Pp vs Muleta

8/19/2019 Pp vs Muleta

1/16

G.R. No. 130189 June 25, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

DOMINGO R. MULETA, accused-appellant.

PANGANIAN, J.:

An extra-judicial confession extracted in violation of constitutionally enshrined rights is inadmissible

in evidence. During custodial investigation, suspects have the rights, among others, (1) to remain

silent, () to have an independent and competent counsel, (!) to be provided "ith such counsel, if

unable to secure one, (#) to be assisted by one in case of "aiver, "hich should be in "riting, of the

foregoing$ and (%) to be informed of all such rights and of the fact that anything he says can and "ill

be used against him. &here the remaining pieces of evidence are insufficient to determine guilt "ith

moral certainty, the appellant is entitled to an ac'uittal. A conviction must rest on the strength of the

admissible evidence of the prosecution, not on the "eaness or insufficiency of the defense.

The Case

Domingo . *uleta appeals the Decision of the egional +rial ourt of *alolos, ulacan, ranch 1#,

in riminal ase o. !/#-*-0!, finding him guilty of the complex crime of rape "ith homicide and

sentencing him toreclusion perpetua.

+he nformation, dated 2ctober 1, 100! and signed by 3rosecution Attorney 4mmanuel 5. 6elasco,

charged appellant as follo"s7

+hat on April !8, 100!, bet"een the hours of 178% past midnight to 788 in the

morning, at a house in *alolos, ulacan and "ithin the jurisdiction of this 9onorable

ourt, accused D2*:2 *;omicide and

hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.


2/16

+he accused is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased victim harito

Delgado death indemnity of 3%8,888.88, actual damages of 3##,888.88, exemplary

damages of 38,888.88 and moral damages of 38,888.88.

o pronouncement as to costs. 5

9ence, this appeal. "

The Facts

Version of the Prosecution

+he facts, as vie"ed by the prosecution, are summariBed in the AppelleeCs rief # thus7

2n April 1%, 100!, nineteen-year-old harito Delgado, a native of 2riental *indoro,

"ent to *anila to find "or. 2nce in *anila, harito proceeded to 1!#? anaba

treet, *oriones, +ondo, *anila, "here her uncle, uben Delgado lived. +here, she

stayed "ith her sister *arissa. hortly thereafter, harito landed a job as a salesladyat the Ali *all, in ubao, EueBon ity.

n the afternoon of April 0, 100!, harito left +ondo, *anila and moved to

6alenBuela, *etro *anila, bringing "ith her some of her sisterCs baggage. he,

ho"ever, returned to +ondo, *anila to pic up their remaining baggage. t "as the

last time she "as seen alive by her relatives.

2n April !8, 100!, haritoCs lifeless body "as found naed in *ojon, *alolos,

ulacan, tied to a post "ith the use of a pair of pants and both her hands "ere tied

"ith a bra. haritoCs body bore five (%) stab "ounds, three (!) in the left side of her

nec and t"o () at her bac.

+he initial investigation on haritoCs death "as conducted by the police in *alolos,

ulacan but the ational ureau of nvestigation (), *anila, later too over and

the case "as assigned to Agent 4ly +olentino on *ay 10, 100!.

ased on +olentinoCs investigation, appellant is haritoCs uncle, =appellant> being the

brother of haritoCs mother, *ilagros Delgado$ that on April 0 and !8, 100!,

appellant "as "oring at the


3/16

During his custodial investigation on eptember 10, 100!, appellant "as assisted by

counsel, Atty. Deborah =D>a'uis 8, "ith address at oom #81, D G D uilding, 3edro :il

and an *arcelino treet, *anila. +here, he admitted having raped and later illed

harito Delgado.

Another prosecution "itness, Danilo Delgado, testified that during the "ae of

harito Delgado on *ay 1!, 100! in 6alenBuela, *etro *anila, appellant becamehysterical, crying, shaing his head and muttering7 H3ata"arin mo ao harito, ia"

asi lumaban pa, naaahiya, mabuti pang mamatay naH.

Delgado sa" appellant drin a bottle of HchloruxH, after "hich he fell to the ground.

Appellant "as brought to the atima 9ospital. 9 (citations omitted)

Version of the Defense

+he appellant, on the other hand, submits the follo"ing as the facts of the case7

. . . =+>he defense presented the accused himself =Domingo *uleta> "ho testified thathe "as not the one "ho committed the crime =he "as> being charged ="ith>$ that he

"as just unscrupulously piced up by the and forced to admit the crime in

'uestion$ that on April !8, 100!, he "as in their rented house at amias t.,

*agsaysay, +ondo, *anila$ that on that day, he left the house at %7!8 in the afternoon

and "ent to the house "here harito Delgado "as then residing$ that he learned

from his sister *ilagros Delgado that the latterCs daughter harito transferred to

another house and she "as then missing$ that he reported the matter to the police

authorities$ first, to the 33 9ead'uarters in +ondo$ second, to the 33

9ead'uarters at ;.. Avenue$ and third, to the 33 9ead'uarters situated at

aloocan$ that on *ay F, 100!, he found the body of harito Delgado already lying

in state at 6alenBuela, *etro, *anila$ that he learned from his sister *ilagros that her

body "as found some"here in *alolos$ that he "as "oring in the no longer recall "hat he did because of his anger.


4/16

. . . 4melinda *uleta testified that her husband, the accused-appellant, never left the

house in +ondo, *anila in the evening of April 0, 100!. 10

Ruling of the Trial Court

Despite the absence of an eye"itness, the trial court held that the circumstantial evidence in this

case "as enough to establish the guilt of the appellant. n so holding, it referred to the follo"ing as

sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict7

First , the accused is familiar "ith the place 623 ompound, o. *ojon, *alolos,

ulacan, "here the crime "as committed and "here the body of the victim "as

found$

Secon , the accused left his place of "or at around 07!8 in the evening of April 0,

100!$

Thir , the accused did not go home in the evening of April 0, 100! but "ent home

only in the morning of April !8, 100!$

Fourth, that during the "ae of harito, the accused "ent "ild and hysterical and

uttered these "ords7 H3ata"arin mo ao harito, ia" asi lumaban pa, naaahiya

ao, mabuti pang mamatay na.H$

Fifth, the accused admitted in his s"orn statement, that he uttered these "ords$

Si!th, the accused admitted that he dran chlorox and "as brought to the atima

9ospital for treatment$ and

Se"enth, the s"orn statement executed by the accused contains details of the

manner in "hich the crime "as committed "hich only he could have no"n. 11

n upholding the validity of the extrajudicial confession, the lo"er court further ruled7

+he contention of the accused that his extra-judicial confession ="as> inadmissible

because it "as obtained through force and "ithout the assistance of counsel is

untenable. &ell-settled is the rule that a confession is presumed to be voluntary until

the contrary is proved. n th=is> case, the presumption has not been overcome. +he

narration contained in the s"orn statement bespeas spontan=ei>ty and truth. ot

only is the =confession of the accused> replete "ith details only he could have

supplied, but the circumstances surrounding its execution belie his claim. ndubitably

established is the fact that accused "as assisted by Atty. Deborah Da'uis "ho evensigned the statement$ that before accused made his extrajudicial confession he "as

first ased if he "as amenable to the services of Atty. Da'uis to "hich 'uery he

ans"ered affirmatively. inally, "hile accused recited a litany of alleged acts of

maltreatment, no medical certificate had been sho"n to prove that he did suffer

inhuman treatment. or "as there any proof that he even initiated the filing of an

administrative or criminal complaint against his alleged tormentors. either did

accused present any eye"itness to the alleged torture. n short, his allegation,


5/16

obviously self-serving, hardly deserves consideration. ote"orthy too, is the fact that

he did not repudiate said confession at the earliest opportunity and did so only during

trial, thus indicating that his repudiation ="as> only a last-ditch effort to avoid the

conse'uences of the crime.

+he court upholds the admissibility of accusedCs extrajudicial confession "hich, by

itself, is sufficient basis for his conviction.

+he rule is, a confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by

the strong presumption that no person of normal mind "ould deliberately and

no"ingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience.

inally, accusedCs defense of denial and alibi cannot negate his culpability because

these are not supported by any credible evidence other than his bare assertion.

Additionally, there "as no evidence of any ulterior or evil motive on the part of the

prosecution "itnesses that might have led them to give fabricated testimony against

the accused. 12 (citations omitted)

Assign#ent of Error

Appellant presents this lone assignment of error7

+94 +A< 2;+ 44D :6: &4:9+ AD 4D44 +2 +94

46D44 2 +94 324;+2 AD +94 324 D4:AD:

+94 D444 2 A


6/16

+o be acceptable, extrajudicial confessions must conform to constitutional re'uirements. A

confession is not valid and not admissible in evidence "hen it is obtained in violation of any of the

follo"ing rights of persons under custodial investigation7 to remain silent, to have independent and

competent counsel preferably of their o"n choice, to be provided "ith counsel if they are unable to

secure one, to be assisted by such counsel during the investigation, to have such counsel present

"hen they decide to "aive these rights, and to be informed of all these rights and of the fact that

anything they say can and "ill be used against them in court. n People " . Santos,1" "e held7

A confession is not admissible unless the prosecution satisfactorily sho"s that it "as

obtained "ithin the limits imposed by the 10F? onstitution. ection 1, Article

thereof, provides7

(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense

shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to

have competent and independent counsel preferably of his o"n

choice. f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must

be provided "ith one. +hese rights cannot be "aived except in "riting

and in the presence of counsel.

xxx xxx xxx

(!) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 1? hereof shall

be inadmissible in evidence against him.

f the extrajudicial confession satisfies these constitutional standards, it is

subse'uently tested for voluntariness, i .e., if it "as given freely I "ithout coercion,

intimidation, inducement, or false promises$ and credibility, i .e., if it "as consistent

"ith the normal experience of manind.

A confession that meets all the foregoing re'uisites constitutes evidence of a high

order because no person of normal mind "ill no"ingly and deliberately confess to

be the perpetrator of a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience. 1# 2ther"ise,

it is disregarded in accordance "ith the cold objectivity of the exclusionary

rule. 18 (citations omitted)

lagrantly violated in the present case "ere the appellantCs right to be informed of his rights under

custodial investigation, his right to counsel, as "ell as his right to have said counsel present during

the "aiver of his rights under custodial investigation.

The Right to 'e Apprise

of Constitutional Rights

+he right to be informed of oneCs constitutional rights during custodial investigation refers to an

effective communication bet"een the investigating officer and the suspected individual, "ith the

purpose of maing the latter understand these rights. ;nderstanding "ould mean that the

information transmitted "as effectively received and comprehended. 9ence, the onstitution does

not merely re'uire the investigating officers to HinformH the person under investigation$ rather, it

re'uires that the latter be Hinformed.H 19


7/16

+he prosecutionCs purported compliance "ith this re'uisite appears in the follo"ing portion of the

extrajudicial confession7

;*3AA: A auuna"aan mo ba itoL

(gd. Domingo *uleta)

*atapos na malaman mo ang iyong mga arapatan ia" ay naahanda pa ring

magbigay ng pahayagL

A:2+7 aahanda po aong sabihin lahat ng totoo.

8. a" ba ay may abogado na matata"agan

ngayon na sarili mong piliL

7 &ala po.

8!. +7 ais mo bang bigyan a namin ng abogadoL

7 2po.


8/16

8#. +7 :usto naming ipailala sa iyo si Atty. Deborah

K. Da'uiB isang abogada na pribado na handang

asistihan at tulungan a sa imbestigasyong ito. :usto

mo bang ta"agin natin siya bago natin ituloy ang

pagbibigay mong pahayagL

7 2po. (At this juncture, Atty. Da'uiB "as called first

and the statement taing "as temporarily stopped

until after her arrival).

8%. +7 gayong naririto na si Atty. D42A9

DAE;K, ia" ba ay nais pa ring magbigay ng

salaysay nabual sa iyong aloobanL

7 2po.

8/. +7 Atty. Da'uiB7 :usto mo bang talidan ang iyong

mga arapatan na ibinibigay sa iyo ng atingJonstitusyonL

7 +inatalidan o na po iyon dahil gusto o nang

ipagtapat ang pangyayari ay 9A+2 D4


9/16

t

y

o

f

e

p

.

A

c

t

1

%

?)

xxx xxx xxx 20 (emphasis ours)

+he 'uestions propounded to the appellant did not satisfy the strict re'uirements mandated by the

onstitution.21 uch Hterse and perfunctory statementsH 22 implied a superficial reading of the rights of the

accused, "ithout the slightest consideration of "hether he understood "hat "as read to him. +his ourt

"ill not subscribe to such manner of HinformingH the accused of his constitutional rights. &e have stated

this then, 23 and "e reiterate it no"7

=+he> stereotyped HadviceH appearing in practically all extrajudicial confessions "hich

assumed the nature of Hlegal formH or model. 3olice investigators either automatically

type it together "ith the curt H2poH as the ans"er or as the accused to sign it or

even copy it in their hand"riting. ts tired, punctilious, fixed and artificially stately style

does not create an impression of voluntariness or even understanding on the part of

the accused. +he sho"ing of a spontaneous, free and unconstrained giving up of a

right is missing. (emphasis supplied)

The Right to Counsel

+he prosecution contends that this constitutional re'uirement "as satisfied because appellant

executed the confession "ith the assistance and in the presence of Atty. Deborah Da'uiB. 2! +he

participation of the counsel "as described in the confession in this manner7

xxx xxx xxx

8#. +7 :usto naming ipailala sa iyo si Atty. Deborah

K. Da'uiB, isang abogada na pribado na handang

asistihan at tulungan a sa imbestigasyong ito. :usto


10/16

mo bang ta"agin natin siya bago natin ituloy ang

pagbibigay mo ng pahayagL

7 2po. (At this juncture, Atty. Da'uiB "as called first

and the statement taing "as temporarily stopped

until after her arrival).

xxx xxx xxx

9o"ever, the testimony of +olentino, the investigating agent, clearly contradicts the claim of the

prosecution. +he agent testified7

xxx xxx xxx

E Did you inform her =Atty. Deborah Da'uiB> . . . thr=ough> the

phone . . . "hy you "ere soliciting her assistanceL

A 5es =,> sir. &e told her that "e have a subject to confess "hat he=did, "ill you indly assist him in this investigation=L>

E &hat "as the response of Atty. Da'uisL

A he =ased> me =if it> could . . . be made the follo"ing day.

E &hat "as you=r> ans"erL

A t is up to you, said.

E f the re'uest of Atty. Da'uis "as the follo"ing day=,> meaningeptember 8, are you saying that the statement of *uleta "as given

the follo"ing day=,> on eptember 8L

A eptember 10, started taing the statement thin just finished

the 'uestion the follo"ing day continued. =sic >

xxx xxx xxx 25 =4mphasis ours>

Atty. Euintana amplified this point on cross-examination7

xxx xxx xxx

E n the direct examination, you claimed that the

accused Domingo *uleta gave his statement and

made a confessionL

A 5es, madam.


11/16

E 5ou also claimed that you started taing the

statement of Domingo *uleta, the accused, "ithout

the presence of counselL

A o, madam. too his statement in the presence of

Atty. Da'uis.

E n the direct examination on *ay ?, 100#, page

F1, last paragraph and 'uote7 HA. eptember 10,

started taing the statement. thin just finished the

'uestion the follo"ing day continued.H o", do you

"ant to change no" your ans"er that you too the

accusedH =sic > statement "ith the presence of

counselL

A o, madam. Although started to tae his statement

on the night of eptember 10, continued it "hen Atty.

Da'uiB arrived . . . the follo"ing morning "herein theaccused conferred "ith the accused, madam. =sic >.

E ut, =is it> not true that on the night of eptember

10, 100! you started taing the statement of the

accused "ithout the presence of Atty. Da'uiB and only

continued the same on the early morning of

eptember 8, 100! "hen Atty. Da'uiB arrivedL

A 5es, madam.

E DonCt you no" that as a police officer a=t> that,

that before a suspected person can give his

statement, a counsel must be present at all timesL

A 5es, madam.

xxx xxx xxx 2" (emphasis ours)

Despite Agent +olentinoCs claim that the confession of the accused started to be taen on eptember

10, 100! and continued the next day, the s"orn statement itself clearly sho"ed that "hat began on

the 10th of eptember ended on the same day. According to the &urat , the extrajudicial confession

"as subscribed and s"orn to on eptember 10, 100!. +he importance of the &urat must be

stressed.2#

n People " . Relucio,28

"e observed7

At this point, it must be noted that 4xhibit -A, the statement "hich 3adrones claimed

above to have been admittedly taen by 6iloria on 2ctober %, 10? but, supposedly

signed by him later and not on the same day before @udge 6icencio as he had

previously stated, bears the follo"ing heading7


12/16

;*3AA: Ae have constitutionaliBed the right to counsel

because of our hostility against the use of duress and other undue influence in extracting confessions

from a suspect. orce and fraud tarnish confessions and render them inadmissible.H +his ourt has

consistently held, "ithout e'uivocation, that no custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it is done

in the presence of counsel. 31 +he failure of the prosecution 32 to present Atty. Da'uiB to testify on the

validity of the confession substantiates the conclusion that the s"orn statement is constitutionally suspect

and invalid. n relation to this, "e stress that the right to counsel refers to competent and independentla"yers preferably chosen by the accused persons themselves. 33 +his ourt, as "ell as the court a (uo,

did not have the opportunity to determine the competence and the independence of the -procured

la"yer because, despite the denial of the accused that he "as assisted by counsel, the prosecution failed

to present Atty. Da'uiB. 3!

ased on the prosecutionCs o"n evidence, the accused "as already singled out as the perpetrator of

the crime. +he supposed HinvitationH by Agent 4ly +olentino "as in reality a custodial

investigation targeting the accused for the purpose of procuring a confession. epublic Act ?#!F

includes as an integral part of custodial investigation the practice of issuing HinvitationsH to persons

being investigated in connection "ith an offense they are suspected to have committed. 35 ;nder the

present factual milieu, Domingo *uleta should have been accorded the right to counsel (and all the

constitutional rights of the accused), from the time that he "as brought to the office in *anila.

No Vali )ai"er

+he illegality of the alleged confession is further demonstrated by the fact that appellant exercised

no satisfactory "aiver of his rights. As stated in our earlier discussions, since he "as not assisted by

a la"yer "hen the "aiver "as made, there "as no valid "aiver to spea of. 3"


13/16

urthermore, even if "e "ere to assume that the appellant "as assisted by counsel "hen he "aived

his lights, the "aiver itself "as lamentably insufficient. After Atty. Da'uiB "as allegedly called to

assist the appellant, she posited this 'uestion7 H:usto mo bang talidan ang iyong mga arapatan na

ibinibigay sa iyo ng ating JonstitusyonLH 3# +o this appellant replied7 H+inatalidan o na po iyon dahil

gusto o nang ipagtapat ang pangyayari ay 9A+2 D4


14/16

&e do not agree. At the outset, "e stress that a careful revie" of the records of this case reveals

that these pieces of circumstantial evidence "ere controverted by the defense and, even more

important, they "ere not sufficiently established. !2

Despite the efforts of the fiscal during cross-examination, !3 the appellant consistently denied that he

"ored in the place "here the victimCs body "as found. Also, the prosecution failed to prove that he "as

at "or around 07!8 p.m. on April 0, 100! and that he "ent home on April !8, 100!. !! All it could present

"as the testimony of Agent 4ly +olentino, "ho merely testified on "hat appellantCs co-"orers related

to him7 that appellant left "or earlier. !5 +his is clearly hearsay. +he affidavits of these co-"orers do not

help the prosecutionCs case, since they themselves "ere not presented during the trial. An affidavit is

hearsay if the affiant is not presented in court and subjected to cross-examination. !" esides, the

appellantCs "ife, 4melinda *uleta, stated categorically that her husband "as "ith her at home on April 0

and !8, 100!. !#+he appellant himself steadfastly affirmed this during his cross-examination. !8

+he appellantCs rather strange behavior during the "ae "as, according to his testimony, due to his

perceived failure to tae care of his niece. !9 +his "as corroborated by the testimony of Danilo

Delgado. 50 *oreover, the defense claims that the "ords he said during the "ae "ere ambiguous.

H3ata"arin mo ao haritoH could have meant that the appellant "as blaming himself for being unable to

protect the victim. Ha" asi lumaban paH could have connoted frustration "ith "hat he imagined couldhave saved the life of his niece. Haaahiya ao, mabuting mamatay naH also sho"s the appellantCs for

blaming himself inutile, indicating his desire to tae his o"n "orthless life. f these "ords merit anything, it

is this7 it places the appellant under suspicion. ut suspicion or accusation is not synonymous "ith guilt. 51

*ost importantly, even if "e "ere to assume that all the foregoing "ere proven, they are still not

enough to establish an unbroen chain leading inexorably to the guilt of the appellant. +hat the

appellant could have been familiar "ith the place "here the body "as found did not legally prove

anything. +hat he left "or at 07!8 p.m. on April 0, 100! did not necessarily mean he "as at the

scene of the crime. o many other possible conclusions could be made regarding this circumstance.

As for his statements during the "ae, they are ambiguous.

&e have said that H=i>n the absence of an eye"itness, the guilt of an accused may be established by

circumstantial evidence. uch evidence, ho"ever, must still pass the test of moral certainty. &hen

inade'uate and uncorroborated, circumstantial evidence cannot sustain a conviction. pecifically,

"here the stateCs evidence does not constitute an unbroen chain leading beyond reasonable doubt

to the guilt of the accused, the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails and the accused is

entitled to an ac'uittal.H 52 +hus, in People " .'ato, 53 the pieces of circumstantial evidence presented

there I those sho"ing that the accused brothers invited the victim (and his son) for a drin, suddenly tied

his hands and too him a"ay$ after "hich his body "as recovered from the river the next day I "ere

ruled to be inade'uate to sustain a conviction based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 5!

n this case, the circumstantial evidence presented ac'uires significance only "hen taen together

"ith the appellantCs confession.

+he pattern of the tapestry, 55 "hich the prosecution "ould "ant us to see, is bound by only a

single thread I the confession of the appellant. Due to constitutional infirmity, that one strand

has been cut, and thus the pattern disintegrates. +he tapestry becomes an unreadable puBBle.

Thir Issue7

Ali*i as a Defense


15/16

+rue, "e have al"ays considered alibi inherently "ea, 5" because it can be either easily fabricated or

difficult to disprove. 5# 9o"ever, "e have consistently held that the prosecution must convict the accused

based on the strength of its o"n case, not on the "eaness of the defense7

+rue, alibi is a "ea defense. ut then, so also is the prosecutionCs evidence in this

case. . . . ndeed, it is "hen the evidence is purely circumstantial that the prosecution

is much more obligated to rely on the strength of ifs o"n case and not on the"eaness of the defense, and that conviction must rest on nothing less than moral

certainty. 58 (emphasis supplied)

Presu#ption of Innocence

H&here the state fails to meet the (uantu# of proof re'uired to overcome the constitutional

presumption, the accused is entitled to ac'uittal, regardless of the "eaness or even the absence of

his defense, for any conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecutionCs case and not on the

"eaness of the defense.H 59 9ere, "ithout the confession of the appellant, the presumption of

innocence prevails.

+his principle is "ell-articulated in People " . +e&ia. "0 Hn our jurisdiction accusation is not synonymous

"ith guilt. +he freedom of the accused is forfeit=ed> only if the re'uisite (uantu# of proof necessary for

conviction be in existence. +his, of course, re'uires the most careful scrutiny of the evidence for the

tate, both oral and documentary, independent of "hatever defense is offered by the accused. 4very

circumstance favoring the accusedCs innocence must be duly taen into account. +he proof against the

accused must survive the test of reason. trongest suspicion must not be permitted to s"ay judgment.

+he conscience must be satisfied that on the accused could be laid the responsibility for the offense

charged. f the prosecution fails to discharge the burden, then it is not only the accusedCs right to be freed$

it is, even more, the courtCs constitutional duty to ac'uit him.H

2ne final note. n ac'uitting appellant, the ourt is not saying that he did not commit the offense

charged. &e are only saying that the prosecution failed to present credible and admissible evidenceof appellantCs guilt. +he strongest evidence of the prosecution is the extrajudicial confession of

appellant. ut the onstitution is clear I a confession obtained in violation of the rights of an

accused cannot be used as evidence. &ithout *uletaCs confession, the other pieces of

circumstantial evidence lose their significance. 9ad the ational ureau of nvestigation follo"ed the

la" in extracting appellantCs admission of guilt, perhaps I just perhaps I the result of this case

"ould have been different. +he ourt is saddened that la" enforcement agents transgress the la"

"hich they have s"orn to defend and uphold. A mocery of the la" I "hich "as manifestly

perpetrated in this case I must not be allo"ed to sully the countryCs 'uest for peace and order.

&94424, the appeal is hereby :A+4D. +he assailed Decision is hereby 4644D and

6AA+4D. Appellant Domingo . *uleta is hereby AE;++4D for insufficiency of evidence. +he

director of the ureau of orrections is hereby directed to cause the release of appellant forth"ith,unless the latter is being la"fully held for another cause$ and to inform the ourt of his release, or

the reasons for his continued confinement, "ithin ten days from notice. o costs. ,-.phi,/n0t

2 2D44D.

Vitug1 Purisi#a an 2on3aga4Re%es1 55/1 concur/


16/16

Ro#ero1 5/1 a*roa on official *usiness/

Pp vs Muleta

Documents

Transcript of Pp vs Muleta