. Lara failed to present evidence of violence or intimidation beyond his own testimony; he did not complain to the swearing officer or file charges, did not seek medical assistance, and the RTC did not believe Reyes’s medical certificate. The SC also held that Atty. Saunar’s initial selection by the NBI did not make the assistance ineffective because the accused never objected and may reject a lawyer chosen for him; a lawyer provided by investigators is deemed engaged where the accused does not object and later subscribes to the statement before the swearing officer. The lawyer need not challenge every question; his presence is meant to preclude coercion, not to stop the accused from telling the truth. Lara’s claim that his lawyer arrived only after his waiver was contradicted by his own statement showing he waived his rights in the presence and with the advice of Atty. Rodolfo Dahiroc. The SC did not rule on Suarez’s statement because Lara was never mentioned or implicated in it.
• Interlocking Confessions: The RTC treated the confessions as interlocking. The SC recognized the doctrine as an exception to the res inter alios acta and hearsay rules: extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion, almost identical in essential details known only to the declarants, and corroborated by other evidence against the persons implicated are admissible as corroborative evidence of other facts tending to establish the guilt of co-accused. Reyes’s confession was admissible against Lara to show the probability of Lara’s participation because it implicated Lara in introducing the group to Suarez. The confession complied with Section 12, Article III, so it could serve as corroborative evidence. Even without Reyes’s confession, Lara’s own sworn statement could be used against him under Section 33, Rule 130; an extrajudicial confession must be accompanied by evidence of corpus delicti under Section 3, Rule 133, and if freely and voluntarily made, it is evidence of a high order.
• Principal or Accomplice Liability: The SC rejected the prosecution’s theory and the RTC’s conclusion that Lara acted as a lookout. The prosecution presented no evidence that Lara took part in the planning or execution of the crime, profited from the fruits of the crime, or committed acts indicative of confederacy. From Reyes’s and Lara’s confessions, the only inference was that Lara introduced the Reyes group to Suarez. Such a nominal role did not make him a co-conspirator or a principal by inducement or indispensable cooperation under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code. Where an accused does not fall under any of the three concepts of principals, he may be considered an accomplice; where there is no showing of conspiracy or confabulation and the extent of participation is uncertain, he should be given the benefit of the doubt and declared a mere accomplice. The SC thus declared Lara an accomplice.
• Reenactment Evidence: The pictures of the reenactment depicting Lara’s role could not be used as evidence of his participation as a principal because the reenactment was conducted without a lawyer assisting him. The SC held that reenactments are covered by the right against self-incrimination, citing People vs. Olvis. Atty. Ranin admitted that no lawyer assisted Lara during the reenactment because no available lawyer could be found at that time. Thus the reenactment pictures were inadmissible for that purpose.
• Penalty and Death Indemnity: Because Lara was only an accomplice, the SC modified the penalty to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The death indemnity was increased to P50,000 in line with present case law and policy, to be assessed against the accused and appellant under Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code. In all other respects, the RTC judgment was affirmed.

• Interlocking Confessions — Extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion, almost identical in essential details that could have been known only to the declarants, and corroborated by other evidence against the persons implicated are admissible as corroborative evidence of other facts tending to establish the guilt of co-accused, as an exception to the res inter alios acta and hearsay rules. The SC applied the doctrine to Reyes’s confession, using it against Lara to show the probability of Lara’s participation.
• Voluntariness of Extrajudicial Confession — Once the prosecution shows compliance with the constitutional pre-interrogation advisories, a confession is presumed voluntary, and the declarant bears the burden of proving that it is involuntary and untrue. Failure to complain to the swearing officer or to file charges against the alleged maltreaters, despite opportunity, manifests voluntariness. The SC applied this to Reyes and Lara and found their confessions voluntary.
• Effective Counsel in Custodial Investigation — The initial choice of a lawyer where the accused cannot afford one is lodged in the police investigators, but the accused has the final choice and may reject the lawyer chosen for him. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never objected during the investigation and later subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. A lawyer need not challenge all questions; his presence is intended to preclude coercion, not to prevent the accused from telling the truth. The SC applied this to Atty. Saunar and Atty. Dahiroc.
• Reenactment and Right Against Self-Incrimination — Reenactments are covered by the right against self-incrimination. Pictures of a reenactment conducted without counsel cannot be used as evidence of the accused’s participation as a principal. The SC applied this to exclude the reenactment pictures of Lara.
• Accomplice Liability and Conspiracy — Where the accused does not fall under any of the three concepts of principals defined in Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, he may only be considered guilty as an accomplice. Where there is no showing of conspiracy or confabulation on his part, and the extent of his participation is uncertain, he should be given the benefit of the doubt and declared a mere accomplice. The SC applied this to Lara’s nominal role of introducing the Reyes group to Suarez.
• Extrajudicial Confession as Evidence — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. When made outside court proceedings, it must be accompanied by evidence of corpus delicti to be sufficient for conviction. If made freely and voluntarily, a confession constitutes evidence of a high order. The SC applied this to Lara’s own sworn statement.

• “Where the accused does not fall under any of the three concepts of principals defined in Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, he may only be considered guilty as an accomplice.” — The SC used this rule to reduce Lara’s liability from principal to accomplice.
• “And where there is no showing of conspiracy or confabulation on his part, and the extent of the accused’s participation in the crime is uncertain, he should be given the benefit of the doubt and be declared as a mere accomplice therein.” — This supplied the basis for giving Lara the benefit of the doubt after finding his role merely introductory.
• “Once the prosecution has shown that there was compliance with the constitutional requirement on pre-interrogation advisories, a confession is presumed to be voluntary and the declarant bears the burden of proving that his confession is involuntary and untrue.” — The SC used this presumption to reject Lara’s claim that the confessions were coerced.
• “We have held that reenactments are covered by the right against self-incrimination.” — The SC applied this to exclude the reenactment pictures as evidence of Lara’s participation as a principal because no lawyer assisted him during the reenactment.

• People vs. Durante, 47 Phil. 654 (1925) — Cited as an early precedent recognizing the doctrine of interlocking confessions as an exception to the res inter alios acta and hearsay rules.
• People vs. Alvarez, G.R. No. 88451, September 5, 1991, 201 SCRA 364 — Followed for the rule that a confession is admissible as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of a co-accused’s participation, and that an eyewitness is not necessary when the accused confesses.
• People vs. Solis, G.R. Nos. 78732-33, February 14, 1990, 182 SCRA 182 — Followed for the presumption that a confession is voluntary once the prosecution shows compliance with pre-interrogation advisories.
• People vs. Parojinog, G.R. No. 95850, November 18, 1991, 203 SCRA 673 — Followed for the burden on the accused to prove involuntary confession and for the rule that a lawyer provided by investigators is deemed engaged absent objection.
• People vs. Layuso, G.R. No. 69210, July 5, 1989, 175 SCRA 47 — Followed for the rule that the presence of counsel in custodial investigation is intended to preclude coercion, not to prevent the accused from telling the truth.
• People vs. Olvis, G.R. No. 71092, September 30, 1987, 154 SCRA 513 — Followed for the rule that reenactments are covered by the right against self-incrimination.
• People vs. Ubiña, 97 Phil. 515 (1955) — Followed for the rule that an accused who does not fall under any of the three concepts of principals may be guilty only as an accomplice.
• People vs. Clemente, G.R. No. L-23463, September 28, 1967, 21 SCRA 261 — Followed for the rule that where conspiracy is not shown and the extent of participation is uncertain, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt and declared a mere accomplice.

• Section 12, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees rights during custodial investigation, including pre-interrogation advisories and counsel; the SC applied it to test the admissibility of Reyes’s and Lara’s confessions and found compliance.
• Section 33, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Provides that the declaration of an accused acknowledging guilt may be given in evidence against him; the SC applied it to Lara’s own extrajudicial confession.
• Section 3, Rule 133, Rules of Court — Requires evidence of corpus delicti for an extrajudicial confession to be sufficient for conviction; the SC applied it to Lara’s confession.
• Article 17, Revised Penal Code — Defines the three concepts of principals; the SC applied it to hold that Lara did not fall under any of them.
• Article 110, Revised Penal Code — Governs civil liability of principals and accomplices; the SC used it to assess the P50,000 death indemnity against the accused and appellant.
• Section 11, Rule 122, Rules of Court — Governs appeal; the SC cited it to hold that it had no jurisdiction to review the convictions of Suarez and Reyes because they did not file a notice of appeal.