Cases Law Phil

7/25/2019 Cases Law Phil

1/37

Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

FRANCISCO APARIS y SANTOS,

Petitioner,

- versus -

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.

G.R. No. 1!1!"

Present#

CORONA,J., Chairperson,

VELASCO, JR.,

NAC!RA,

PERAL"A, an#

PERE$,%JJ.

Pro$%&'(ted#

February 17, 2010

) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )

DECISION

PERALTA, J.#

&efore the Court is a Petition 'or Re(ie) on Certiorariun#er Rule *+ of the Rules of

Court assailin the -ecision/0of the Court of Appeals 1CA2 promulate# on Auust 3/,

455* in CA-G.R. CR No. 24238 an# its Resolution40#ate# Auust +, 455+. "he

challene# -ecision of the CA affirme# )ith mo#ification the March 3/, 4555

-ecision30of the Reional "rial Court 1R"C2 of Ma6ati, &ranch 7* in Criminal Case

No. 879/*7, fin#in herein petitioner 'rancisco Aparis : Santos uilt: be:on#

reasonable #oubt of (iolatin Section /+, Article ;;; of Republic Act No. 7*4+ 1RA

7*4+2, other)ise 6no)n as the -anerous -rus Act of /8uestione# Resolution #enie# petitioner?s motion for reconsi#eration.

"he prosecution?s (ersion of the facts, as summari@e# b: the trial court, are as follo)s
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn1


2/37

On Januar:0 /


3/37

;n an ;nformation #ate# Januar: /H, /887, petitioner an# co9accuse# E#ilberto Campos

1Campos2 )ere chare# )ith (iolation of Section /+, Article ;;; of Republic Act No.

7*4+. Pertinent portions of the ;nformation file# aainst petitioner an# Campos rea# as

follo)s"hat on or about the /


4/37

/. ;n Criminal Case No. 879/*7, the accuse# E-;L&ER"O CAMPOS :

;&AL;- is ACB!;""E- for insufficienc: of e(i#ence.

4. ;n Criminal Case No. 879/*


5/37

"he CA rule# that the trial court committe# no error in i(in cre#ence to the

testimonies of the prosecution )itnesses as aainst those of petitioner. "he CA also hel#

that petitioner faile# to substantiate his #efense that he )as frame# up.

Petitioner file# a Motion for Reconsi#eration, but the CA #enie# it in its Resolution ofAuust +, 455+.

ence, the instant petition base# on the follo)in roun#s

;

IE"ER OR NO" "E PRES;-;N J!-E O' R"C9&R. 7*,

MAKA"; C;"D AN- "E ONORA&LE CO!R" O' APPEALS

COMM;""E- REVERS;&LE ERRORS ;N "E APPREC;A";ON O'

"E EV;-ENCE, ;NCL!-;N "E MA""ER O' J!R;S-;C";ON.

;;

IE"ER OR NO" "E '!N-AMEN"AL R;"S O' "E

PE";";ONER IERE V;OLA"E- IEN E IAS ALLEE-LD

ARRES"E- &D "E POL;CE O'';CERS.80

Petitioner maintaine# his innocence an# insiste# that he )as a (ictim of frame9up an#

robber:. e conten#s that the police officers )ho testifie# aainst him )ere pai# to

falsel: chare him )ith a crime he #i# not commit.

Petitioner also asserte# that the testimonies of the prosecution )itnesses contra#icte#

each other. ;n particular, he claime# that the first t)o )itnesses testifie# that he

1petitioner2 )as the taret of the bu:9bust operation, that his name )as in the -ru

Iatch List of the Narcotics Comman# 1NARCOM2, an# that sur(eillance )as

con#ucte# b: PO3 Labra#or, )ho acte# as the poseur9bu:er. o)e(er, petitioner a(erre#

that Labra#or cateoricall: #enie# 6no)in petitioner prior to his arrest, an# he a#mitte#that no sur(eillance )as con#ucte#.

Petitioner further conten#s that the R"C of Ma6ati ha# no Guris#iction o(er his case, as

the place )here the crime )as suppose#l: committe# is )ithin Manila.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn10


6/37

Lastl:, petitioner claims that he )as not properl: apprise# of his fun#amental rihts

)hen he )as arreste#.

"he Court is not persua#e#.

"o secure a con(iction for illeal sale ofshabu, the follo)in essential elements must be

establishe# 1/2 the i#entit: of the bu:er an# the seller, the obGect of the sale an# the

consi#eration= an# 142 the #eli(er: of the thin sol# an# the pa:ment thereof./50;n

prosecutions for illeal sale ofshabu, )hat is material is the proof that the transaction or

sale actuall: too6 place, couple# )ith the presentation in court of the corpus elictias

e(i#ence.//0

;n the case before the Court, the prosecution )as able to establish99throuh testimonial,

#ocumentar:, an# obGect e(i#ence99the sai# elements. PO3 Labra#or, )ho acte# as the

poseur9bu:er, cateoricall: testifie# about the bu:9bust operation from the time he an#

the confi#ential informant )aite# for petitioner to arri(e, to the time )hen petitioner met

them an# as6e# them if the: ha# mone:, to the actual echane of the mar6e# mone:

)ith the plastic ba containin a )hite substance, )hich )as later pro(e# to beshabu=

until the apprehension of petitioner, to )it

PROS. &AAO;SAN

No), )hat time #i# :ou lea(e :our office

I;"NESS

Almost 455 o?cloc6, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

An#, )here )as :our #estination

I;"NESS

-ian Street corner $obel, &arrio Palanan, Ma6ati Cit:, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

An#, )hat means of transporation #i# :ou ta6e in oin to -ian corner

$obel Streets, &arrio Palanan, Ma6ati Cit:

I;"NESS

Ie )ere aboar# three cars, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn12


7/37

Iho )as )ith :ou on that car that :ou )ere ri#in

I;"NESS

M: informant, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

So, there )ere onl: t)o of :ou on that car

I;"NESS

Des, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

Ihat time #i# :ou arri(e at -ian corner $obel Streets, &arrio Palanan,

Ma6ati Cit:

I;"NESS

;n the mornin, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SANIhat #i# :ou #o net upon arri(al at -ian corner $obel Streets

I;"NESS

Ie )aite# for the person to )hom )e ha# a #eal, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

An#, :ou )ere referrin to 'rancisco &o:et Aparis

I;"NESS

Des, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN-i# 'rancisco &o:et Aparis arri(e

I;"NESS

;t )as not lon before the )hite lancer arri(e#, that #on?t 1sic2 ha(e plate

number but some sort of stic6er, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

No), )hat happene# after this )hite lancer car arri(e#

I;"NESSA man alihte# from the car an# he approache# us an# )e came to 6no)

later on that the name of the man is E#ilberto Campos, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

Ihen :ou sai# lumapit sa amin )hom :ou are referrin 1sic2

I;"NESS

"he informant an# me, sir.


8/37

PROS. &AAO;SAN

So, )hat #i# the man tell :ou, if he #i# tell :ou an:thin

I;"NESS

e tol# m: informant that alias &o:et )as there insi#e the car, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SANSo, )hat happene# after :ou )ere informe# b: the man that &o:et Aparis

)as insi#e the car

I;"NESS

"he: as6e# us to transfer to their car, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

Iho as6e# :ou to transfer to the car

I;"NESS

E#ilberto Campos, sir. e )as the one )ho a(e us the sinal to transfer totheir car.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

-i# :ou transfer to the )hite lancer car

I;"NESS

Des, sir

PROS. &AAO;SAN

No), in )hat portion of the car #i# :ou position :ourself

I;"NESSIe ot in the passener?s seat of the car, at the bac6seat of the car, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

No), )here )as &o:et Aparis positione#

I;"NESS

At the #ri(er?s seat, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

o) about E#ilberto Campos, )here )as he

I;"NESS"he: )ere si#e b: si#e, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

o) about :ou, )here )ere :ou positione#

I;"NESS

; )as at the bac6 of 'rancisco Aparis, sir.


9/37

PROS. &AAO;SAN

o) about :our informant, )here )as he positione#

I;"NESS

e )as at the si#e, sir, at the bac6 of E#ilberto Campos.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

Ihat happene# net )hen :ou )ere positione# as such

I;"NESS

Aparis as6e# us if the mone: )as )ith us, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

Ihat )as :our repl: if there )as an:

I;"NESS

Ie as6e# if the: ha(e the stuff, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

"o )hom #i# :ou a##ress that >uestion

I;"NESS

Aparis sir, because he )as the one )ho tal6e#.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

Ihat happene# after that

I;"NESS

Sir, he too6 the stuff from the ba )hich )as insi#e the car an# a(e to methe stuff, then after that, ; a(e him the bu: bust mone:, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

No), )ill :ou please #escribe to us this stuff that :ou ha(e Gust mentione#

I;"NESS

;t )as insi#e the impro(ise# plastic ba, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

o) bi is this plastic ba

I;"NESSAbout this si@e, sir. 1Iitness in#icatin the si@e of about 3 4 inches2

PROS. &AAO;SAN

-oes it ha(e an: color

I;"NESS

Ihitees 1sic2, sir.


10/37

PROS. &AAO;SAN

So, )hat happene# after the accuse# Aparis han#e# to :ou this stuff an#

:ou also han#e# to him the bu: bust mone:

I;"NESS

Ihen ; reali@e# that the sale )as alrea#: consummate#, ; presse# the

(o:aer beeper, an# that?s the sinal to our companion to i(e assistance to

us an# effect the arrest of the accuse#.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

Ihat happene# after :ou presse# that (o:aer beeper

I;"NESS

Ihen ; sa) that m: companions )ere alrea#: approachin, ; put m: leftarm aroun# Aparis? nec6 an# ; intro#uce# m:self as Narcom aent an#

informe# them that the: )ere un#er arrest, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

Ihat happene# net after that

I;"NESS

After that, the: )ere alrea#: arreste# an# )e )ere able to reco(er the bu:

bust mone: an# the stuff. An#, )hen )e con#ucte# the search, )e foun#

some paraphernalias 1sic2, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

Ihat are these paraphernalias 1sic2

I;"NESS

"he impro(ise# toother 1sic2, burner, an# the alcohol the: use# for the

burner, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

No), )hat #i# :ou #o net after :ou )ere able to arrest the t)o accuse#

I;"NESS

Ie )ent to our office in Camp Crame to turn o(er the e(i#ence to the

police in(estiator for proper in(estiation an# #isposition, sir.


11/37

PROS. &AAO;SAN

Iere :ou able to turn o(er the e(i#ence an# the persons of the accuse# to

the in(estiator

I;"NESS

Des, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

-i# :ou come to 6no) )hat happene# to the stuff that )as sol# b: the

accuse#

I;"NESS

After it )as ha(e been mar6e# 1sic2, ; 6no) that it coul# be submitte# for

eamination to (erif: )hether it is reall: shabu, sir.

PROS. &AAO;SAN

An#, #i# :ou come to 6no) the result of the eamination con#ucte#

I;"NESS

; learne# that it )as positi(e, sir.../40

!pon eamination, the )hite cr:stalline substance, bouht b: PO3 Labra#or

for P/55,555.55 from petitioner #urin the bu:9bust operation, later :iel#e# a positi(e

result forshabuper Ph:sical Sciences Report No. -97*987 issue# b: the Philippine

National Police Crime Laborator: on Januar: /uestion of cre#ibilit: of the police officers )ho ser(e# as principal )itnesses

for the prosecution, settle# is the rule thatprosecutions in(ol(in illeal #rus #epen#

larel: on the cre#ibilit: of the police officers )ho con#ucte# the bu:9bust operation.

/*0;t is a fun#amental rule that fin#ins of the trial courts )hich are factual in nature

an# )hich in(ol(e cre#ibilit: are accor#e# respect )hen no larin errors= ross

misapprehension of facts= or speculati(e, arbitrar:, an# unsupporte# conclusions can be

athere# from such fin#ins./+0"he reason for this is that the trial court is in a better

position to #eci#e the cre#ibilit: of )itnesses, ha(in hear# their testimonies an#

obser(e# their #eportment an# manner of testif:in #urin the trial./70"he rule fin#s

an e(en more strinent application )here sai# fin#ins are sustaine# b: the Court of

Appeals, as in the present case./


12/37

Moreo(er, in the process of con(ertin into )ritten form the statements of li(in human

beins, not onl: fine nuances but a )orl# of meanin apparent to the Gu#e present,

)atchin an# listenin, ma: escape the rea#er of the translate# )or#s. Consi#erin that

this Court has access onl: to the col# an# impersonal recor#s of the procee#ins, it

enerall: relies upon the assessment of the trial court, )hich ha# the #istinct a#(antae

of obser(in the con#uct an# #emeanor of the )itnesses #urin trial./H0ence, their

factual fin#ins are accor#e# reat )eiht, absent an: sho)in that certain facts of

rele(ance an# substance bearin on the elements of the crime ha(e been o(erloo6e#,

misapprehen#e# or misapplie#./80No coent reason eists for the Court to #e(iate

from this rule.

"he inaccuracies in the testimonies of the arrestin officers allu#e# to b: petitioner are

inconse>uential an# minor to a#(ersel: affect their cre#ibilit:. Moreo(er the allee#

inconsistencies pointe# to b: petitioner, namel: 1a2 the taret of the bu:9bust operation=

1b2 the presence or absence of a prior sur(eillance= an# 1c2 the i#entit: of the team

lea#er, )ere not necessar: to establish the elements of the crime committe#.

"he R"C, as uphel# b: the CA, foun# that the testimonies of PO3 Labra#or, Police

;nspector 1PF;nsp.2 o@ar, an# Senior Police Officer / 1SPO/2 E#)in Ana(iso )ere

une>ui(ocal, #efinite an# straihtfor)ar#. More importantl:, their testimonies )ere

consistent in material respects )ith each other an# )ith other testimonies an# ph:sical

e(i#ence. "ime an# aain, the Court has rule# that the testimonies of )itnesses nee#

onl: to corroborate one another on material #etails surroun#in the actual commission of

the crime.450;n the present case, )hat is essential is that the prosecution )itnesses

positi(el: i#entifie# petitioner as the one )ho sol# an# #eli(ere# theshabuto PO3

Labra#or. "here is nothin on recor# that sufficientl: casts #oubt on the cre#ibilit: of the

police operati(es.

Neither #oes the Court i(e cre#it to petitioners contention that the con#uct of the bu:9

bust operation )as hihl: irreular, as there )as no sur(eillance ma#e before the

operation.

'leibilit: is a trait of oo# police )or6. "he court has hel# that )hen time is of the

essence, the police ma: #ispense )ith the nee# for prior sur(eillance.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn21


13/37

4/0Moreo(er, prior sur(eillance is not necessar:, especiall: )here the police operati(es

are accompanie# b: their informant #urin the entrapment.440;n the instant case, the

entrapment or bu:9bust operation )as con#ucte# )ithout the necessit: of an: prior

sur(eillance because the informant, )ho )as pre(iousl: tas6e# b: PO3 Labra#or to #eal

)ith petitioner?s assistant, accompanie# the team an# PO3 Labra#or himself )hen the

latter bouhtshabufrom petitioner. "o be sure, there is no tetboo6 metho# of

con#uctin bu:9bust operations. "he Court has left to the #iscretion of police authorities

the selection of effecti(e means to apprehen# #ru #ealers. "hus, the Court has refuse#

to establish on aprioribasis )hat #etaile# acts the police authorities miht cre#ibl:

un#erta6e in their entrapment operations.430

'or his part, petitioner coul# not offer an: (iable #efense ecept to #en: that there )as a

bu:9bust operation an# to claim that he )as, instea#, a (ictim of frame9up an# etortion

b: the police officers. o)e(er, li6e alibi, the #efenses of #enial an# frame9up are

(ie)e# b: the Court )ith #isfa(or, as these can easil: be concocte# an# are commonl:

use# as stan#ar# lines of #efense in most prosecutions arisin from illeal sale of #rus.

4*0Moreo(er, for the claim of frame9up to prosper, the #efense must present clear an#

con(incin e(i#ence to o(ercome the presumption that the arrestin policemen

performe# their #uties in a reular an# proper manner.4+0"his, petitioner faile# to #o.

Petitioner faile# to substantiate his claim that he )as an unfortunate pre: to a suppose#

plo: concocte# b: the police. &: all in#ications an#, in fact, b: his o)n a#mission, he

#i# not 6no) an:one of the members of the bu:9bust team )hich apprehen#e#

him. "here )as, therefore, no moti(e for them to trump up an: chare aainst him.

Neither )as petitioner able to substantiate his alleation that the police officers )ho

arreste# him )ere pai# to frame him up. Absent an: proof of moti(e to falsel: accuse

him of such a ra(e offense, the presumption of reularit: in the performance of official

#ut: an# the fin#ins of the trial court )ith respect to the cre#ibilit: of )itnesses shall

pre(ail o(er petitioners bare alleation that he )as frame# up.470;n other )or#s, the

cateorical an# con(incin testimonies of the policemen, bac6e# up b: ph:sical

e(i#ence, o(ercome the unsubstantiate# claim of ill moti(e b: petitioner.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn27


14/37

Iith respect to petitioner?s contention that the R"C of Ma6ati ha# no Guris#iction o(er

the case, it is a fun#amental rule that for Guris#iction to be ac>uire# b: courts in criminal

cases, the offense shoul# ha(e been committe# or an: one of its essential inre#ients

shoul# ha(e ta6en place )ithin the territorial Guris#iction of the court.4uest an#, a #a: thereafter, an ;nformation )as alrea#:

file# aainst them.

Iith respect to petitioners claim that he )as not informe# of his constitutional rihts at

the time of his arrest, the same cannot pre(ail o(er the testimonies of PF;nsp. o@ar
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn32


15/37

an# SPO/ Ana(iso, )ho )ere members of the apprehen#in team, attestin to the fact

that petitioner )as sufficientl: apprise# of his rihts #urin his arrest.340As earlier

#iscusse#, in the absence of clear an# con(incin e(i#ence that the members of the bu:9

bust team )ere inspire# b: an: improper moti(e or )ere not properl: performin their

#ut:, their testimonies on the operation )ere i(en full faith an# cre#it.

;n sum, the Court fin#s no coent reason to o(erturn the fin#ins an# conclusions of the

CA an# the R"C in the present case. "he positi(e i#entification ma#e b: the poseur9

bu:er an# the arrestin officers an# the laborator: report, not to mention the #ubious

#efenses of #enial an# frame9up )hich petitioner has resorte# to, sufficientl: pro(e

be:on# reasonable #oubt that he committe# the crime chare#.

*HEREFORE, the -ecision of the Court of Appeals in CA9.R. CR No. 4*43H,

)hich affirme#, )ith mo#ification, the -ecision of the Reional "rial Court of Ma6ati

Cit:, &ranch 7*, fin#in petitioner 'rancisco Aparis : Santos uilt: be:on# reasonable

#oubt of (iolatin Section /+, Article ;;; of Republic Act No. 7*4+, as amen#e#, an#

sentencin him to an in#eterminate penalt: of si 172 :ears ofprision correccional, as

minimum, to eiht 1H2 :ears an# eiht 1H2 months ofprision mayor, as maimum,

is AFFIR+ED.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO +. PERALTA

Associate Justice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/169195.htm#_ftn33


16/37

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

ADM. MATTER NO. P-05-1998 October 24, 2008(or!er"# OCA $P$ No. 04-18%9-P&

MA'OR N$CAS$O M. RAMOS,complainant,vs.C'R$ T. MA'OR, C"er) $$$, Metro*o"+t Tr+" Cort, Brc/ 1, M+",respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PER CURIAM

Complainant Nicasio M. Ramos, Municipal Maor, Ca!idiocan, Romblon, filed an administrative complainta"ainst respondent Cril #. Maor, Cler$ III, Metropolitan #rial Court, %ranch &', Manila, char"in" him (ith)*ross Misrepresentation, Dishonest and +alsification of Public Document) relative to certainmisdeclarations in his accomplished Personal Data Sheet PDS-, dated +ebruar &, /00', as submitted tothe Office of the Court 1dministrator OC1- and the Civil Service Commission.

In his 1mended Complaint dated December //, /00' and filed on +ebruar &2, /003, &complainant

alle"ed that respondent (illfull, deliberatel, and unla(full submitted his PDS dated +ebruar &, /00',(hich is a public record, (ith the follo(in" false entries and, thus, rendered himself unfit for appointment tohis present position, to (it4

&- In ans(er to 5uestion No. /6, respondent placed t(o /- chec$ mar$s correspondin" to )NO) and (rote)N71) meanin", not applicable- on the space provided to the 8ueries, )Do ou have an pendin" a-administrative case9 b- criminal case9 If ou have an, "ive details of the offense.) Complainant assertedthat respondent failed to state that he (as one of the four 3- accused in Criminal Case No. 00:&6/',entitled )People of the Philippines v. Gilbert R. Minano, Cyril T. Mayor, Marvin Arboleda, and Manuel R.Recto) for libel, filed (ith the Re"ional #rial Court, %ranch 2/, Odion"an, Romblon b Prosecutor Petroni +.+rade!as on September 6, /00/;

/- In ans(er to 5uestion No. /2, respondent placed a chec$ mar$ correspondin" to )NO) and (rote )N71)meanin", not applicable- on the space provided to the 8uer, )


17/37

1s re"ards 5uestion No. /2, I understand from m companions at =R#1 that our case forreinstatement is pendin" on appeal and, therefore, m emploment status (ith said a"enc isstill han"in" in the balance. I did not retire, not bein" of retirement a"e, I did not resi"n orabandon m emploment, and "rantin" (ithout concedin" that I (as dropped fromemploment, the matter is still to be resolved in the various cases filed (ith the National =aborRelations CommissionF b separate "roups of =R#1 emploees. #his is probabl the reasonthat I ans(ered No to the 8uestion.

1s re"ards the 8uestion of (hether I had been a candidate in an election, I do not 8uiteremember (h I ans(ered No. It is possible that I (as inattentive to the import of the 8uestion.#he fact is it did not enter m mind that an erroneous ans(er ma adversel affect mFapplication. IF (as complacent but certainl not intentionall dishonest because (hat (asforemost in m mind (as that I have the 8ualifications for the !ob and (ould "et it on suchbasis > > >.

I cate"oricall declare that the erroneous ans(ers, "rantin" that the are, are not dictated b adeliberate intention to lie and be dishonest. #he are innocuous in the main and do not refer tom 8ualifications for the position (hich is possibl (h I (as complacent and inattentive and ifthis amination (hen in truth,upon verification, he did not, leadin" to the conclusion that he submitted a false certificate ofeli"ibilit. Such act made respondent liable for falsification of a document b ma$in" anuntruthful statement in a narration of facts under 1rticle &B&, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Codeas (ell as for the use of falsified documents under 1rt. &B/ of the same Code.

#he accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet bein" a re8uirement under the Civil ServiceRules and Re"ulations in connection (ith emploment in the "overnment, the ma$in" of anuntruthful statement therein (as therefore intimatel connected (ith such emploment. #his isthe CourtAs rulin" in !ntin" vs. Tanodbayan, B SCR1 33, and in elosillo vs. Rivera, '3&SCR1 &, the Court held that since truthful completion of PDS is a re8uirement for emplomentin the udiciar, the importance of ans(erin" the same (ith candor need not be "ainsaid.


18/37

Service Rules pursuant to the 1dministrative Code of &2B (ith the correspondin" penalt ofdismissal from service upon commission of the first offense.

RespondentAs use of false document for his benefit pre!udiced the other applicants (ho (ere"enuinel 8ualified for the position and it did not matter (hether or not it caused an actualin!ur to a third person. In People vs. Po Gio# To, G Phil. &', it (as held that (hen officialdocuments are falsified, )the intent to in!ure a third person need not be present because the

principal thin" punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth astherein proclaimed.) % ma$in" a false statement in his PDS to enhance his 8ualification andincrease his chances of bein" considered for emploment, (hich in fact happened because he(as issued an appointment as Cler$ III, respondent pre!udiced the other 8ualified aspirant tothe same position.

Respondent Maor tries to !ustif the false entries in his PDS but his e>planation borders onincredulit. pected of a !ob applicant but he unfortunatel failed to e>ercise them. #he8ualifications re8uired of a public servant or a (ould:be "overnment emploee is thus found tobe sadl lac$in" in his character and traits.

In the recent case of $ud"e $ose S. Sa%e& vs. Carlos . abina, 1.M. No. P:0':&G&,September &2, /00', respondentAs conduct of ma$in" untruthful statement in a narration offacts in his personal data sheets constitutes dishonest as (ell as falsification defined andpenaliHed under 1rticle &B& of the Revised Penal Code. It "oes on sain" that a personAsinte"rit is so essential a re8uirement to a public office that Rule of the Omnibus Rules

Implementin" %oo$ of the 1dministrative Code of &2B E>ecutive Order No. //- bars theappointment of persons "uilt of dishonest.

In the abovementioned 1.M. No. OC1:0&:6, the Office of the Court 1dministratorrecommended suspension for one &- ear (ithout penalt for the respondent o(in" to suchmiti"atin" factors as the follo(in"4

&. that he has served the Court for more than t(ent /0- ears;

/. that the administrative complaint is the first a"ainst him;

'. that he could have committed the (ron"ful act for the benefit of his famil;

3. that his admission and praer for for"iveness is a "ood si"n that he is indeed remorseful for(hat he did;

6. that he deserves to be penaliHed but the sanction ma be tempered in the name ofcompassionate !ustice;

G. that he did not defraud and pre!udice the "overnment b his acts;


19/37

B. that he neither assumed the position he desired nor received the compensation and benefitspertainin" thereto; and

2. that he appears to be an asset of his office and his efficienc is sho(n b his performanceratin"s.

In spite of the above circumstances, the Court did not reduce the penalt; instead, it still

imposed the e>treme punishment of dismissal from the service (ith pre!udice to reemplomentin an "overnment:o(ned or controlled corporation, and (ith forfeiture of unused leaves, if an,and retirement benefits. 1 motion for reconsideration (as filed but the Court, in its resolutiondated &B December /00/, onl modified the decision insofar as it allo(ed the respondent toclaim his accrued leave credits but affirmed the decision in all other aspects.

In closin", the Court stressed that it cannot turn a blind ee to (hat is clearl a trans"ression ofthe la(. %ecause of the respondentAs conduct, it seriousl doubts his abilit to perform hisduties (ith the inte"rit, upri"htness, and honest demanded of an emploee in the !udiciar.

If the Court did not consider the reasons7!ustifications that could have miti"ated the liabilit ofSta. 1na, herein respondent Maor, (ho could not present a tenable defense in the instant

case, should have no fall bac$ to evade bein" dismissed from the service.

#he recommendation of the OC1 is (ell ta$en.

RespondentAs ans(er to 5uestion No. /6 that there (as no pendin" criminal case filed a"ainst him isbelied b the Information for =ibel, dated September 6, /00/, filed on September &', /00/ (ith theRe"ional #rial Court, %ranch 2/, Odion"an, Romblon and doc$eted as Criminal Case No. &6/', entitled)People of the Philippines v. Gilbert R. Minano, Cyril Mayor, Marvin Arboleda, and Manuel R. Recto ,) (hich(as pendin" at the time he accomplished his PDS on +ebruar &, /00', and durin" the effectivit of hisappointment as Cler$ III on une 3, /00'. #he said Information 3states4

IN+ORM1#ION

JNDERSI*NED, accuses *I=%ER# R. MIN1NFO, C@RI= #. M1@OR, M1RIN 1R%O=ED1and M1NJE= R. REC#O of the crime of )=ibel) committed as follo(s4

#hat durin" or bet(een ul &6 and 1u"ust &6, /00&F, in the Municipalit ofOdion"an, Province of Romblon, Philippines, (here complainant resides and(ithin the !urisdiction of this


20/37

and PP600,000.00 as e>emplar dama"es for (hich respondents (ould be held!ointl and severall liable.

CON#R1R@ #O =1.

Odion"an, Romblon, 06 September /00/.

Jnder Section 6/ 1-&- and 1-G-, Rule I of the )Jniform Rules on 1dministrative Cases in the CivilService) Resolution No. :&'G dated 1u"ust '&, &-, respondentAs act of ma$in" untruthfuldeclarations in his PDS renders him administrativel liable for falsification of public document anddishonest (hich are classified as "rave offenses and, thus, (arrant the correspondin" penalt of dismissalfrom the service even if either of them is respondentAs first offense.6Section 62 of Rule I thereof statesthat the penalt of dismissal shall carr (ith it the cancellation of eli"ibilit, forfeiture of retirement benefits,and the perpetual dis8ualification for reemploment in the "overnment service, unless other(ise providedin the decision.

#he importance of accomplishin" a PDS (ith utmost honest cannot be stressed enou"h. G#heaccomplishment of a PDS is a re8uirement under Civil Service Rules and Re"ulations in connection (ithemploment in the "overnment. #he ma$in" of untruthful statements therein is, therefore, connected (ithsuch emploment. 1s such, ma$in" a false statement therein amounts to dishonest and falsification of an

official document. Dishonest and falsification are considered "rave offenses. #he Court has not hesitatedto impose the e>treme penalt of dismissal from the service on emploees found "uilt of such offenses. B

RespondentAs claim that since the ProsecutorAs Resolution, (hich recommended the filin" of theinformation for libel, is on appeal (ith the Department of ustice DO-, the matter should not beconsidered as a pendin" criminal case a"ainst him cannot be considered as an acceptable e>cuse. %ma$in" a chec$ mar$ on the space provided for the )No) ans(er (ith re"ard to pendin" criminal casea"ainst him, respondent (as "uilt of falsification of a public document. Even prescindin" fromrespondentAs ar"ument that, technicall, there is no case as et filed a"ainst him, still respondent is dut:bound to (rite the doc$et number of the criminal case for libel a"ainst him and indicate the status of thecase as )pendin" appeal (ith the DO) if he has been reall actin" in "ood faith and not ma$e it appearthat he has a clean slate in terms of criminal record. In ans(er to 5uestion No. /2, respondent (illfullfailed to disclose that he (as terminated b =R#1 on the prete>t that the ille"al dismissal case (hich he

and his co:emploees have filed a"ainst =R#1 is still pendin" appeal (ith the National =abor RelationsCommission. 1s to his denial that he had been a candidate in the local elections, respondent cannot findsolace b invo$in" "ood faith.

One (ho invo$es "ood faith must sho( honest of intention, free from $no(led"e of circumstances (hichou"ht to put one upon in8uir. 2Respondent falsified an official document to "ain un(arranted advanta"eover other more 8ualified applicants to the same position.


21/37

of honest and inte"rit not onl in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and privatedealin"s (ith other people, to preserve the courtKs "ood name and standin". It cannot be overstressed thatthe ima"e of a court of !ustice is mirrored in the conduct, official and other(ise, of the personnel (ho (or$thereat, from the !ud"e to the lo(est of its personnel. Court personnel have been en!oined to adhere to thee>actin" standards of moralit and decenc in their professional and private conduct in order to preservethe "ood name and inte"rit of the courts of !ustice. Respondent in this case failed to meet the strin"entstandards set for a !udicial emploee; hence, he does not deserve to remain in the office staff of the

!udiciar.3EREORE, respondent Cril #. Maor, Cler$ III, Metropolitan #rial Court, %ranch &', Manila isfound U$T' ofD$S3ONEST'and AS$$CAT$ON O PUB$C DOCUMENT and ishereb D$SM$SSED from the service (ith forfeiture of all retirement benefits, e>cept accrued leave credits,and (ith pre!udice to reemploment in an branch or instrumentalit of the "overnment, includin""overnment:o(ned or controlled corporations.

SO ORDERED


22/37

Re*b"+c o t/e P/+"+**+e6SUPREME COURTM+"

EN %1NC

.R. No. 1%789 Dece!ber 14, 2010

ANTON$O EANO,Petitioner,

vs.PEOPE O T3E P3$$PP$NES,Respondent.

> : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :>

.R. No. 1%7874

PEOPE O T3E P3$$PP$NES,1ppellee,vs.3UBERT ERE' P. EBB, ANTON$O EANO, M$C3AE A. ATC3A$AN, 3OSP$C$OERNANDE, M$UE RODR$UE, PETER ESTRADA : ERARDO B$ON, 1ppellants.

D E C I S I O N

ABAD, J.:

Br+e Bc);ro:

On une '0, && Estrellita iHconde and her dau"hters Carmela, nineteen ears old, and ennifer, seven,(ere brutall slain at their home in ParaLa8ue Cit. +ollo(in" an intense investi"ation, the police arrested a"roup of suspects, some of (hom "ave detailed confessions. %ut the trial court smelled a frame:up andeventuall ordered them dischar"ed. #hus, the identities of the real perpetrators remained a msterespeciall to the public (hose interests (ere aroused b the "rippin" details of (hat everbod referred toas the iHconde massacre.

+our ears later in &6, the National %ureau of Investi"ation or N%I announced that it had solved thecrime. It presented star:(itness essica M. 1lfaro, one of its informers, (ho claimed that she (itnessed thecrime. She pointed to accused planation that she at first (anted toprotect her former bofriend, accused Estrada, and a relative, accused *atchalian; that no la(er assistedher; that she did not trust the investi"ators (ho helped her prepare her first affidavit; and that she feltunsure if she (ould "et the support and securit she needed once she disclosed all about the iHconde$illin"s.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt2


23/37

In contrast, the trial court thou"ht little of the denials and alibis that ebb, =e!ano, Rodri"ueH, and*atchalian set up for their defense. #he paled, accordin" to the court, compared to 1lfaroAs testimon thatother (itnesses and the phsical evidence corroborated. #hus, on anuar 3, /000, after four ears ofarduous hearin"s, the trial court rendered !ud"ment, findin" all the accused "uilt as char"ed and imposin"on ebb, =e!ano, *atchalian, +ernandeH, Estrada, and Rodri"ueH the penalt of reclusion perpetua and on%ion", an indeterminate prison term of eleven ears, four months, and one da to t(elve ears. #he trialcourt also a(arded dama"es to =auro iHconde.'

On appeal, the Court of 1ppeals affirmed the trial courtAs decision, modifin" the penalt imposed on %ion"to si> ears minimum and t(elve ears ma>imum and increasin" the a(ard of dama"es to =auroiHconde.3#he appellate court did not a"ree that the accused (ere tried b publicit or that the trial !ud"e(as biased. It found sufficient evidence of conspirac that rendered Rodri"ueH, *atchalian, +ernandeH,and Estrada e8uall "uilt (ith those (ho had a part in rapin" and $illin" Carmela and in e>ecutin" hermother and sister.

On motion for reconsideration b the accused, the Court of 1ppealsK Special Division of five members votedthree a"ainst t(o to den the motion,6hence, the present appeal.

On 1pril /0, /0&0, as a result of its initial deliberation in this case, the Court issued a Resolution "rantin"the re8uest of ebb to submit for DN1 analsis the semen specimen ta$en from CarmelaAs cadaver, (hichspecimen (as then believed still under the safe$eepin" of the N%I. #he Court "ranted the re8uest pursuantto section 3 of the Rule on DN1 EvidenceGto "ive the accused and the prosecution access to scientificevidence that the mi"ht (ant to avail themselves of, leadin" to a correct decision in the case.

Jnfortunatel, on 1pril /B, /0&0 the N%I informed the Court that it no lon"er has custod of the specimen,the same havin" been turned over to the trial court. #he trial record sho(s, ho(ever, that the specimen(as not amon" the ob!ect evidence that the prosecution offered in evidence in the case.

#his outcome prompted accused ebb to file an ur"ent motion to ac8uit on the "round that the"overnmentAs failure to preserve such vital evidence has resulted in the denial of his ri"ht to due process.

Issues Presented

1ccused ebbAs motion to ac8uit presents a threshold issue4 (hether or not the Court should ac8uit himoutri"ht, "iven the "overnmentAs failure to produce the semen specimen that the N%I found on CarmelaAscadaver, thus deprivin" him of evidence that (ould prove his innocence.

In the main, all the accused raise the central issue of (hether or not ebb, actin" in conspirac (ith=e!ano, *atchalian, +ernandeH, Estrada, Rodri"ueH, entura, and +ilart, raped and $illed Carmela and putto death her mother and sister. %ut, ultimatel, the controllin" issues are4

&. hether or not 1lfaroAs testimon as ee(itness, describin" the crime and identifin" ebb,=e!ano, *atchalian, +ernandeH, Estrada, Rodri"ueH, and t(o others as the persons (ho committedit, is entitled to belief; and

/. hether or not ebb presented sufficient evidence to prove his alibi and rebut 1lfaroAs testimonthat he led the others in committin" the crime.

#he issue respectin" accused %ion" is (hether or not he acted to cover up the crime after its commission.

T/e R+;/t to Acists a possibilitthat 1lfaro had lied. On the other hand, the semen specimen ta$en from Carmela cannot possibl lie. Itcannot be coached or allured b a promise of re(ard or financial support. No t(o persons have the sameDN1 fin"erprint, (ith the e>ception of identical t(ins.2If, on e>amination, the DN1 of the sub!ect specimen
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt8


24/37

does not belon" to ebb, then he did not rape Carmela. It is that simple. #hus, the Court (ould have beenable to determine that 1lfaro committed per!ur in sain" that he did.

Still, ebb is not entitled to ac8uittal for the failure of the State to produce the semen specimen at this latesta"e. +or one thin", the rulin" in %rad v. Marlandthat he cites has lon" be overta$en b the decision in

1riHona v. @oun"blood,&0(here the J.S. Supreme Court held that due process does not re8uire the Stateto preserve the semen specimen althou"h it mi"ht be useful to the accused unless the latter is able to sho(bad faith on the part of the prosecution or the police. pert (ho

testified on the e>istence of the specimen and ebb in fact sou"ht to have the same sub!ected to DN1test.

+or, another, (hen ebb raised the DN1 issue, the rule "overnin" DN1 evidence did not et e>ist, thecountr did not et have the technolo" for conductin" the test, and no Philippine precedent had as etreco"niHed its admissibilit as evidence. Conse8uentl, the idea of $eepin" the specimen secure even afterthe trial court re!ected the motion for DN1 testin" did not come up. Indeed, neither ebb nor his co:accused brou"ht up the matter of preservin" the specimen in the meantime.

Parentheticall, after the trial court denied ebbAs application for DN1 testin", he allo(ed the proceedin" tomove on (hen he had on at least t(o occasions "one up to the Court of 1ppeals or the Supreme Court tochallen"e alle"ed arbitrar actions ta$en a"ainst him and the other accused. &he raised the DN1 issuebefore the Court of 1ppeals but merel as an error committed b the trial court in renderin" its decision inthe case. None of the accused filed a motion (ith the appeals court to have the DN1 test done pendin"ad!udication of their appeal. #his, even (hen the Supreme Court had in the meantime passed the rulesallo(in" such test. Considerin" the accusedAs lac$ of interest in havin" such test done, the State cannot bedeemed put on reasonable notice that it (ould be re8uired to produce the semen specimen at some futuretime.

No(, to the merit of the case.

1lfaroAs Stor

%ased on the prosecutionAs version, culled from the decisions of the trial court and the Court of 1ppeals, onune /, && at around 24'0 in the evenin", essica 1lfaro drove her Mitsubishi =ancer, (ith bofriendPeter Estrada as passen"er, to the 1ala 1laban" Commercial Center par$in" lot to bu shabu from

1rtemio )Don") entura. #here, entura introduced her to his friends4 ceptentura (hom she had $no(n earlier in December &0.

1s 1lfaro smo$ed her shabu, ebb approached and re8uested her to rela a messa"e for him to a "irl,(hom she later identified as Carmela iHconde. 1lfaro a"reed. 1fter usin" up their shabu, the "roup droveto CarmelaAs house at 20 inHons Street, Piton" Daan Subdivision, %+


25/37

1lfaro returned to her car but (aited for Carmela to drive out of the house in her o(n car. 1lfaro trailedCarmela up to 1"uirre 1venue (here she dropped off a man (hom 1lfaro believed (as CarmelaAsbofriend. 1lfaro loo$ed for her "roup, found them, and relaed CarmelaAs instructions to ebb. #he thenall (ent bac$ to the 1ala 1laban" Commercial Center. 1t the par$in" lot, 1lfaro told the "roup about hertal$ (ith Carmela. hen she told ebb of CarmelaAs male companion, ebbAs mood chan"ed for the restof the evenin" )bad trip)-.

ebb "ave out free cocaine. #he all used it and some shabu, too. 1fter about 30 to 36 minutes, ebb

decided that it (as time for them to leave. posed.

ebb "ave 1lfaro a meanin"ful loo$ and she immediatel left the room. She met entura at the dinin"area.


26/37

#he convo of cars (ent to a lar"e house (ith hi"h (alls, concrete fence, steel "ate, and a lon" drive(aat %+ E>ecutive illa"e. #he entered the compound and "athered at the la(n (here the )blamin" session)too$ place. It (as here that 1lfaro and those (ho remained outside the iHconde house learned of (hathappened. #he first to be $illed (as CarmelaAs mother, then ennifer, and finall, Carmella. entura blamedebb, tellin" him, )%a$it naman pati un" bata9) ebb replied that the "irl (o$e up and on seein" himmolestin" Carmela, she !umped on him, bit his shoulders, and pulled his hair. ebb "ot mad, "rabbed the"irl, pushed her to the (all, and repeatedl stabbed her. =e!ano e>cused himself at this point to use the

telephone in the house. Mean(hile, ebb called up someone on his cellular phone.1t around /400 in the mornin", accused *erardo %ion" arrived. ebb ordered him to "o and clean up theiHconde house and said to him, )Pera lan" an" $atapat nan.) %ion" ans(ered, )O$a lan".) ebb spo$eto his companions and told them, )e donAt $no( each other. e havenAt seen each otherba$a maulitan.) 1lfaro and Estrada left and the drove to her fatherAs house.&/

&. #he 8ualit of the (itness

as 1lfaro an ordinar subdivision "irl (ho sho(ed up at the N%I after four ears, bothered b herconscience or e""ed on b relatives or friends to come for(ard and do (hat (as ri"ht9 No. She (as, at thetime she revealed her stor, (or$in" for the N%I as an )asset,) a stool pi"eon, one (ho earned her livin" bfraterniHin" (ith criminals so she could s8ueal on them to her N%I handlers. She had to live a life of lies to"et re(ards that (ould pa for her subsistence and vices.

1ccordin" to 1tt. 1rtemio Saca"uin", former head of the N%I 1nti:idnappin",


27/37

5. h not9

I#NESS S1C1*JIN*4

1. %ecause essica 1lfaro (as never able to compl (ith her promise to brin" the man to me. Shetold me later that she could not and the man does not li$e to testif.

1##@. ON*IO4

5. 1ll ri"ht, and (hat happened after that9I#NESS S1C1*JIN*4

1. She told me, )eas lan" $ao, Sir,) if I ma 8uote, )eas lan" Sir, hu(a" $aon")

COJR#4


28/37

Conse8uentl, to e>plain the smashed door, 1lfaro had to settle for claimin" that, on the (a out of thehouse, ebb pic$ed up some stone and, out of the blue, hurled it at the "lass:paneled front door of theiHconde residence. cellent investi"ative (or$. lavvphil1fter claimin"that the had solved the crime of the decade, the N%I people had a sta$e in ma$in" her sound credibleand, obviousl, the "ave her all the preparations she needed for the !ob of becomin" a fairl "oodsubstitute (itness. She (as their )darlin") of an asset. 1nd this is not pure speculation. 1s pointed out

above, Saca"uin" of the N%I, a la(er and a ran$in" official, confirmed this to be a cold fact. h the trialcourt and the Court of 1ppeals failed to see this is mstifin".

1t an rate, did 1lfaro at least have a fine memor for faces that had a stron" effect on her, "iven thecircumstances9 Not li$el. She named Mi"uel )*in") Rodri"ueH as one of the culprits in the iHconde$illin"s. %ut (hen the N%I found a certain Michael Rodri"ueH, a dru" dependent from the %icutanRehabilitation Center, initiall suspected to be 1lfaroAs Mi"uel Rodri"ueH and sho(ed him to 1lfaro at theN%I office, she ran berser$, slappin" and $ic$in" Michael, e>claimin"4 )pose a lie. 1nd ithas an abundant presence in this case.

One. In her desire to implicate *atchalian, +ernandeH, Estrada, Rodri"ueH, and +ilart, (ho (ere supposedto be ebbAs co:principals in the crime, 1lfaro made it a point to testif that ebb proposed t(ice to hisfriends the "an":rape of Carmela (ho had hurt him. 1nd t(ice, the includin", if one believes 1lfaro, hero(n bofriend Estrada- a"reed in a chorus to his proposal. %ut (hen the "ot to CarmelaAs house, onlebb, =e!ano, entura, and 1lfaro entered the house.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt13


29/37

*atchalian, +ernandeH, Estrada, and Rodri"ueH supposedl staed around 1lfaroAs car, (hich (as par$edon the street bet(een CarmelaAs house and the ne>t. Some of these men sat on top of the carAs lid (hileothers milled on the side(al$, visible under the street li"ht to anone (ho cared to (atch them, particularlto the people (ho (ere havin" a drin$in" part in a nearb house. Obviousl, the behavior of ebbAscompanions out on the street did not fi"ure in a planned "an":rape of Carmela.

#(o. entura, 1lfaroAs dope supplier, introduced her for the first time in her life to ebb and his friends in apar$in" lot b a mall. So (h (ould she a"ree to act as ebbAs messen"er, usin" her "as, to brin" his

messa"e to Carmela at her home. More ine>plicabl, (hat motivated 1lfaro to stic$ it out the (hole ni"ht(ith ebb and his friends9

#he (ere practicall stran"ers to her and her bofriend Estrada. hen it came to a point that ebbdecided (ith his friends to "an":rape Carmela, clearl, there (as nothin" in it for 1lfaro. @et, she stuc$ itout (ith them, as a police asset (ould, han"in" in there until she had a crime to report, onl she (as notet an )asset) then. If, on the other hand, 1lfaro had been too soa$ed in dru"s to thin$ clearl and !ustfollo(ed alon" (here the "roup too$ her, ho( could she remember so much details that onl a dru":freemind can9

#hree. hen 1lfaro (ent to see Carmela at her house for the second time, Carmella told her that she stillhad to "o out and that ebb and his friends should come bac$ around midni"ht. 1lfaro returned to her carand (aited for Carmela to drive out in her o(n car. 1nd she trailed her up to 1"uirre 1venue (here shesupposedl dropped off a man (hom she thou"ht (as CarmelaAs bofriend. 1lfaroAs trailin" Carmela to spon her unfaithfulness to ebb did not ma$e sense since she (as on limited errand. %ut, as a critical(itness, 1lfaro had to provide a reason for ebb to frea$ out and decide to come (ith his friends and harmCarmela.

+our. 1ccordin" to 1lfaro, (hen the returned to CarmelaAs house the third time around midni"ht, she ledebb, =e!ano, and entura throu"h the pedestrian "ate that Carmela had left open. No(, this is (eird.ebb (as the "an" leader (ho decided (hat the (ere "oin" to do. claimed,

)Sino an9) On hearin" this, 1lfaro immediatel (al$ed out of the "arden and (ent to her car. 1pparentl,she did this because she $ne( the came on a sl. Someone other than Carmela became conscious of thepresence of ebb and others in the house. 1lfaro (al$ed a(a because, obviousl, she did not (ant to "etinvolved in a potential confrontation. #his (as supposedl her frame of mind4 fear of "ettin" involved in(hat (as not her business.

%ut if that (ere the case, ho( could she testif based on personal $no(led"e of (hat (ent on in thehouse9 1lfaro had to chan"e that frame of mind to one of boldness and rec$less curiosit. So that is (hatshe ne>t claimed. She (ent bac$ into the house to (atch as ebb raped Carmela on the floor of themasterAs bedroom.


30/37

Dr. Pro6*ero A. Cb#, the N%I Medico:=e"al Officer (ho autopsied the bodies of the victims,testified on the stab (ounds the sustained&3and the presence of semen in CarmelaAs"enitalia,&6indicatin" that she had been raped.

Nor!" E. /+te, r., (as the securit "uard on dut at Piton" Daan Subdivision from B p.m. of une / toB a.m. of une '0, &&. amination, ho(ever, *aviola could not sa (hat distin"uished une '0, && from the otherdas she (as on service at the ebb household as to enable her to distinctl remember, four ears later,(hat one of the ebb bos did and at (hat time. She could not remember an of the details that happened
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt19


31/37

in the household on the other das. She proved to have a selective photo"raphic memor and this onldama"ed her testimon.

*aviola tried to corroborate 1lfaroAKs testimon b claimin" that on une '0, && she noticed bloodstainson ebbKs t:shirt./0She did not call the attention of anbod in the household about it (hen it (ould havebeen a point of concern that ebb ma have been hurt, hence the blood.

%esides, ictoria entoso, the ebbsK housemaid from March &2 to Ma &/, and S"t. Mi"uel MuLoH,

the ebbsK securit aide in &&, testified that *aviola (or$ed for the ebbs onl from anuar && to1pril &&. entoso further testified that it (as not *aviolaKs dut to collect the clothes from the /nd floorbedrooms, this bein" the (or$ of the housemaid char"ed (ith cleanin" the rooms.

hat is more, it (as most unli$el for a laundr(oman (ho had been there for onl four months to collect,as she claimed, the laundr from the rooms of her emploers and their "ro(n up children at four in themornin" (hile the (ere asleep.

1nd it did not ma$e sense, if 1lfaroAs testimon (ere to be believed that ebb, (ho (as so careful andclever that he called %ion" to "o to the iHconde residence at / a.m. to clean up the evidence a"ainst himand his "roup, (ould brin" his bloodied shirt home and put it in the hamper for laundr(oman *aviola tocollect and (ash at 3 a.m. as (as her supposed habit.

o"+t De B+rrer(as accused %ion"As "irlfriend around the time the iHconde massacre too$ place. %irrertestified that she (as (ith %ion" plain" mah!on" from the evenin" of une /, && to the earl mornin"of une '0, (hen %ion" "ot a call at around / a.m. #his prompted him, accordin" to De %irrer, to leave and"o to %+. Someone sittin" at the bac$seat of a ta>i pic$ed him up. hen %ion" returned at B a.m. he(ashed off (hat loo$ed li$e dried blood from his fin"ernails. 1nd he thre( a(a a foul:smellin"hand$erchief. She also sa( %ion" ta$e out a $nife (ith aluminum cover from his dra(er and hid it in hissteel cabinet./&

#he securit "uard at Piton" Daan did not notice an police investi"ator flashin" a bad"e to "et into thevilla"e althou"h %ion" supposedl came in at the unhol hour of t(o in the mornin". cept for 1lfaro, the N%I asset, no one amon" CarmelaAs friends or her friendsA friends (ould testifever hearin" of such relationship or ever seein" them to"ether in some popular han"outs in ParaLa8ue or
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/gr_176389_2010.html#fnt21


32/37

Ma$ati. 1lfaroAs claim of a five:hour drama is li$e an alien pa"e, rudel and unconnectedl inserted intoebb and CarmelaAs life stories or li$e a piece of !i"sa( puHHle trimmed to fit into the shape on the boardbut does not belon" because it clashes (ith the surroundin" pieces. It has neither antecedent norconcomitant support in the verifiable facts of their personal histories. It is 8uite unreal.

hat is more, 1lfaro testified that she sa( Carmela drive out of her house (ith a male passen"er, Mr. ,(hom 1lfaro thou"ht the (a it loo$ed (as also CarmelaAs lover. #his (as the all:important reason ebbsupposedl had for (antin" to harm her. 1"ain, none of CarmelaAs relatives, friends, or people (ho $ne(

her ever testified about the e>istence of Mr. in her life. Nobod has come for(ard to testif havin" everseen him (ith Carmela. 1nd despite the "ruesome ne(s about her death and ho( Mr. had plaed a rolein it, he never presented himself li$e anone (ho had lost a special friend normall (ould. Obviousl, Mr. did not e>ist, a mere "host of the ima"ination of 1lfaro, the (oman (ho made a livin" informin" oncriminals.

ebb@6 U.S. A"+b+

1mon" the accused, ebb presented the stron"est alibi.

a. #he travel preparations

ebb claims that in && his parents, Senator +reddie ebb and his (ife, EliHabeth, sent theirson to the Jnited States J.S.- to learn the value of independence, hard (or$, and

mone.//*loria ebb, his aunt, accompanied him. Ra!ah #ours boo$ed their fli"ht to San+rancisco via Jnited 1irlines. osefina Nolasco of Ra!ah #ours confirmed that ebb and hisaunt used their plane tic$ets.

ebb told his friends, includin" his nei"hbor, ennifer Claire Cabrera, and his bas$etballbudd, oselito Orendain Escobar, of his travel plans.


33/37

aunt, ebb met Christopher Paul =e"aspi Es"uerra, *loriaAs "randson. In 1pril &&, ebb,Christopher, and a certain Daphne Domin"o (atched the concert of Deelite %and in San+rancisco.'&In the same month, Doroth heeloc$ and her famil invited ebb to =a$e #ahoeto return the ebbsA hospitalit (hen she (as in the Philippines.'/

In Ma &&, on invitation of another aunt, Susan %rottman, ebb moved to 1naheim


34/37

#he trial court and the Court of 1ppeals are one in re!ectin" as (ea$ ebbAs alibi. #heir reasonis uniform4 ebbAs alibi cannot stand a"ainst 1lfaroAs positive identification of him as the rapistand $iller of Carmela and, apparentl, the $iller as (ell of her mother and oun"er sister.%ecause of this, to the lo(er courts, ebbAs denial and alibi (ere fabricated.

%ut not all denials and alibis should be re"arded as fabricated. Indeed, if the accused is trulinnocent, he can have no other defense but denial and alibi. So ho( can such accused

penetrate a mind that has been made cnical b the rule drilled into his head that a defense ofalibi is a han"manAs noose in the face of a (itness positivel s(earin", )I sa( him do it.)9 Most!ud"es believe that such assertion automaticall dooms an alibi (hich is so eas to fabricate.#his 8uic$ stereotpe thin$in", ho(ever, is distressin". +or ho( else can the truth that theaccused is reall innocent have an chance of prevailin" over such a stone:cast tenet9

#here is onl one (a. 1 !ud"e must $eep an open mind. plain the phsicalevidence of that ba" and its scattered contents. 1nd she had entura climbin" the carAs hood, ris$in" bein"seen in such an a($(ard position, (hen the did not need to dar$en the "ara"e to force open the frontdoorQ!ust so to e>plain the dar$ened li"ht and foot prints on the car hood.

+urther, her testimon (as inherentl incredible. emplified bremainin" outside the house, millin" under a street li"ht, visible to nei"hbors and passersb, and sho(in"no interest in the developments inside the house, li$e if it (as their turn to rape Carmela. 1lfaroAs stor thatshe a"reed to serve as ebbAs messen"er to Carmela, usin" up her "as, and stain" (ith him till thebiHarre end (hen the (ere practicall stran"ers, also ta>es incredulit.

#o provide basis for ebbAs outra"e, 1lfaro said that she follo(ed Carmela to the main road to (atch herlet off a lover on 1"uirre 1venue. 1nd, ine>plicabl, althou"h 1lfaro had onl plaed the role of messen"er,she claimed leadin" ebb, =e!ano, and entura into the house to "an":rape Carmella, as if 1lfaro (asestablishin" a reason for later on testifin" on personal $no(led"e.


35/37

(hen a (oman (o$e up to their presence in the house and of absolute coura"e (hen she nonethelessreturned to become the lone (itness to a "rim scene is also 8uite ine>plicable.

Jltimatel, 1lfaroAs 8ualit as a (itness and her inconsistent, if not inherentl unbelievable, testimoncannot be the positive identification that !urisprudence ac$no(led"es as sufficient to !ettison a denial andan alibi.

. A :oc!ete: "+b+

#o establish alibi, the accused must prove b positive, clear, and satisfactor evidence 6Bthat a- he (aspresent at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and b- that it (as phsicallimpossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.62

#he courts belo( held that, despite his evidence, ebb (as actuall in ParaLa8ue (hen the iHconde$illin"s too$ place; he (as not in the J.S. from March , && to October /B, &/; and if he did leave onMarch , &&, he actuall returned before une /, &&, committed the crime, erased the fact of hisreturn to the Philippines from the records of the J.S. and Philippine Immi"rations, smu""led himself out ofthe Philippines and into the J.S., and returned the normal (a on October /B, &/. %ut this rulin"practicall ma$es the death of ebb and his passa"e into the ne>t life the onl acceptable alibi in thePhilippines. Courts must abandon this un!ust and inhuman paradi"m.

If one is cnical about the Philippine sstem, he could probabl claim that ebb, (ith his fatherAsconnections, can arran"e for the local immi"ration to put a March , && departure stamp on his passportand an October /B, &/ arrival stamp on the same. %ut this is pure speculation since there had been noindication that such arran"ement (as made. %esides, ho( could ebb fi> a forei"n airlinesA passen"ermanifest, officiall filed in the Philippines and at the airport in the J.S. that had his name on them9 (ith the J.S. Immi"rationAs record sstem those t(o dates in its record of his travels as (ellas the dates (hen he supposedl departed in secret from the J.S. to commit the crime in the Philippinesand then return there9 No one has come up (ith a lo"ical and plausible ans(er to these 8uestions.

#he Court of 1ppeals re!ected the evidence of ebbAs passport since he did not leave the ori"inal to beattached to the record. %ut, (hile the best evidence of a document is the ori"inal, this means that the sameis e>hibited in court for the adverse part to e>amine and for the !ud"e to see. 1s Court of 1ppeals ustice#a"le said in his dissent,6the practice (hen a part does not (ant to leave an important document (iththe trial court is to have a photocop of it mar$ed as e>hibit and stipulated amon" the parties as a faithfulreproduction of the ori"inal. Stipulations in the course of trial are bindin" on the parties and on the court.

#he J.S. Immi"ration certification and the computer print:out of ebbAs arrival in and departure from thatcountr (ere authenticated b no less than the Office of the J.S. 1ttorne *eneral and the StateDepartment. Still the Court of 1ppeals refused to accept these documents for the reason that ebb failedto present in court the immi"ration official (ho prepared the same. %ut this (as unnecessar. ebbAspassport is a document issued b the Philippine "overnment, (hich under international practice, is theofficial record of travels of the citiHen to (hom it is issued. #he entries in that passport are presumedtrue.G0

#he J.S. Immi"ration certification and computer print:out, the official certifications of (hich have beenauthenticated b the Philippine Department of +orei"n 1ffairs, merel validated the arrival and departurestamps of the J.S. Immi"ration office on ebbAs passport. #he have the same evidentiar value. #heofficers (ho issued these certifications need not be presented in court to testif on them. #heir

trust(orthiness arises from the sense of official dut and the penalt attached to a breached dut, in theroutine and disinterested ori"in of such statement and in the publicit of the record.G&

#he Court of 1ppeals of course ma$es capital of the fact that an earlier certification from the J.S.Immi"ration office said that it had no record of ebb enterin" the J.S. %ut that erroneous first certification(as ampl e>plained b the J.S. *overnment and Court of 1ppeals ustice #a"le stated it in his dissentin"opinion, thus4

hile it is true that an earlier Certification (as issued b the J.S. INS on 1u"ust &G, &6 findin" )noevidence of la(ful admission of ebb,) this (as alread clarified and deemed erroneous b no less thanthe JS INS Officials. 1s e>plained b (itness =eo


36/37

Philippine Embass in ashin"ton D.C., said Certification did not pass throu"h proper diplomatic channelsand (as obtained in violation of the rules on protocol and standard procedure "overnin" such re8uest.

#he initial re8uest (as merel initiated b %ID Commissioner erceles (ho directl communicated (ith thePhilippine Consulate in San +rancisco, JS1, bpassin" the Secretar of +orei"n 1ffairs (hich is the properprotocol procedure. Mr. Steven %ucher, the actin" Chief of the Records Services %oard of JS:INSashin"ton D.C. in his letter addressed to Philip 1nt(eiler, Philippine Des$ Officer, State Department,declared the earlier Certification as incorrect and erroneous as it (as )not e>haustive and did not reflect all

available information.) 1lso, Richard =. plainedthat )the INS normall does not maintain records on individuals (ho are enterin" the countr as visitorsrather than as immi"rants4 and that a notation concernin" the entr of a visitor ma be made at theNonimmi"rant Information sstem. Since appellant ebb entered the J.S. on a mere tourist visa,obviousl, the initial search could not have produced the desired result inasmuch as the data base that (asloo$ed into contained entries of the names of IMMI*R1N#S and not that of NON:IMMI*R1N# visitors ofthe J.S..G/

#he trial court and the Court of 1ppeals e>pressed mar$ed cnicism over the accurac of travel documentsli$e the passport as (ell as the domestic and forei"n records of departures and arrivals from airports. #heclaim that it (ould not have been impossible for ebb to secretl return to the Philippines after hesupposedl left it on March , &&, commit the crime, "o bac$ to the J.S., and openl return to the

Philippines a"ain on October /G, &/. #ravel bet(een the J.S. and the Philippines, said the lo(er courtstoo$ onl about t(elve to fourteen hours.

If the Court (ere to subscribe to this e>tremel s$eptical vie(, it mi"ht as (ell tear the rules of evidence outof the la( boo$s and re"ard suspicions, surmises, or speculations as reasons for impeachin" evidence. Itis not that official records, (hich carr the presumption of truth of (hat the state, are immune to attac$.#he are not. #hat presumption can be overcome b evidence.


37/37

=et a cop of this Decision be furnished the Director, %ureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa Cit for immediateimplementation. #he Director of the %ureau of Corrections is DIREC#ED to report the action he has ta$ento this Court (ithin five das from receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD1ssociate ustice

E CONCJR4

Cases Law Phil

Documents

Transcript of Cases Law Phil