VOL.

302,FEBRUARY2,1999 533
Peoplevs.Espiritu
*
G.R.No.128287.February2,1999.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. RIZAL

ESPIRITUyKINAO,accusedappellant.

ConstitutionalLawConfessionCourtisconvincedthattheconfession
of Appellant Espiritu is admissible in evidence, as it was satisfactorily
shown that it was voluntary and made with the assistance of a competent
and independent counsel.We are convinced that the confession of
Appellant Espiritu is admissible in evidence, as it was satisfactorily shown
thatitwas(1)voluntaryand(2)madewiththeassistanceofacompetentand
independentcounsel.Withrespecttothefirstrequisite,wefindthatEspiritu
readilyadmittedkillingSanadwhenhewasconfrontedbytherelativesofthe
deceased. Thereafter, without being invited by the investigating officers,
he went to the police station and voluntarily gave his statement to SPO1
Wilfredo P. Cabanayan. Later, appellant affirmed before Prosecutor Romeo
Carbonell the fact that he, with Atty. Mangallay, had gone to the police
station to surrender and that the said counsel had assisted him when the
policestartedtakinghisstatement.Inhisconfession,appellantadmittedthat
heandMalicdankilledSanad,afterbeinghiredbyAlicoytodosoforthe

________________

*THIRDDIVISION.

534

534 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Peoplevs.Espiritu

sumofP20,000.Asidefromdescribingthedetailsofhowheandhiscohort
killed Sanad, Espiritu, during an ocular inspection, even pointed out the
place where the killing had been committed. These acts of the appellant are
clear manifestations that, contrary to his protestations, no torture, force,
violence, threat, intimidation or any other means was used against him to
forcehimtoconfess.
SameSameSuch confession is evidence of a high order, since it is
supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would
deliberatelyandknowinglyconfesstoacrimeunlesspromptedbytruthand
hisconscience.As a consequence of the confession of the appellant, his
convictionbecomesinevitable.Suchconfessionisevidenceofahighorder,
since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal
mindwoulddeliberatelyandknowinglyconfesstoacrimeunlessprompted
bytruthandhisconscience.
SameSameRighttoCounselTherighttocounseldoesnotmeanthat
theaccusedmustpersonallyhirehisowncounsel.At the outset, we must
clarify that the right to counsel does not mean that the accused must
personally hire his own counsel. The constitutional requirement is satisfied
when a counsel is (1) engaged by anyone acting on behalf of the person
under investigation or (2) appointed by the court upon petition of the said
personorbysomeoneonhisbehalf.Thus,thatAtty.Mangallaywasretained
notbytheappellantpersonallybutbyhisuncle,AlfredoKinao,isnotproof
of counsel deprivation. The fact remains that Kinao, in hiring the counsel,
actedonbehalfofAppellantEspiritu.Besides,Espiritudidnotobjectwhen
Atty. Mangallay represented him during the investigations before the police
andthecityprosecutor.Infact,heexpresslyacknowledgedAtty.Mangallay
ashiscounsel.
SameSameSameMeaningofcompetentcounselwasexplainedin
Peoplev.Deniega.The meaning of competent counsel was explained in
Peoplev.Deniegaasfollows:xxx[T]helawyercalledtobepresentduring
suchinvestigationsshouldbeasfarasreasonablypossible,thechoiceofthe
individual undergoing questioning. If the lawyer were one furnished in the
accuseds behalf, it is important that he should be competent and
independent,i.e.,thatheiswillingtofullysafeguardtheconstitutionalrights
of the accused, as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a
routine,peremptoryandmeaninglessrecitaloftheindividuals

535

VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999 535

Peoplevs.Espiritu

constitutional rights. In People v. Basay, this Court stressed that an

accuseds right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel
contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just
the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
principle.
 Same Same Same Same Assistance rendered to appellant by Atty.
MangallaymetthestandardsthathadbeensetinDeniegaforthepurposeof
safeguarding the right of the accused against involuntary confession.The
assistance rendered to appellant by Atty. Mangallay met the standards that
had been set in Deniega for the purpose of safeguarding the right of the
accusedagainstinvoluntaryconfession.Inthepresentcase,thecounselwas
vigilantininformingEspirituofhisrights.Hewasclearinexplainingtohis
client every question propounded by the investigating officer. And he was
notnegligentinrelatingtotheappellantthelegalconsequencesofthelatters
extrajudicialconfession.
Criminal Law Murder Evidence Appellants guilt has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt by his counselassisted and voluntary confession,
whichwascorroboratedonmaterialpointsbytheprosecutionwitnesses.
We hold that appellants guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by
his counselassisted and voluntary confession, which was corroborated on
materialpointsbytheprosecutionwitnesses.Thedefensehasnotgiventhis
Court any reason why we should reverse or modify the trial courts
assessmentofthecredibilityofsaidwitnessesandtheirtestimonies.Indeed,
appellantdoesnotquestiontheprosecutionsevidencewhichestablishedthe
corpusdelicti.
SameSameSameAggravatingCircumstanceTreacheryTheessence
of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack of the malefactors on their
unarmedpreywithoutthelattergivingtheslightestprovocation.Thecourt
aquo correctly qualified the killing to murder. The essence of treachery is
the swift and unexpected attack of the malefactors on their unarmed prey
without the latter giving the slightest provocation. Appellant and his cohort
executed their plan in a manner that rendered their victim surprised and
unable to defend himself. We agree with the observation of the trial court
that the great number of wounds inflicted on the back of Sato Sanad
manifeststhetreacherousnatureoftheattack.

536

536 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Peoplevs.Espiritu

Same Same Same Mitigating Circumstance Voluntary Surrender

Requisites before voluntary surrender may be appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance.Aside from the absence of an aggravating circumstance, the
trial court had one other reason for imposing reclusion perpetua and not
death: the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. This mitigating
circumstance is appreciated when the following requisites concur: (1) the
offenderhadnotbeenactuallyarrested(2)theoffendersurrenderedhimself
toapersoninauthorityand(3)thesurrenderwasvoluntary.Theforegoing
requisitesarebornebytherecords,whichshowthatEspiritusurrenderedto
thepoliceevenintheabsenceofawarrantforhisarrest.
APPEALfromadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofBaguio
City,Br.6.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
PublicAttorneysOfficeforaccusedappellant.

PANGANIBAN,J.:

A counselassisted, voluntary confession of guilt is evidence of

strong persuasive weight. It becomes overwhelming when it is
corroborated by independent prosecution evidence pointing to
appellantastheperpetratorofakilling.

TheCase
1
Rizal Espiritu y Kinao appeals the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court,Branch6,BaguioCity,convictinghimofmurder.
BeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofBaguioCityonMay3,1996,
ProsecutorIIRomeoN.CarbonellfiledagainstRizalEspiritu,along
with two othersGerald 2
Alicoy and Fred Malicdanan
Informationwhichreads:

________________

1PennedbyJudgeRubenC.Ayson.

2Records,p.1.

537

VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999 537
Peoplevs.Espiritu

The undersigned accuses GERALD ALICOY Y SIANO as principal by

inducementandFREDMALICDANYMILLERandRIZALESPIRITUY
KINAO as principal by direct participation [in] the crime of MURDER,
committedasfollows:
Thatonoraboutthe8thdayofSeptember,1995,intheCityofBaguio,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above
named accused, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident
prem[e]ditation,aftertheaccusedGERALDALICOYYSIANOofferedthe
sum of P20,000.00 to the accused FRED MALICDAN Y MILLER 3
and
RIZAL ESPIRITU Y KINAO for them to kill SATO SANAD Y DOGA
ONG, the accused Fred Malicdan and Rizal Espiritu, did then and there
willfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyattack,assaultandstabSatoSanadwith
asharppointedinstrumentseveraltimesonhisbackinflictingonsaidSato
SanadseveralstabwoundsathisbackasaresultofwhichsaidSatoSanad
died.
 The commission of the offense is qualified by evident premeditation in
that the three (3) accused planned the killing where the accused Gerald
Alicoy offered to the accused Fred Malicdan and Rizal Espiritu the sum of
P20,000.00 for them to kill Sato Sanad and the accused Fred Malicdan and
RizalEspiritucarriedouttheplanandkilledSatoSanad.
Thecommissionoftheoffenseislikewisequalifiedbytreacheryinthat
theaccusedRizalEspiritusuddenlyheldandlockedtheneckofSatoSanad
withhishandsandthereaftertheaccusedFredMalicdanstabbedSatoSanad
several times on his back and the accused adopted4 that mode of attack to
ensurethatthedeceasedcouldnotputupadefense.
5 6 7
When arraigned on May 14, 1996, Espiritu and his coaccused
enteredapleaofnotguilty.Aftertheprosecution

_________________

3SometimesspelledSannadintherecords.

4Rollo,p.11.

5OrderdatedMay14,1996records,p.50.

6 He was assisted by Counsel de Parte Daniel Mangallay. Subsequently, Atty.

Mangallay withdrew, and the court appointed Atty. Frisco Domalsin as counsel de
oficiooftheappellant.(Order,datedJune6,1996records,p.70).
7AssistedbyCounselFredBagbagen.

538

538 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Espiritu
8
presented its evidence, a joint Motion to Dismiss was filed by the
counsels of Alicoy and Malicdan namely, Jose M. Molintas and9
FredBagbagen.OnAugust20,1996,thetrialcourtissuedanOrder
acquitting the two accused for failure of the prosecution to prove
theirguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.ThetrialofAppellantEspiritu,
however,continued.
OnOctober30,1996,thecourtaquorendereditsDecisionand
thedispositiveportionthereofreads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court [f]inds accused Rizal

Espiritu y Kinao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as
definedunderArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCodeasamendedbySection
6ofRepublicAct7659aschargedintheInformation,andherebysentences
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to indemnify the heirs of
Sato Sannad the sum of P50,000.00 for his death P200,000.00 as moral
damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, all indemnifications are
withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvencyandtopaythecosts.
In the service of his sentence, accused Rizal Espiritu is entitled to be
credited4/5ofhispreventiveimprisonmentinaccordancewithArticle29of
10
theRevisedPenalCode.
 10
theRevisedPenalCode.
11
Hence,thisappealdirecttothisCourt.

TheFacts
VersionoftheProsecution
12
Inthe35pageBrieffortheAppellee, thesolicitorgeneralnarrated
theprosecutionsversionofthefactsasfollows:

_______________

8Records,p.172.

9Records,pp.201217.

10Decision,pp.2829rollo,pp.5657.

11ThecasewasdeemedsubmittedforresolutiononOctober16,1998,whenAtty.

MarvinR.OsiasofthePublicAttorneysOfficefiledhisManifestationinLieuofa
ReplyBrief.(Rollo,p.179)
12Rollo,pp.137174.TheBrieffortheAppelleewassignedbySolicitorGeneral

Ricardo P. Galvez, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio L. Villamayor and Solicitor

RaulJ.Mandin.

539

VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999 539
Peoplevs.Espiritu

Between7:30and8:00oclockintheeveningofSeptember8,1995,Henry
SaclangansawSatoSanadconversing with appellant Rizal Espiritu in front
of Starlight Bakery located at Sunflower Street, Navy Base Subdivision,
Baguio City. Later, he saw Sato Sanad and appellant, who placed his arm
aroundtheformersshoulder,walk.
Atabout9:00oclockinthatevening,JeffreyBernabewasinhishouse
at Sunflower St., Navy Base Subdivision, Baguio City conversing with
friends.Momentarily,heheardsomeoneoutsideshoutingforhelp.Whenhe
went out, Jeffrey Bernabe saw a man, who turned out to be Sato Sanad,
wounded and bleeding. Other people came out of their houses but no one
dared to help Sato Sanad who lay prostrate on the ground. Jeffrey Bernabe
went back to his house and boarded his truck. Accompanied by his friends
and helpers, Jeffrey Bernabe brought Sato Sanad to the Baguio General
Hospitalwherehediedonarrival.
Atabout9:00oclockthatsameevening,PoliceOfficerJohnsonAyagen
ofthePacdalPoliceSubstation,BaguioCity,receivedareportfromthebase
operator of a fight that occurred in Sunflower Street. He was ordered to
immediately proceed to the place. Along the way, PO Ayagen met an Isuzu
Elf Truck whose driver flagged him down. He was informed by Jeffrey
Bernabethatheandhiscompanionswerebringingawoundedpersontothe
hospital. PO Ayagen told the driver, Jeffrey Bernabe, to proceed to the
hospital and to wait for him there as he would first proceed to the crime
scene. The police met nobody at the crime scene. What they found were
bloodstains on the ground also, a bloodied, perforated maong jacket and
falsedentures.Whentheyarrivedatthehospital,JeffreyBernabeinformed
themthatthevictimwasalreadydead.
Dr. Vladimir Villaseor of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service, Camp
BadoDangwa,Benguet,conductedanautopsyonthecadaverofSatoSanad.
13
PerMedicoLegalReportissuedbyDr.Villaseor, thevictimsustainedthe
followinginjuries,towit:
TrunkandExtremities:

1. Stab wound, right suprascapular region, measuring 1.5 x 0.5cm,

5cms from the posterior midline, directed anteriorwards,
downwards,andmedialwards,laceratingtheunderlyingsofttissues
andmuscles.

_______________

13Seerecords,p.76.

540

540 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Espiritu

2. Stab wound, right scapular region, measuring 1.2 x 0.4cm, 6cms

from the posterior midline, directed anteriorwards, downwards and
medialwards,laceratingsofttissuesandmuscles.
3. Stab wound, right scapular region, measuring 1.5 x 0.6cm, 7cms
from the posterior midline, directed anteriorwards, downwards and
medialwards,laceratingsofttissuesandmuscles.
4. Stab wound, right infrascapular region, measuring 1.8 x 0.9cm,
14cms from the posterior midline, 10cms deep, directed
anteriorwards, slightly downwards and medialwards, passing
through the 9th right intercostal space, lacerating the lower lobe of
therightlung.
5. Stab wound, right lumbar region, measuring 1.8 x 0.8cm, 12cms
fromtheposteriormidline.
6. Stab wound, right paravertebral region, measuring 1.6 x 0.6cm,
2cmsfromtheposteriormidline.
7. Stab wound, right paravertebral region, measuring 1.8 x 1cm,
19cms from the posterior midline, 10cms deep, directed
anteriorwards, slightly upwards and medialwards, passing through
the8thrightintercostalspace,laceratingthelowerlobeoftheright
lung.
8. Stab wound, left suprascapular region, measuring 1.5 x 0.5cm,
9cms from the posterior midline, 8cms deep, directed
 anteriorwards, downwards and medialwards, passing through the
2ndleftintercostalspace,laceratingtheupperlobeoftheleftlung.
9. Stab wound, left suprascapular region, measuring 1.5 x 0.5cm,
8cms from the posterior midline, 9cms deep, directed
anteriorwards, downwards and medialwards, passing through the
6thleftintercostalspace,laceratingthelowerlobeoftheleftlung.
10. Stab wound, left infrascapular region, measuring 0.5 x 0.3cm,
14cmsfromtheposteriormidline.
11. Stabwound,leftinfrascapularregion,measuring1.7x0.6cm,6cms
from the posterior midline, 8cms deep, directed anteriorwards,
slightly upwards and medialwards, fracturing the 9th left thoracic
rib,laceratingtheleftlowerlobeoftheleftlung.

541

VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999 541
Peoplevs.Espiritu

12. Stab wound, left paravertebral region, measuring 1.5 x 0.5cm,

2cms from the posterior midlin[e], 8.5cms deep, directed
posteriorwards,slightlyupwardsandmedialwards,passingthrough
the 9th left intercostal space, lacerating the lower lobe of the left
lung.
13. Stabwound,leftlumbarregion,measuring2.5x0.8cm,.2cmfrom
the posterior midline, directed anteriorwards, slightly downwards
and medialwards, lacerating the underlying soft tissues and
muscles.

CONCLUSION:

CauseofDeath:Hemorrhageasaresultofmultiplestabwoundsonthebody.

AtthewakeofSatoSannad,ReyvoSanad,hisson,wasinformedbyhis
cousin, Nestor Kinao, that appellant Rizal Espiritu, a cousin of Nestor
mentioned something about the killing of his father. Together, they sought
out appellant. They found him in the company of his uncle, Alfredo Kinao,
whowasalsorelatedtothewifeofSatoSanad.Whenconfronted,appellant
was persuaded to relate his participation in the killing of Sato Sanad.
AppellanteventuallyconfessedtobeingoneoftheassailantsofSatoSanad.
Then,allthosepresentagreedtomeetthefollowingdayattheBaguioCity
Policewhereappellantwouldsurrender.
The following day, or on September 20, 1995, appellant, accompanied
byAlfredoKinao,metwiththevictimsrelativesattheBaguioCityPolice
Station.However,thedaybeforetheirmeeting,AlfredoKinaohadtalkedto
Atty.DanielMangallayinhisofficeandaskedhimtobeappellantscounsel.
Atty. Mangallay thus went to the Baguio City Police Station where he met
the others. Atty. Mangallay conferred with appellant regarding the case and
agreedtorepresenthim.
Prior to the investigation, Atty. Mangallay informed the police that
appellant would voluntarily give his statement. Police Officer Wilfredo
Cabanayan, who was assigned to take appellants statements, apprised the
latter, in the presence of his lawyer, of his constitutional rights to remain
silent,tohavecompetentandindependentcounselofhischoiceandhisright
against selfincrimination. After Atty. Mangallay, himself, had explained to
appellant his constitutional rights, the latter signified his willingness and
readiness to give his statement. Police Officer Cabanayan propounded his
questionsinIlocanotowhichappellantrepliedin

542

542 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Espiritu

the same dialect. The questions and answers were then translated into
English.
Thereafter, appellant and Atty. Mangallay affixed their respective
signatures on the sworn statement. During the proceeding, Atty. Mangallay
wasatalltimesassistingappellant.xxx.
xxxxxxxxx
Thereafter, appellant, accompanied by Atty. Mangallay and Police
Officer Cabanayan, was presented before Prosecutor Dizon for personal
examination. Appellant declared that he understood his statement as
explainedtohimbyProsecutorDizon.Thereafter,appellantagainsignedhis
swornstatement.
At the preliminary investigation conducted by Prosecutor Romeo
Carbonell, appellant was likewise assisted by Atty. Mangallay. Accused
GeraldAlicoyandFredMalicdanwerepresentwiththeirrespectivecounsel.
During the clarificatory questions, appellant repeated the contents of his
swornstatementgivenbeforethepolicewhichwasrecordedinthetranscript
of stenographic notes. Further, Prosecutor Carbonell conducted an ocular
inspection
14
of the scene of the crime with all the accused and their counsel
present.

VersionoftheDefense

Denying participation in the killing of Sanad, Appellant Espiritu

assails the admissibility15 of his extrajudicial confession. In the 23
page Appellants Brief, the defense submitted its version of the
factsinthiswise:

ALFREDOKINAO,theuncleoftheaccused,statedthatonSeptember17,
1995, he was at a vigil in Quirino Hill, when his son arrived and told him
thattheyhadtoseetheaccusedwhowasatthepolicestation.Heaskedthe
policeiftheycouldbringouttheaccused.Theywereabletodosowhenthey
signedapromissorynote.ThepolicetoldhimthatEspirituwasasuspectin
the killing of Sato Sannad and they had to return him on September 20,
1995.

_______________

14AppelleesBrief,pp.415rollo,pp.143154.Citationsomitted.

15Rollo,pp.7195.TheAppellantsBriefwassignedbyPublicAttorneyIVArceliAdan

Rubin,PublicAttorneyIIIAmeliaC.GarchitorenaandPublicAttorneyIIMarvinR.Osias.

543

VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999 543
Peoplevs.Espiritu

Upon their return, Espiritu told the police, that he [would] tell them what
happened since his conscience was bothering him. The police advised them
togetalawyertoassisttheaccused.
He added that on September 19, 1995, he went to Atty. Mangallays
house,butwasadvisedtoseethelatterinhisofficeonSeptember20,1995.
When informed by the police that a lawyer [was] needed, he went to Atty.
Mangallays office, and they proceeded to the police station. Upon their
arrival, the statement of the accused was taken. Then they proceeded to the
prosecutorsofficeforthesubscriptionofthestatement.
RIZALESPIRITUstatedthatthevictimsrelativesaskedhimtogivea
statementtotheeffectthathetogetherwithAlicoyandMalicdankilledSato
Sannad. They offered him P50,000.00 and said that the two [would] be put
injail.HedidnotparticipateinthekillingofSannad.Hewenttothepolice
station accompanied by Alfredo Kinao and the relatives of the victim on
September 20, 1995. He was advised by the police to get a lawyer and
AlfredoKinao,lefttogetalawyerbuthedidnotauthorizehimtodoso.The
police started to take and prepare his statement at around 8:00 AM and the
lawyer arrived at around 10:00 AM, when his statement was already being
taken.LawyerMangallaydidnotgivehimanyadviceanddidnotexplainin
detailthecontentsofthestatement.Hewasnotadvisednorinformedthatby
givingthestatementhecouldbeimprisonedandevensentencedtodeath.
On surrebuttal, he declared that it was only after he had related the
incidentthatthepolicetoldhimtogetalawyer.Hewasattheinvestigation
roomwhenthelawyerarrivedtogetherwithAlfredoKinaoandatthattime,
16
hisstatementhadalreadybeentakenbythepolice.

TheTrialCourtsRuling

ThetrialcourtconvictedEspirituonthebasisofhisconfessionand
corroborating evidence of corpus delicti. The confession was
admittedinevidence,becausetheCourtbelievedthattheappellant
voluntarily executed it while being assisted by a competent and
independentcounsel.Further,duringtheinvestigationconductedby
AssistantProsecutorRomeoCar

________________

16AppellantsBrief,pp.1213rollo,pp.8485.

544

544 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Espiritu

bonell, Espiritu affirmed that he had voluntarily executed the

extrajudicial confession before the police, and he even reenacted
howSanadwaskilled.

AssignmentofErrors

Appellantassignsthefollowingerrorstothecourtaquo:

I. Thecourtaquogravelyerredinadmittinginevidencethe
uncounselled extrajudicial confession (Exhibit B) of the
accusedappellant.
II. The court a quo erred in finding the accusedappellant
17
guiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofmurder.

Inresolvingthisappeal,theCourtwilladdresstwomainissues:(1)
the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession and (2) the
sufficiencyoftheevidenceofguilt.

ThisCourtsRuling

Theappealhasnomerit.

FirstIssue:
AdmissibilityofExtrajudicialConfession

In assailing the admissibility of his extrajudicial confession,

appellantinvokesparagraphs1and3ofSection12,ArticleIIIofthe
1987 Constitution. He insists that his confession was obtained in
violation of his rights (1) to have an independent and competent
counseland(2)tobeinformedofsuchright.Further,hearguesthat
he was not advised by Atty. Mangallay of the consequences of the
executionofaconfession.
Wedisagree.WeareconvincedthattheconfessionofAppellant
Espirituisadmissibleinevidence,asitwassatisfacto
_________________

17AppellantsBrief,pp.1and13rollo,pp.73and85.

545

VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999 545
Peoplevs.Espiritu

rilyshownthatitwas(1)voluntaryand(2)madewiththeassistance
18
ofacompetentandindependentcounsel.
With respect to the first requisite, we find that Espiritu readily
admitted killing19
Sanad when he was confronted by the relatives of
the deceased. Thereafter, without being invited by the
investigating officers, he went to the police station and voluntarily
20
gave his statement to SPO1 Wilfredo P. Cabanayan. Later,
appellantaffirmedbeforeProsecutorRomeoCarbonellthefactthat
he,withAtty.Mangallay,hadgonetothepolicestationtosurrender
and that the said counsel
21
had assisted him when the police started
takinghisstatement. In his confession, appellant admitted that he
andMalicdankilledSanad,afterbeinghiredbyAlicoytodosofor
thesumofP20,000.Asidefromdescribingthedetailsofhowheand
his cohort killed Sanad, Espiritu, during an ocular inspection, even
pointedouttheplacewherethekillinghadbeencommitted.
Theseactsoftheappellantareclearmanifestationsthat,contrary
tohisprotestations,notorture,force,violence,threat,intimidation
oranyothermeanswasusedagainsthimtoforcehimtoconfess.

CompetentandIndependentCounsel
ThedefensecontendsthatAtty.MangallaywasretainedbyAlfredo
Kinaoandnotbyappellant.Itisalsoarguedthatthesaidlawyerwas
unable to advise or to explain the contents of the extrajudicial
confessiontotheappellantbeforethelattersignedit.
Wearenotpersuaded.Attheoutset,wemustclarifythattheright
tocounseldoesnotmeanthattheaccusedmust

_________________

18Peoplev.Deniega,251SCRA626,637,December29,1995.

19TSN,June7,1996,pp.2021.

20TSN,June7,1996,pp.4458andJune11,1996,pp.239.

21TSN(takenduringthepreliminaryinvestigationconductedbytheOfficeofthe

CityProsecutorofBaguio),October26,1995,pp.23.

546

546 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 Peoplevs.Espiritu

personally hire his own counsel. The constitutional requirement is

satisfiedwhenacounselis(1)engagedbyanyoneactingonbehalf
ofthepersonunderinvestigationor(2)appointedbythecourtupon
22
petitionofthesaidpersonorbysomeoneonhisbehalf. Thus,that
Atty.Mangallaywasretainednotbytheappellantpersonallybutby
his uncle, Alfredo Kinao, is not proof of counsel deprivation. The
fact remains that Kinao, in hiring the counsel, acted on behalf of
Appellant Espiritu. Besides, Espiritu did not object when Atty.
Mangallay represented him during the investigations before the
police and the city prosecutor.23In fact, he expressly acknowledged
Atty.Mangallayashiscounsel.
ThemeaningofcompetentcounselwasexplainedinPeoplev.
24
Deniega asfollows:

xxx[T]helawyercalledtobepresentduringsuchinvestigationsshouldbe
as far as reasonably possible, the choice of the individual undergoing
questioning. If the lawyer were one furnished in the accuseds behalf, it is
important that he should be competent and independent, i.e., that he is
willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as
distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine, peremptory
andmeaninglessrecitaloftheindividualsconstitutionalrights.InPeoplev.
25
Basay, this Court stressed that an accuseds right to be informed of the
right to remain silent and to counsel contemplates the transmission of
meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory
recitationofanabstractconstitutionalprinciple.
Ideally therefore, a lawyer engaged for an individual facing custodial
investigation (if the latter could not afford one) should be engaged by the
accused(himself),orbythelattersrelativeorperson

________________

22 People v. Miana, 216 SCRA 799, 804, December 23, 1992 People v. Vasquez, 196

SCRA564,568,April30,1991Peoplev.Albofera,152SCRA123,134,July20,1987.See
alsoPeoplev.Burgos,144SCRA1,September4,1986Peoplev.Galit,135SCRA465and
Morales,Jr.v.Enrile,121SCRA538,April26,1983.
23TSN,June7,1996,p.49.

24251SCRA626,637,December29,1995,perKapunan,J.

25219SCRA404,418.

547

VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999 547
Peoplevs.Espiritu

authorizedbyhimtoengageanattorneyorbythecourt,uponproperpetition
of the accused or person authorized by the accused to file such petition.
Lawyersengagedbythepolice,whatevertestimonialsaregivenasproofof
their probity and supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in many
areas, the relationship between lawyers and law enforcement authorities can
besymbiotic.
xxxxxxxxx
x x x The competent or independent lawyer so engaged should be
present from the beginning to end, i.e., at all stages of the interview,
counselingoradvisingcautionreasonablyateveryturnoftheinvestigation,
and stopping the interrogation once in a while either to give advice to the
accusedthathemayeithercontinue,choosetoremainsilentorterminatethe
interview.

UndoubtedisthecompetenceofAtty.Mangallaywhowashimself
presented by the prosecution as witness. Without violating the rule
onprivilegedcommunication,hetestified:

Q Soallthewhiletheprovisionsofthispreliminaryquestionsfrom
A,BandCwereasked,itwasonlythepolicewho[h]asallthe
timebeentalkingtotheaccused?
A Ofcourse,beforethePoliceOfficerpropoundedthosequestions,
weagreedthatitbepropoundedinIlocanodialectsothatthe
accusedcanunderstand,sir.
Q Whoagreed,you?
A Theaccused,meandthePoliceOfficer,sir.
Q AnddoyouknowifitwasreducedfirstinIlocanoversionbefore
itwastranslatedinEnglishversion?
A ItwaspropoundedinEnglishdialectandthenintotheIlocano
dialectandafterthat,theaccusedwasaskedifheunderstoodthe
same,sir.
Q Whatdoyoumean,ifheunderstoodthesame?
A Ofcourse,ifhegotthemeaningofwhatwaspropoundedtohim,
sir.
Q What,forexample?
A Thathehadtherighttocounsel.
Q Andwhatdidtheaccusedsay?
A Theaccusedclearlystatedthatheunderstoodthesame.

548

548 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Espiritu

Q Nomore?
A Nomore,sir.
Q And,[were]thosetheonlyquestionsbeingpropoundedduringthe
preliminaryquestions?
A Ofcoursetherewereseveralquestions.
Q What[were]thosequestions?
A Thattheaccusedha[d]therighttoremainsilent.
Q Andwhatdidtheaccusedsay?
A Ofcourse,hesaidthathe[was]willingtogivehisstatement.
Q Andwhatelse,nomore?[Thosewere]allthequestionsthatwere
askedbythepolice?
A Therewereotherquestions,sir.
Q What[were]thoseotherquestions?
A Likewise,hewasapprisedofhisrighttoselfincrimination,sir.
Q Whatelse,howdidthePoliceapprisetherightoftheaccusedto
selfincrimination?
A ThePoliceOfficerinformedtheaccused[ofhis]beingaperson
entitledtocounselofhisownthatheha[d]therighttoremain
silentthathemayrefusetogiveanyandthatwhateverstatement
hemaygive[could]beusedagainsthim,sir.
Q Andwhatdidtheaccusedsay?
A Theaccusedsaid,he[was]willingtogivehisstatementand[to
have]meashiscounsel,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Q Underwhatinstancedidyouassisttheaccused?
A Ofcourseunderallthecircumstancessurroundingthetakingof
theswornstatement,sir.
Q [Inwhatparticular]circumstancecanyourememberthatyou
assistedactuallytheaccused?
A Fromthetimehewasaskedorapprisedofhisrightsuptothetime
heendedhisswornstatement,Iwasassistinghim,sir.
Q Anditwasonlytheaccusedwhohadbeenansweringthe
preliminaryquestionsaskedbythepolice,isthatcorrect?

549

VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999 549
Peoplevs.Espiritu

A Ofcourse,itwas[he]whowasbeingasked.
Q Soitwas[he]whowasgivingtheanswer?
A Afterbeingexplained,sir.
Q Whoexplained,thepolice?
A Bothofus,sir.
Q Wasyourexplanationputintowriting?
A Ofcoursenot,sir.
xxxxxxxxx
Q WhenyousaidthatbeforeRizalEspiritugavehisstatement,the
onlythingyou[did]wastoconfirmwhatwastoldyoubyAlfredo
Kinao,[was]thatcorrect?
A Asidefromthat,Ialsoaskedhimifhe[was]willingtogivehis
statementtothepolice,sir.
Q Isthatall?
A Ofcourse,Iexplainedtheconsequencesofsuchstatement,sir.
Q Likewhat[was]theconsequenceofgivingthestatement?
A Aswhathadbeenrepeatedlyaskedxxxhimorpropoundedto
him,anystatement[could]beusedagainsthim,sir.
Q [Was]thatallthatyouaskedxxxtheclient,sir?
A Ofcourse,Ialsoinformedhimthatthecrimehewaschargedof
[was]aheinouscrime,sir.
Q Isthatall?
A Ialsoexplainedtohimthatbeingaheinouscrime,thepenalty
there[forwas]death,sir.
Q Isthatall?
A Ialsoaskedhimifhe[was]willingtosufferanyconsequenceof
givinghisstatement,sir.
Q Anddidyoutellhiminparticulartheconsequences[of]givinghis
statement?
A Yes,sir,evenbeforeIwasofficiallyengagedbythem.
Q Whatdidyoutellhimasaconsequence?
A Asaconsequence,he[could]becharged[with]acrimeof
murder,sir.
Q [Was]thatallthatyoutoldhim?

550

550 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Espiritu

A Thatofcourse,iffoundguilty,he[could]bepunished,sir.
Q [With]death?
A Yes,sir.
Q [Was]thatallthatyouadvisedyourclientbeforehegavehis
statement?
A Amongotherthings,Ireallyaskedhimifhewasreallyvoluntarily
andfreelygivinghisstatementdespitealltheexplanationthatI
made,sir.
Q Andwhenhesaidyes,youwereconvincedandthatwasit,you
advisedhimnothingmore,nothinglesstha[n]wasstated,isthat
correct?
26
A Itwasofhisownvoluntarydecision,sir.

The assistance rendered to appellant by Atty. Mangallay met the

standards that had been set in Deniega for the purpose of
safeguardingtherightoftheaccusedagainstinvoluntaryconfession.
Inthepresentcase,thecounselwasvigilantininformingEspirituof
his rights. He was clear in explaining to his client every question
propoundedbytheinvestigatingofficer.Andhewasnotnegligentin
relating to the appellant the legal consequences of the latters
extrajudicialconfession.
Verily,areviewoftherecordsrevealsnoinfirmityinthemanner
in which appellants extrajudicial confession was taken. Witness
Cabanayan testified that Atty. Mangallay assisted 27
Espiritu
throughout the time that the latter gave his statement. Even the
aforementioned uncle of the 28
appellant, Defense Witness Alfredo
Kinao,attestedtosuchfacts.

SecondIssue:
GuiltProvenBeyondReasonableDoubt

We hold that appellants guilt has been proven beyond reasonable

doubtbyhiscounselassistedandvoluntaryconfes

________________

26TSN,August6,1996,pp.1619&2122.

27TSN,June7,1996,pp.4458.

28TSN,August27,1996,pp.812.

551

VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999 551
Peoplevs.Espiritu

sion,whichwascorroboratedonmaterialpointsbytheprosecution
witnesses.ThedefensehasnotgiventhisCourtanyreasonwhywe
should reverse or modify the trial courts assessment
29
of the
credibilityofsaidwitnessesandtheirtestimonies. Indeed,appellant
does not question
30
the prosecutions evidence which established the
corpusdelicti.
Pertinentportionsofappellantsconfessionarequotedhereunder:

Q: SometimeonSeptember7,1995,atabout6:00PM,wherewere
you?
A: IwasthenatSanCarlosHeights,BaguioCity.
Q: Whatwereyoudoingatthesaidplace?
A: Ivisitedmycousinswho[were]residents[of]thesaidplace.

__________________

29Peoplevs.Nardo,270SCRA672,April4,1997Peoplevs.Lakibul,217SCRA

575,January27,1993Peoplevs.Pajares,210SCRA237,June23,1992.
30Corpusdelictiisthebody(materialsubstance)uponwhichacrimehasbeen

committed, e.g., the corpse of a murdered man or the charred remains of a house
burned down. In a derivative sense, it means the substantial fact that a crime was
committed.Itismadeupoftwoelements:(a)thatacertainresulthasbeenprove[n],
forexample,amanhasdiedorabuildinghasbeenburned,and(b)thatsomepersonis
criminallyresponsiblefortheact.Section3,Rule133oftheRulesofCourtdoesnot
mean that every element of the crime charged must be clearly established by
independent evidence apart from the confession. Otherwise, the utility of the
confessionasaspeciesofproofwouldvanishifitwerenecessary,inadditiontothe
confession,toadduceotherevidencesufficienttojustifyconvictionindependentlyof
suchconfession.Otherwisestated,theotherevidenceneednot,independentlyofthe
confession, establish the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v.
Lorenzo,240SCRA624,637,January26,1995,perDavide,Jr.,J.SeealsoPeoplev.
Cabodoc,263SCRA187,202,October15,1996Peoplev.Gutierrez,258SCRA70,
7576,July5,1996Peoplev.Barlis,231SCRA426,442443,March24,1994People
v.Roluna,231SCRA446,452,March24,1994.)

552

552 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Espiritu

Q: Wereyouabletovisityourcousins?
A: No,sir.
Q: Why?
A: BecausewhilewalkingonmywayalongtheSanCarlosHeights
[R]oad,Iwasmetbyayoungboy[who]askedmeifIkn[e]wa
certainRIZAL.
Q: What[wasyour]answerifthere[was]any?
A: IrepliedthatIwastheonewhomhewasasking[about]andthen
hetoldmetolookforGERALD.
Q: DoyouknowthisGeraldwhomtheboywasreferringto?
A: Uponlearningthattheyoungboywasreferringto[my]barcada
(friend),namedGeraldAlicoywhoresidesatLamagVillage,San
CarlosHeights,BaguioCity,Ithenproceededtotheirhouse.
Q: WereyouabletogotothehouseofGeraldAlicoy?
A: No,becauseIsawGeraldAlicoystandingwithamaleperson[in]
abasketballcourtalongtheroadbeforereachingtheirhouse.
Q: WhatdidyoudouponseeingGeraldAlicoy?
A: IwentnearandheutteredNAIMBAGTANADANUNAN
NAKADIAYUBING[]IthenrepliedWENTANASABATKO
DIAYPAGNAAN.
Q: WhatelsedidGeraldAlicoytellyouiftherewereany?
A: HeaskedmeKAYATYOTIAGKACUARTA?
Q: Whatdidyouanswer?
A: IansweredhimKAYATKOA.
Q: WhatelsedidGeraldAlicoytellyou?
A: HetoldmeandhiscompanionwhomIcametoknowasFRED
MALICDANthefollowing[:]NOCASTAGARUDINKAYO
TIRAENNISATOTAKNOMATAYITEDKOTIB[EI]NTE
MIL(P20,000.00)KANIAYO,KETDAYTOYTICADUAM
NIFRED,SAANKANGAAGDANAG.
Q: DidyouaskGeraldAlicoywho[was]thisSatohewasreferring
to?
A: Ikn[e]wthathewasreferringtoSATOSANNADwho[was]an
oldacquaintance[in]Manilaand[a]residentofNavyBase,
BaguioCity.

553

VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999 553
Peoplevs.Espiritu

Q: DidGeraldAlicoytellyouifhekn[e]wSatoSannad?
A: OnthesamedaytheMr.Alicoyasked[us]tokillMr.Sannad,he
toldusthatheknewsuchpersonbecausethelatter[was]a
coworkerofhisinTagaytay.
Q: DidyouaskGeraldAlicoywhyheorderedyoutokillSato
Sannad?
A: No,sirandheha[s]tolduswhy.
Q: AfterGeraldAlicoypromisedtopayyouP20,000.00[for]killing
Sannad,whatdidyoudo?
A:
 BothFredMalicdanandIagreedastothetimeandthemeeting
placeinthepresenceofAlicoy.
Q: DidFredMalicdantellyouyourmeetingplaceanditstime?
A: Hetoldmethatwe[would]me[e]tatabout5:00PMto5:30PM
attheparkingspaceforjeepneysboundforSanCarlosHeights,
BaguioCityatKayangSt.,BaguioCity,o[n]September8,1995.
Q: Whatelseha[d]youagreed[to]iftherewereany?
A: NothingmoreandwepartedwaysandIwenthome.
Q: Asagreedupon,wereyouabletoseeorme[e]tFredMalicdan?
A: Yes,atabout5:00PMofSeptember8,1995,webothmetatthe
parkingspaceofjeepneysboundforSanCarlosHeightsat
KayangSt.,BaguioCity.
Q: Afteryoubothmet,whathappened?
A: Hetoldmethatwe[would]thenproceedtoNavyBase,Baguio
City[to]whichIagreedandwhilewalkingItoldMalicdanto
verifyfirst[if]Sannad[was]presentinsidetherestaurant.AsI
enteredtherestaurantIsawSannadsoIwentbackimmediately
andinformedFredMalicdanthatMr.Sato[was]insidethe
restaurantdrinking.
Q: WhatdidMalicdantellyouiftherewereany?
A: Hetoldmethatwe[would]wait[for]Sannadtogoout[of]the
restaurantwherehewasdrinking.
Q: [Did]you[wait]?
A: Yes,webothwaitedaboutten(10)minutesuntilSatoSannad
wentouttowardstheHilltopHotel.

554

554 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Espiritu

Q: Whatdidyoudonext?
A: FredMalicdanandIfollowedhimwithout[his]knowingthathe
[wasbeing]followedbyusuntilherodeinamovingjeepney
boundforPacdal,BaguioCityatthesideofPlazaTheater.
Q: Whatdidyoudonext?
A: Wehailedandboardedataxiandorderedthedrivertobringusto
NavyBase,BaguioCity.
Q: WereyouandMalicdan[abletoreach]NavyBase?
A: No,westoppedrightafterthebridgeatLeonardWoodRoad,
BaguioCity.
Q: Whydidyoustopthere?
A: BecauseFredwasassumingthatSannadwouldtakethatroadin
goingtotheirresidence.
Q: Wereyouabouttowait[for]Sannad?
A: After10minutesofwaiting[for]thejeepneywhereSannadwas
riding[it]passedbyusandstoppedatthecrossinggoingtowards
theresidenceofSannad.
Q: DidSannadalightfromthejeep?
A: Yes,sir.
Q: WhatdidyoudowhenSannadalighted?
A: Wefollowedhimandthat[was]alreadypastsevenoclockinthe
evening.
Q: Whathappenednext?
A: Wecontinuedfollowinghimuntilhestoppedandbought[a]
cigaretteatastore.
Q: Whathappenednext?
A: Whilepaying[for]thecigarette,hesawmeandinvitedmeto
haveadrink.
Q: Howfarwereyouwhenhewasinvitingyoutodrink?
A: Iwasaboutfivemetersawayfromhim.
Q: Whathappenednextwhenheinvitedyoutodrink?
A: Itoldhimthatweneednotdrink.
Q: Whathappenednext?
A: Hethen[came]nearmeandashewasapproachinghesawFred
Malicdanwhowasabout15metersbehindmesohelikewise
approachedhim.

555

VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999 555
Peoplevs.Espiritu

Q: WhathappenedwhenheapproachedFredMalicdan?
A: AsSannadwaswalkingtowardsMalicdan,Iimmediately
followedhimandheldhisneckwithmylefthandandlocked[it]
withmyrighthand.
Q: Whatelsedidyoudoiftherewereany?
A: Idraggedhi[m]towardsagarbage[box]besidetheroadneara
store.
Q: Whatelsedidyoudo?
A:
 Ishovedhisbodyandheslumpedonthegarbageonhis
stomach.
Q: WherewasFredMalicdanatthattime?
A: HewasrightbehindSannadwhileIwasonhis(Sannad)[right
side]stillholdinghisneck.
Q: Whathappenednext?
A: FredMalicdanrepeatedlystabbedhimandthereafterItriedto
holdhimupwhileMalicdanopenedthegarbagebox.
Q: Whatdidyoudonext?
A: Wewereabouttodrophimintothegarbageboxbutinthe
processI[loosend]mygriponhimsoheimmediatelyshouted
ARAYATENDAKforthreetimes.
Q: Whenheshoutedwhatdidyoudo?
A: Ifreedhimandweranaway.
Q: ShouldyouseeagaintheweaponusedbyMalicdaninstabbing
Sannad,canyouidentifythesame?
A: Yes,sir.
Q: Areyouwillingtosuffertheconsequencesofyourwrongfulact?
A: Yes,sir.
Q: AreyoualsowillingtotestifyagainstGeraldAlicoyandFred
Malicdan?
31
A: Yes,sir.

Asaconsequenceoftheconfessionoftheappellant,hisconviction
32
becomesinevitable. Suchconfessionisevidenceof

_______________

31Extrajudicialconfession,pp.24records,pp.2527.

32Section3,Rule133oftheRulesofCourt.

556

556 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Espiritu

ahighorder,sinceitissupportedbythestrongpresumptionthatno
personofnormalmindwoulddeliberatelyandknowinglyconfessto
33
acrimeunlesspromptedbytruthandhisconscience.
Asmentionedearlier,theconfessionofEspirituwascorroborated
bythetestimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnesses.Thelatteraffirmed
theappellantsstatementastothetimeandtheplaceoftheincident,
theweaponusedandthelocationofthestabwoundsonthevictims
body. 34
First, Dr. Vladimir Villaseor autopsied the body and testified
that,basedontheinjuriesinflicted,theweaponusedwasapointed
instrument and that the assailant was positioned behind the victim.
Second, Police Officer Johnson Ayagen testified that he saw a
garbageboxnearthecrimescene,adetailspecificallymentionedby
35
Espiritu in his extrajudicial confession. Third, Witness Jeffrey
Bernabe,uponhearingthecriesforhelp,proceededtotheplaceof
theincident,wherehefoundthevictimlyingonthegroundatabout 36
thesametimeasthatwhichEspiritumentionedinhisconfession.
Lastly, the prosecution witnesses and Espiritu point to the same
locuscriminis.

Treachery

The court a quo correctly qualified the killing to murder. The

essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack of the
malefactorsontheirunarmedpreywithoutthelatter

__________________

33Peoplev.Montiero,246SCRA786,793,July31,1995,perPuno,J.People v.

Remollo,227 SCRA 375,386,October22,1993People v. Alvarez,201 SCRA 364,

September 5, 1991 People v. Pamon, 217 SCRA 501, January 25, 1993 People v.
Gaddi,170SCRA649,657658,February27,1989.
34TSN,June11,1996,pp.3970.

35TSN,July24,1996,p.6.

36TSN,August6,1996,pp.310.

557

VOL.302,FEBRUARY2,1999 557
Peoplevs.Espiritu
37
givingtheslightestprovocation. Appellantandhiscohortexecuted
their plan in a manner that rendered their victim surprised and
unabletodefendhimself.Weagreewiththeobservationofthetrial
courtthatthegreatnumberofwoundsinflictedonthebackofSato
Sanadmanifeststhetreacherousnatureoftheattack.
On the other hand, we cannot appreciate evident premeditation
which was alleged in the Information. The records of this case do
not show any evidence whatsoever to prove this aggravating
circumstance.

ProperPenaltyandDamages
Aside from the absence of an aggravating circumstance, the trial
courthadoneotherreasonforimposingreclusionperpetuaandnot
death: the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. This
mitigatingcircumstanceisappreciatedwhenthefollowingrequisites
concur: (1) the offender had not been actually arrested (2) the
offender surrendered himself
38
to a person in authority and (3) the
surrenderwasvoluntary. Theforegoingrequisitesarebornebythe
records,whichshowthatEspiritusurrenderedtothepoliceevenin
39
theabsenceofawarrantforhisarrest.

________________

37Peoplev.Umadhay,GRNo.119544,August3,1998Peoplev.Crisostomo,GR

No. 116059, July 23, 1998 People v. Molina, GR Nos. 11583536, July 22, 1998
People v. Villamor,GR No. 124981, July 10, 1998 People v. De la Cruz, GR Nos.
10961923,June26,1998Peoplev.Lagarteja,GRNo.127095,June22,1998People
v.Oliano,GRNo.119013,March6,1998.
38Peoplev.Sumalpong,284SCRA464, January 20, 1998, per Panganiban, J. See

alsoPeoplev.Sion,277SCRA127,August11,1997People v. Castillo,261 SCRA

493,September6,1996Peoplev.Rapanut,263SCRA515,October24,1996.
39ExhibitN,records,pp.109110.

558

558 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Espiritu

Likewise,weaffirmtheawardofP50,000asindemnityex
40
delicto,
consonant with prevailing41
jurisprudence. However,
42
we cannot
sustaintheawardofmoral andexemplarydamages,
43
astheCourt
findsnothingintherecordstosupportthesame.
WHEREFORE, the ASSAILED DECISION is hereby
AFFIRMED, but the award of moral and exemplary damages is
deleted.Costsagainstappellant.
SOORDERED.

Romero(Chairman),Vitug,Purisima and GonzagaReyes,

JJ.,concur.

Judgmentaffirmed.

Note.When the confession is made outside of court

proceeding, it must be accompanied by evidence of the corpus
delictitobesufficientforconviction.(Peoplevs.Suarez,267SCRA
119[1997])

o0o
 _______________

40Peoplev.Quitlong,GRNo.121562,July10,1998Peoplev.Lagarteja,GRNo.

127095,June22,1998Peoplev.Obello,GRNo.108772,January14,1998Peoplev.
Marollano,GRNo.105004,July24,1997andPeoplev.Caballes,GRNos.10272324,
June19,1997.
41 It must be shown that the heirs experienced x x x physical suffering, mental

anguish,fright,seriousanxiety,besmirchedreputation,woundedfeelings,moralshock,
socialhumiliationandsimilarinjury.(Article2217oftheCivilCode)
42Article2230oftheCivilCodestates:Incriminaloffenses,exemplarydamages

asapartofthecivilliabilitymaybeimposedwhenthecrimewascommittedwith
oneormoreaggravatingcircumstances.xxx.
43 People v. Nialda, GR No. 115946, April 24, 1998 People v. Oliano, GR No.
119013, March 6, 1998 People v. Renato Albao, GR No. 117481, March 6, 1998
Peoplev.Sol,GRNo.118504,May7,1997.

559

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.