people vs olvis

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANACLETO Q. OLVIS, ACQUITTED, ROMULO VILLAROJO, LEONARDO CADEMAS AND DOMINADOR SORELA

G.R. No. 71092, September 30, 1987

Facts:

1. Deosdedit Bagon had been in fact missing since two days before. He was last seen by his wife in the afternoon  on his way home. She did not, however, find him there when she arrived in the evening.

2. It was Captain Encabo himself who led a search party to mount an inquiry.  Captain Encabo's men chanced upon an unnamed volunteer, who informed them that Deosdedit Bagon was last seen together with Dominador Sorela, one of the accused. Encabo then instructed one of his patrolmen to pick up Sorela.

3. Sorela bore several scratches on his face, neck, and arms when the police found him. According to him, he sustained those wounds while clearing his ricefield. Apparently unconvinced, Captain Encabo had Sorela take them to the ricefield where he sustained his injuries. But half way there, Sorela allegedly broke down, and, in what would apparently crack the case for the police, admitted having participated in the killing of the missing Bagon.

✔️Sorela allegedly confessed having been with Deosdedit Bagon  in the evening after some marketing. They were met by Romulo Villarojo and Leonardo Cademas, Sorela's co-accused, who led them to a secluded place in the ricefields.

✔️It was then that Villarojo allegedly attacked Bagon with a bolo, hacking him at several parts of the body until he, Bagon, was dead. Moments later, Sorela fled, running into thick cogon grasses where he suffered facial and bodily scratches.

4. The police soon picked up Villarojo and Cademas. Together with Sorela, they were turned over to the custody of Captain Encabo.

5. The police thereafter made the three re-enact the crime. Patrolman Dionisio Capito directed Sorela to lead them to the grounds where Deosdedit Bagon was supposed to have been buried. But it was Villarojo who escorted them to a watery spot somewhere in the ricefields, where the sack-covered, decomposing cadaver of Bagon lay in a shallow grave.

6. The body was transported to the  municipal hall the following day. It was displayed, morbidly, in front of the building where Mrs. Catalina Bagon, widow of the deceased, and her four children viewed it. (It was photographed)

7. The "ceremonies" continued in the parish church where the body of the victim was transferred. It was laid on the altar, in full public view. (It was also photographed)

8. But it was only later on that the body itself was uncovered from the sack that had concealed it.  Thereupon, it was readied for autopsy.

9. Initial findings of investigators disclosed that the threesome of Solera, Villarojo, and Cademas executed Deosdedit Bagon on orders of Anacleto Olvis, then municipal mayor, for a reward of P3,000.00 each.

10. While in custody, the three executed five separate written confessions each.

➰The first confessions were taken on September 9, 1975 in the local Philippine Constabulary headquarters. - accused  pointed to the then accused Anacleto Olvis as principal by inducement, who allegedly promised them a reward of P3,000.00 each.

➰ The second were made before the Polanco police.

➰On September 18, 1975, the three accused reiterated the same confessions before the National Bureau of Investigation Dipolog City sub-office. - they categorically denied Olvis' involvement in the killing.

➰On September 21, 1975 and September 25, 1975, they executed two confessions more, again before the Philippine Constabulary and the police of Polanco - where the said accused again pointed to the then accused Anacleto Olvis as principal by inducement, who allegedly promised them a reward of P3,000.00 each.

11. Based on these subsequent statements, the trial rendered separate verdicts on the three accused on the one hand, and Anacleto Olvis on the other. Olvis was acquitted, while the three were all sentenced to die for the crime of murder.

Contentions:

The accused-appellants subsequenty repudiated their alleged confessions in open court alleging threats by the Polanco investigators of physical harm if they refused to "cooperate" in the solution of the case. They likewise alleged that they were instructed by the Polanco police investigators to implicate Anacleto Olvis in the case. They insisted on their innocence. The accused Romulo Villarojo averred, specifically, that it was the deceased who had sought to kill him, for which he acted in self- defense.

Issue:

Whether or not the confessions are admissible as evidence in court

Ruling:

💕the three accused- appellants' extrajudicial confessions are inadmissible in evidence.

the rule with respect to extrajudicial confessions were laid down in People v. Decierdo,:

Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that

(1) he has a right to remain silent,

(2) that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and

(3) that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. (presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf.)(people vs galit)

The defendant, may waive effectuation of those rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. - No effective waiver of the right to counsel during interrogation can be recognized unless specifically made after the warnings we here delineate have been given.

If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning.

Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him.

The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consent to be questioned.

Like the Decierdo confessions, the confessions in the case at bar suffer from a Constitutional infirmity. In their supposed statements dated September 9, 14, and 21, 1975, the accused-appellants were not assisted by counsel when they "waived" their rights to counsel. As we said in Decierdo, the lack of counsel "makes those statements, in contemplation of law, ‘involuntary,' even if it were  otherwise voluntary, technically."

💕re-enactment

Forced re-enactments, like uncounselled and coerced confessions come within the ban against self-incrimination. The 1973 Constitution, the Charter prevailing at the time of the proceedings below, says: "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."

This constitutional privilege has been defined as a protection against testimonial compulsion, but this has since been extended to any evidence "communicative in nature" acquired under circumstances of duress. Essentially, the right is meant to "avoid and prohibit positively the repetition and recurrence of the certainly inhuman procedure of compelling a person, in a criminal or any other case, to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction."

This should be distinguished, parenthetically, from mechanical acts the accused is made to execute not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation. This includes requiring the accused to submit to a test to extract virus from his body,  or compelling him to expectorate morphine from his mouth,  or making her submit to a pregnancy test or a footprinting test, or requiring him to take part in a police lineup in certain cases.  In each case, the accused does not speak his guilt. It is not a prerequisite therefore that he be provided with the guiding hand of counsel.

But a forced re-enactment is quite another thing. Here, the accused is not merely required to exhibit some physical characteristics; by and large, he is made to admit criminal responsibility against his will. It is a police procedure just as condemnable as an uncounselled confession.

Accordingly, we hold that all evidence based on such a re-enactment to be in violation of the Constitution and hence, incompetent evidence.

💕Sorela's admission while with Captain Encabo

What is to be borne in mind is that Sorela was himself under custody. Any statement he might have made thereafter is therefore subject to the Constitutional guaranty.

By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

Chavez v. Court of Appeals tells us:

Compulsion as it is understood here does not necessarily connote the use of violence; it may be the product of unintentional statements. Pressure which operates to overbear his will, disable him from making a free and rational choice, or impair his capacity for rational judgment would in our opinion be sufficient. So is moral coercion "tending to force testimony from the unwilling lips of the defendant."

In such a case, he should have been provided with counsel.

💕delay 😝

Indeed, the three accused-appellants had languished in jail for one year and two months before the information was filed, and only after they had gone to court on an application for habeas corpus. For if the authorities truly had a case in their hands, we are puzzled why they, the accused, had to be made to suffer preventive imprisonment for quite an enormous length of time.

💕obiter dictum (as I think it is)

What is more, there are striking aspects in the case that the court find distressing. For one, there was no trace of grief upon the faces of the deceased's bereaved relatives, more so his widow and children, upon witnessing his cadaver -- wrapped in a sack and all -- although it was supposedly the first time that they saw his remains after two days of  frantic search. The photographs, for another, depict the deceased's relatives in fixed poses, while the deceased's corpse lay in the foreground.

Moreover, the victim was transferred to the municipal hall building and then subsequently, to the parish church, again, for a photographing session -- an unusual procedure -- when the perfunctory police procedure should have been to bring the corpse to the health officer for autopsy.

It was in fact only on September 10, 1975 that Deosdedit Bagon's remains were unwrapped, at the parish church at that, as if pursuant to a script or as part of some eerie ceremony.

The court likewise find the authorities' haste in securing the accused Anacleto Olvis' acquittal, at the expense of the present three accused, quite disconcerting. It should be noted that the three appellants had initially implicated Olvis as the mastermind. Yet, Olvis was never invited for the usual questioning.

While the court do not challenge the verdict of acquittal rendered in favor of Olvis, for it is not within our power to overturn acquittals, what is our concern is the apparent design to use three ill-lettered peasants, the three herein accused, as fall guys in an evident network of political intrigue.

Still, we are not prepared to hand down a judgment of acquittal upon all the three accused-appellants.

💕self defense

In his counter-affidavit, the accused Romulo Villarojo admitted hacking the victim to death with a bolo. He stressed, however, that he did so in self- defense. (“[H]e pulled out a hunting knife in order to stab me and in order also to defend my body, I hack[ed] him.") He completely absolved his co-accused Dominador Sorela and Leonardo Cademas from any liability.

Villarojo's admission inflicting the fatal wounds upon the deceased is  binding on him. But it is still our business to see whether his defense can stand scrutiny.

The records will disclose that the deceased suffered twelve assorted wounds caused by a sharp instrument. The assault severed his right hand and left his head almost separated from his body. This indicates a serious intent to kill, rather than self-defense.

💕aggravating circumstances

In finding that Villarojo did take the life of the victim, we cannot, however, appreciate superior strength or nocturnity. In the absence of any other proof, the severity and number of wounds sustained by the deceased are not, by themselves, sufficient proof to warrant the appreciation of the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Hence, Villarojo should be liable for plain homicide.

💕Adjudication

The accused-appellants Leonardo Cademas and Dominador Sorela are ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. The accused-appellant Romulo Villarojo is found guilty of homicide.