Digest: People vs Constancio et.al.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NIEVES CONSTANCIO Y BACUNGAY, ERNESTO BERRY Y BACUNGAY G.R. No. 206226, April 04, 2016

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:

·         Constancio and Berry, along with co-accused Pagkalinawan, Darden, and alias Burog, were charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide committed against "AAA.”

·         In the course of an interview with ABS-CBN Reporter Amparo, Berry revealed that while "AAA's" car was parked in Constancio' garage, the said car was moving and shaking with "AAA" inside.⁶ This led him to suspect that something was already happening; that when the door of the car was opened, (Berry) saw that "AAA" was without her underwear; and that Constancio then uttered the words, "wala na," indicating that "AAA" was already dead.

·         Bales almost became the next victim when Berry and his companions who were still using "AAA's" car, attempted to abduct her. Fortunately for Bales, a barangay tanod was present at the scene.

·         Eventually, Berry and Constancio were arrested after an informant surfaced and identified them as "AAA's" assailants. 

·         During custodial investigation, where Atty. Suarez advised him of his constitutional rights and the consequences of his statements, Berry executed an extrajudicial confession which was embodied in a Sinumpaang Salaysay. Berry also confessed to Amparo during an interview that he did take part in the execution of the crime.

·         At the trial, however, Berry denounced the Sinumpaang Salaysay as false, and claimed that he was coerced into signing the same.

·         Constancio contended that he was in Baguio at the time of the commission of the crime. Both appellants denied the charges against them. These two also asserted that Berry's extrajudicial confession was inadmissible in evidence.

·         RTC finding Constancio and Berry guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide

·         the CA affirmed the RTC.

·         both appellants also argue that Berry's extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence against them.

ISSUE:

     Whether or not Berry’s extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence the accussed.

HELD:

Arguments of the Accused: Berry insists that when he executed his extrajudicial confession, he was not provided with a competent and independent counsel of his own choice in violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution. Berry contends that Atty. Suarez does not qualify as a competent and independent counsel since the circumstances surrounding this lawyer's presence at the precinct during the custodial investigation was suspect. 

Berry's argument does not persuade. The CA correctly held:

It is already settled that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. In this case, there was no ample proof to show that appellant Berry's narration of events to ABS-CBN reporter Dindo Amparo was the product of intimidation or coercion, thus making the same admissible in evidence.¹⁹

Court held that, Berry's confession is admissible in evidence because it was-voluntarily made to a news reporter and not to the police authority or to an investigating officer. Amparo testified that he requested Berry for an interview in connection with his confession, and that the latter freely acceded. Hence, Berry's confession to Amparo, a news reporter, was made freely and voluntarily and is admissible in evidence.

On the other hand, Constancio argues that Berry's confession is inadmissible in evidence against him under the principle of res inter alios acta found in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. Our ruling in Tamargo v. Awingan²¹ pertinently explains the reason for this rule:

[O]n a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man's own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him.

The general rule is that an extra-judicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is inadmissible in evidence against his co-accused since it is considered hearsay against them. However, as an exception to this rule, the Court has held that an extra-judicial confession is admissible against a co-accused when it is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation of said co-accused in the crime.

Significantly, Constancio was positively identified as among those who threw the body of "AAA" over a bridge. It is significant to note that eyewitness Adarna also attests that Constancio was riding in the very same car where "AAA" was raped and killed. This fact leaves this Court without a doubt that Constancio is guilty of the crime charged as the same qualifies as circumstantial evidence showing his participation in the execution of the crime.