11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

218

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baello
*

G.R. No. 101314. July 1, 1993.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

JOHN AMET BAELLO y GUINTIVANO @ TOTONG,
accusedappellant.
Constitutional Law Right to Counsel Extrajudicial
Confession While the initial choice of the lawyer in the latter case
is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused really
had the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him
and ask for another one.It is very clear from the aforequoted
provision that a person under investigation for the commission of
an offense may choose his own counsel but if he cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. While the
initial choice of the lawyer in the latter case is naturally lodged in
the police investigators, the accused really has the final choice as
he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one.
Same Same Same Exhibit L completely belies the
allegation that the accused was not fully assisted by Atty. Generoso
during the investigation.Exhibit L completely belies the
allegation that the accused was not fully assisted by Atty.
Generoso during the investigation. Said document discloses that
the accused was informed of his constitutional rights by Atty.
Generoso in extenso. Atty. Generoso conferred with the accused,
warned the latter of the consequences of his confession and even
advised him not to make any however, the accused insisted on
going ahead with his confession, although he only confessed to the
robbery.
Same Same Same Atty. Generoso, as an officer of the PAO,
would not have affixed his signature in the extrajudicial
confession as counsel for the accused had he known of any
infirmity in its execution.It was only after the said conference
that the accused gave a statement. After it was completed, Atty.
Generoso again explained to him the contents and the adverse
effects of his confession, but the accused found himself at ease
with his conscience by voluntarily affixing his signature therein.
If, indeed, he had any objections to his statement, he should not
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

1/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

have signed Exhibit L, or he should have at least voiced out

such objections to Atty. Generoso. Atty. Generoso, as an officer of
the PAO, would not have affixed his signature in the extrajudicial
_______________
*

THIRD DIVISION.
219

VOL. 224, JULY 1, 1993

219

People vs. Baello

confession as counsel for the accused had he known of any

infirmity in its execution. If he did so, he would have been remiss
in the performance of his duty and unfaithful to his office. But
there must be convincing proof of that for he has in his favor the
presumption of regularity in the performance of his duty.
Same Same Same The right to counsel is intended to
preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit
something false.This Court denounces in the strongest terms
possible the widespread misconception that the presence of a
lawyer under the right to counsel provision of the Constitution is
intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might
incriminate him. The right to counsel is intended to preclude the
slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something
false. The lawyer, however, should never prevent an accused from
freely and voluntarily telling the truth. Whether it is an extra
judicial statement or testimony in open court, the purpose is
always the ascertainment of truth.
Criminal Law Robbery with Homicide Evidence Conspiracy
The rule is settled that when homicide takes place as a
consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part
in the robbery are guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with
homicide unless proof is presented that the accused tried to prevent
the killing.Indeed, the accused deliberately and carefully
confined his participation to the robbery, and the prosecution had
no direct evidence that the accused took part in the killing of
Veronica. But the accused is not thereby absolved from any
liability for her death. Once conspiracy is established between the
accused and Jerry in the commission of the crime of robbery, the
accused would be equally culpable for homicide committed by
Jerry on the occasion of the robbery, unless the former proved
that he endeavored to prevent Jerry from committing homicide. In
People vs. de la Cruz, we said: The rule is likewise settled that
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

2/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of

a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as
principals of the crime of robbery with homicide unless proof is
presented that the accused tried to prevent the killing.
Same Same Same Same It is axiomatic that direct proof is
not essential to prove conspiracy, it may be shown by acts and
circumstances from which may logically be inferred the existence of
a common design or may be deduced from the mode and manner
in which the offense is perpetrated.As admitted by the accused
in his sworn statement, he and Jerry had a prior agreement to
commit robbery in the house of Eustaquio Borja. Together they
went to the latters house at
220

220

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baello

4:00 oclock in the morning of 10 October 1990, entered the house

through the window at the second floor, and once inside, he got
the television set while Jerry got the other items, and then,
together again, they left the house with their loot. These acts
taken as a whole are more than sufficient to establish a common
design between Jerry and the accused to commit robbery such
acts eloquently showed nothing less than a joint purpose and
design, and a community of interest which established beyond
doubt the existence of a conspiracy. It is axiomatic that direct
proof is not essential to prove conspiracy it may be shown by acts
and circumstances from which may logically be inferred the
existence of a common design or may be deduced from the mode
and manner in which the offense is perpetrated.
Same Same Same Aggravating Circumstances The
aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry was properly
appreciated.The aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry
was properly appreciated against the accused as he and his
companion, Jerry, had entered the Borja residence through the
secondfloor window, a way not intended for ingress.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of

Pasig, Metro Manila, Br. 156. Villarama, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court
The Solicitor General for plaintiffappellee.
Tomas J. Caspe for accusedappellant.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

3/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

In an Information filed with the Regional Trial Court

(RTC) of Pasig, Metro Manila, on 18 October 1990, accused
John Amet Baello @ Totong was charged with the crime
of Robbery with Homicide. The accusatory portion of the
information reads as follows:
That on or about the 10th day of October, 1990 in the
Municipality of Pasig, MetroManila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused,
conspiring and confederating with one @Jerry whose true
identity and present whereabout is still unknown, and mutually
helping and aiding with one another, with intent to gain, without
the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, entered the
house of one Eustaquio Borja y Reyes thru the window at the
second floor of the said house, an opening not intended
221

VOL. 224, JULY 1, 1993

221

People vs. Baello

for ingress or egress, and once inside the same, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away
the following items, to wit:
One (1) 20 colored television set marked Sharp
worth
.......................................................................................

P11,269.00

One (1) stereo cassette recorder colored black worth

.........................................................................................

2,500.00

One (1) camera worth

...............................................................

1,000.00

Assorted jewelries (sic) of still undetermined amount

__________

P14,769.00

belonging to Eustaquio Borja y Reyes, to the damage and

prejudice of the owner thereof in the total amount of P14,769.00
and that by reason and on the occasion of the robbery, the above
named accused, with intent to kill, armed with bladed
instrument, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously stab one Veronica Borja y Ramos on the vital parts of
her body, thereby inflicting upon her mortal wounds which
were
1
the direct and immediate cause of her death thereafter.

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 84253 and

was raffled off to Branch 156 of the said court.
At his arraignment on 13 November
1990, the accused
2
entered a plea of not guilty. Trial on the merits
commenced on 18 December 1990.
3

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
After due trial, the RTC promulgated its decision

on 19

4/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224
3

After due trial, the RTC promulgated its decision on 19

July 1991 finding the accused guilty as charged. The
adjudicatory portion thereof reads as follows:
_______________
1

Original Records (OR), 12 Rollo, 34.

OR, 8.

Id., 152161 Rollo, op cit., 1625. Per Judge Martin S. Villarama, Jr.
222

222

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baello

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the

accused JOHN AMET BAELLO y Guintivano @ TOTONG guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide
under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code with the
aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry and hereby sentences
said accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all its
accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of Veronica Borja y
Ramos in the amount of P50,000.00, to pay the sum of P50,000.00
by way of reparation of the stolen cassette, camera and assorted
jewelries (sic), to pay the further sum of P41,672.00 by way of
reimbursement of the burial and other related expenses and the
additional sum of P20,000.00 and P10,000.00 as moral and
exemplary damages, respectively, all without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
In the service of his sentence, the accused shall be
credited in
4
full with the period of his preventive imprisonment.

From this adverse decision, the accused interposed an

appeal which this
Court accepted in a resolution dated 30
5
September 1991.
The factual antecedents of this case, as culled from the
records, are as follows:
On 10 October 1990, at about five 5:00 oclock in the
morning, Barangay Captain Eustaquio R. Borja awoke to
find out that the front door of his residence at No. 164
Evangelista Street, Barangay Santolan, Pasig, Metro
Manila, was open and that their television set in the sala
was missing. Eustaquio told his wife about what he saw
and together they proceeded upstairs to the second floor to
check on their 22year old daughter, Veronica Borja. They
noticed that the door to her room was open. Upon entering
the room, they were shocked to find the bloodied corpse of
their daughter lying in bed. The window of her room was
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

5/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

open. Eustaquio instructed his wife not to touch the body

while he summoned the authorities. He proceeded to the
Barangay Hall from where he called the police. The couple
later discovered that a cassette player, a camera, and
various pieces of jewelry in their daughters 6cabinet, all
worth about P50,000.00, were likewise missing.
_______________
4

OR, 161 Rollo, 25.

Rollo, 26.

TSN, 30 January 1991, 211.

223

VOL. 224, JULY 1, 1993

223

People vs. Baello

On the same day, P/Capt. Florante F. Baltazar, Medico

Legal Officer of the PC/INP Crime Laboratory Services,
performed an autopsy on the body of the victim. He
concluded that the cause of death was cardiorespiratory
arrest due to shock
and hemorrhage secondary to multiple
7
stab wounds. He stated in his autopsy report that the
victim suffered a total of four stab wounds that the stab
wound inflicted on the victims neck, which severed her
jugular vein, was a fatal one and that at the time of the
autopsy (3:25 p.m.), the8 victim had been dead for more or
less ten to twelve hours.
At 6:00 p.m., the police were able to recover the missing
television set from the house of Eugenio
Tagifa (or Tadifa),
9
the husband of the accuseds sister. Tagifa was brought to
the police station for questioning. On 11 October 1990 at
10:55 a.m., Tagifa executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay
wherein he pointed to the accused as the person who
had
10
placed the television set under the stairs of his house.
On 13 October 1990 at 5:30 p.m., the accused was
captured in Bangkal, Makati by elements of the
Intelligence and Special Operations Unit (ISOU)
of the
11
Pasig Police and brought to the police station. He made an
oral admission
of his participation in the commission of the
12
crime.
He was then endorsed to the Criminal
13
Investigation Division (CID) for formal investigation.
The accused was asked if he could understand,
read and
14
write Tagalog, and he replied that he could. The accused
was likewise asked if he could afford
the services of
15
counsel he answered that he could not. Upon being asked
if he was willing to avail of the services of Atty. Eber
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

6/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

Generoso of the Public Attorneys

Office (PAO), the accused
16
replied in the affirmative. Atty. Generoso
_______________
7

Exhibit E.

TSN, 8 February 1991, 47.

Exhibit K.

10

Exhibit A.

11

Exhibit K.

12

TSN, 26 February 1991, 8.

13

Id., 4.

14

TSN, 11 March 1991, 15.

15

Id., 16.

16

Id.
224

224

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baello

then brought the accused away from the police

17
investigators so that the two of them could talk privately.
Atty. Generoso inquired from the accused whether or not
he had any participation in the crime and told him that if
he had none, he must not make any admission or
statement as this would be prejudicial to him. The accused,
however, said, Attorney, aaminin ko na ho total ginawa ko
naman. The accused then told Atty. Generoso that he was
the one who took
the television set but denied having killed
18
Veronica Borja. Afterwards, the police started the formal
investigation of the accused in the presence of Atty.
Generoso. The accused gave his statement before the police
and this was reduced into writing and marked at the trial
as Exhibit L. Atty. Generoso read the statement 19
to the
accused and then let the accused read it himself. The
accused then signed Exhibit L, after which Atty.
Generoso also signed the same.
The body of the said document reads as follows:
Tanong:

Sagot:

Ikaw ba ay marunong sumulat at umunawa ng

Wikang Tagalog na atin gagamitin sa
pagsisiyasat na ito?
Opo.

Pasubali: Bago ko simulan ang imbestigasyong ito, nais

kong ipabatid sa iyo na ikaw bilang isang
mamayang Pilipino alinsunod sa ating Binagong
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

7/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

Saligang Batas ay may mga karapatan, gaya ng

mga sumusunod:
Na, karapatan mong manatiling tahimik at huwag sagutin ang
alin man aking mga katanungan

(Sgd.)

(Sgd.)

Atty. Eber Generoso

John Amet Baello

Na, karapatan mo ring kumuha ng isang piling abogado na

maaring tumulong sa iyo sa oras ng imbestigasyong ito

(Sgd.)

(Sgd.)

Atty. Eber Generoso

John Amet Baello

Na, kung ikaw ay wala pang isang piling abogado, ikaw ay

bibigyan para sa iyong kapakanan ng libre
_______________
17

TSN, 3 May 1991, 4.

18

TSN, 3 May 1991, 12.

19

Id., 18.
225

VOL. 224, JULY 1, 1993

225

People vs. Baello

(Sgd.)
Atty. Eber Generoso

(Sgd.)
John Amet Baello

Na, ikaw ay muli kong pinalahanan na ang lahat ng iyong

sasabihin dito ay maaaring gamitin pabor O laban sa iyong
panig

(Sgd.)
Atty. Eber Generoso

(Sgd.)
John Amet Baello

01.

t: Kung gayon ay turan mong muli ang iyong tunay na

pangalan, idad, katayuan sa buhay at iba pang
maaaring pagkakakilanlan sa iyo?

s: JOHN AMET BAELLO y GUINTIVANO, 20 anyos,

binata, figthing (sic) cock caretaker, tubong Liganes,
IliIlo (sic) at nakatira sa may Nr. 145B Interior,
Evangelista St., Santolan, Pasig, MM.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

8/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

02.

t: John Amet G. Baello, ipinakikilala ko sa iyo si Atty.

Eber Generoso na abogado ng CLAO, at siya ang
siyang tutulong sa iyo, nais mo ba siyang maging
abogado mo?
s: Opo.

03.

t: Bibigyan ko muna kayo ng ilang minuto para kayo

magusap ni Atty. Generoso upang maintindihan mo
ang ibibigay mong salaysay. Sige magusap muna
kayo (at this juncture this prober allowing the
affiant and the Attorney to talk).

04.

t: G. Baello, nais kong ipabatid (sic) sa iyo na ikaw ay

nasasangkot (sic) sa kasong Robbery with Homicide
and Rape, ano ang masasabi mo tungkol dito?

s: Robbery po lamang ang alam ko.

05.

t: Saan at kailan naman nangyari itong sinasabi mong

Robbery kung iyong natatandaan?

s: Sa bahay po ni Bgy. Captain Borja sa may Santolan,

Pasig, MM.

06.

t: Anong oras ninyo ba naman ginawa itong sinasabi

mong nakawan?

s: Mga humigit kumulang alas 4:00 ng madaling (sic)

araw ika10 ng Oktubre 1990.

07.

t: Sino O sinosino ba naman ang kasama mo ng

nakawan ninyo ang bahay ni Bgy. Capt. Borja?
s: Si Alias GERRY po lamang dalawa.

08.

t: Paano naman ninyo pinagnakawan ang bahay nina

Bgy. Capt. Borja?

s: Kami po nitong si Gerry ay nagdaan sa may bintana

ng second floor ng bahay sa may harap ng
basketball court.
226

226

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baello

09.

t: Anoano ba naman ang kinuha ninyo sa loob ng

bahay nina Bgy. Capt. (sic) Borja?
s: Ang kinuha ko po ay isang television, pero hindi ko
po alam kung ano ang mga kinuha ni GERRY.

10. T: Mayroon akong ipapakita sa iyong isang television,

ano ang masasabi mo tungkol dito (declarant at this

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

9/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

juncture this prober pointing a colored Television

set marked Sharp in the course of investigation).

s: Iyan po ang television na aking ninakaw sa bahay

nina Capt. Borja (at this juncture suspect/declarant
was pointing to a colored TV Sharp placed on top of
the investigating room in the course of
investigation).

11.

t: G. Baello, nais kong ipaalam sa iyo na sa bahay na

inyong pinagnakawan ay mayroon napatay na si
Veronica Borja na anak na babae nuong mayari ng
bahay, alam mo ba kung sino ang pumatay dito?

s: Opo, si GERRY po na aking kasama nang

magnakaw kami.

12.

t: Papaano mo naman nasiguro na itong si GERRY

ang pumatay kay Veronica?

s: Dahil po sa siya lamang ang naiwan sa itaas ng

bahay.

13.

t: Nasaan ba naman itong Veronica Borja ng pasukin

ninyo ang bahay nina Bgy. Capt. Borja?

s: Siya po ay nakiya (sic) ko sa isang kuwarto sa itaas

ng bahay.

14.

t: Paano ba naman pinatay ni Berry (sic) si Veronica

Borja kung nalalaman mo?

s: Hindi ko po nakita dahil sa nauna akong umalis sa

kanya.

15.

t: Bukod sa inyong dalawa ni Gerry, mayroon pa bang

ibang taong pumasok sa bahay nina Bgy. Capt.
Borja?

s: Wala na po, kaming dalawa lamang.

16.

t: Nalaman mo ba kung saan maaaring matagpuan

itong si Gerry?

s: Sa may Nueva Ecija po, pero hindi ko alam kung

saang lugar duon.

17.

18.

t: Wala na muna akong itatanong sa iyo may nais ka

pa bang idadagdag O babawasin sa iyong salaysay?
s: Wala na po muna.
t: Ikaw ba ay tinakot, sinaktan, binayaran O
pinangakuan upang magbigay ng iyong salaysay
dito?
s: Hindi po, kusang loob ko po ito lahat.
(Sgd.) John Baello

19.

t: Handa mo bang panumpaan at lagdaan ang iyong

salaysay bilang patotoo sa lahat ng iyong mga

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

10/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

sinasabi dito?
227

VOL. 224, JULY 1, 1993

227

People vs. Baello

s: Opo.

x__________ wakas ng Salaysay ni ______ x

15 Oktubre 1990
Pasig, MetroManila
Pinabasa, pinaunawa
at Pinapirmahan

(Sgd.)
John Amet Baello

ni: (Sgd.) Atty. Eber Generoso

On the other hand, the defense presented only two

witnesses, viz.: the accused, testifying pro se, and his
mother, Anita Baello.
The version of the accused is as follows:
He was born in Leganes, Iloilo but resides with his
mother at No. 145 Evangelista Street, Santolan, Pasig,
Metro Manila. He only reached the fourth grade of
elementary school. He was at the house of his cousin after
having watched a movie when the police came. They
handcuffed him and then brought him to the Pasig Police
Headquarters. He was immediately detained and not
subjected to any investigation. Afterwards, he was mauled
inside the jail by Antonio Gabriel, the nephew of Capt.
Borja, and two of Gabriels companions. These persons beat
him up by kicking and punching his stomach and back, and
striking his back and buttocks with a baston. He was
unable to recall the day when his statement was taken
down, though he remembers it was in the afternoon. On
that particular afternoon, he was taken downstairs and
told that he would be given a lawyer to assist and defend
him. However, Atty. Generoso, the lawyer assigned to him,
simply sat down and stared at him without doing anything.
Atty. Generoso told him that he would be going somewhere
and then left for about an hour. When Atty. Generoso came
back, the statement was already typewritten and Atty.
Generoso merely signed it after which the accused was
asked to sign, which he did as he was promised that he
would be released after signing.
While he was downstairs, a policeman asked him to
carry a television set. At first, the accused refused to do so,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

11/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

but then the policeman shouted at him. Since he got

scared, he carried the television set. His picture was then
taken and presented as Exhibit 06 by the prosecution.
All the time downstairs, the
228

228

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baello

police only asked

him for his name, age, civil status and
20
nothing more.
Anita Baello testified thus: When she visited her son,
the accused, in jail a week after his arrest, she saw
contusions on his body he complained to her of chest pains
because of the beatings he had received. She visited her son
every other day and when she visited him sometime in the
first week of January 1991, he told her that he could not
bear anymore the beatings he received from Antonio
Gabriel. Their lawyer then wrote a letter to the jail warden
and after that, her son was not hurt anymore. When she
visited him later, she was surprised to see Gabriel in the
same cell with her son the latter told her that he was not
able to sleep for three nights because he was being pricked
with a needle, so she complained to21the police after which
her son was separated
from Gabriel.
22
In his brief, the accused submits the following
assignment of errors:
1
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED
APPELLANT WAS FULLY AND DULY ASSISTED BY A
COUNSEL ENGAGED BY HIM AND IN FUTHER [sic]
HOLDING THAT HIS EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION
DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION IS ADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE
2
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT
CONSPIRACY EXISTS IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME
3
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE
TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION NAMELY,
EUGENIO TAGIFA AND PRUDENCIO BAGASINA FOR IN

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

12/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

TRUTH AND IN FACT THESE WERE INCONSISTENT,

HIGHLY IMPROB
_______________
20

TSN, 28 May 1991, 210.

21

TSN, 3 June 1991, 215.

22

Rollo, 49, et seq.

229

VOL. 224, JULY 1, 1993

229

People vs. Baello

ABLE AND EXAGGERATED

4
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING ACCUSED
APPELLANT GUILTY AND CONVICTING HIM OF THE
CRIME CHARGE [sic] CONSIDERING THAT HIS GUILT WAS
NOT ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

In his first assigned error, the accused maintains that he

was not fully and duly assisted by a counsel engaged by
him.
Hence,
his
extrajudicial
confession
is
constitutionally infirm and inadmissible in evidence.
The records of the case, however, clearly belie this
allegation of the accused. While it is true that Atty.
Generoso was not initially his counsel of choice, the fact
remains that after the accused was asked if he could afford
the services of counsel and he answered in the negative, he
was informed that he would be provided with oneAtty.
Generoso of the PAOto assist him during the
investigation. He then voluntarily accepted the services of
Atty. Generoso. This was in compliance with paragraph (1),
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution which provides
that:
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
own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except
in writing and in the presence of counsel.
23

Apropos is the case of People vs. Parojinog. Parojinog

arrested for triple murder. Before the start of
investigation, the police apprised Parojinog of
constitutional right to counsel of his own choice and
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

was
the
his
told
13/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

him that if he did not have one, a certain Atty. Fernando

Fuentes III of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO)
would be engaged to assist him. He agreed to have Atty.
Fuentes as his lawyer. Atty. Fuentes assisted Parojinog
during the entire investigation after which Parojinog
_______________
23

203 SCRA 673 [1991].

230

230

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baello

signed his extrajudicial confession. Atty. Fuentes also

signed the document. Later on, Parojinog assailed the
confession, contending that Atty. Fuentes was not his
counsel of choice. This Court refuted him thus:
Anent his claim that Atty. Fuentes was not his choice, Section
12(1) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Sec. 12(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 own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and
in the presence of counsel.

It is very clear from the aforequoted provision that a person

under investigation for the commission of an offense may choose
his own counsel but if he cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. While the initial choice of the lawyer
in the latter case is naturally lodged in the police investigators,
the accused really has the final choice as he may reject the
counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. In the instant
case, the records show that no objection was voiced by the accused
throughout the entire proceedings of the investigation and
afterwards when he subscribed to its veracity before City
Prosecutor Luzminda V. Uy. Thus, he apparently acquiesced to
the choice of the investigators. He complained for the first time
that Atty. Fuentes was not his choice only during trial. Thus, it
was too late.
24

Likewise, in People vs. Masongsong,

similar plaint in this wise:

we dismissed a

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

14/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

To accept the appellants contention that he was in effect denied

justice since the counsel assigned to him was not really his choice
is ridiculous. As correctly stated by the Solicitor General, every
lawyer is presumed to have knowledge of the law as well as the
training in procedure sufficient to enable him to protect his client.
Furthermore, the accused was given sufficient time to choose his
own counsel had he opted to so. His failure, therefore, to request
for another counsel negates his claim of denial of the right to
choose his lawyer.
_______________
24

174 SCRA 39 [1989].

231

VOL. 224, JULY 1, 1993

231

People vs. Baello

25

And in People vs. Pinzon, this Court made the following

disquisition:
There is no merit in the above argument. We agree with the
Solicitor Generals view that:
x x x the entire process of custodial investigation was conducted in the
manner required by the Constitution. Atty. Saldivar informed appellant
of the latters right to remain silent, as anything he says in said
investigation could be used against him. Appellant was likewise informed
of his right to counsel and that if he could not afford to pay [for] the
services of one, he could avail of the free legal services of the CLAO,
which offer appellant accepted. By said acceptance, Atty. Saldivar
became appellants counsel of choice, and the fact that appellant had no
previous acquaintance with Atty. Saldivar did not render null and void
appellants otherwise valid extrajudicial confession. Atty. Saldivar was
present from the time appellants statements were taken up to the time
appellant affixed his signature thereon. In fact, Atty. Saldivars signature
appears on the statement. Plainly, the admission in evidence of
appellants sworn statement does not suffer from any constitutional
infirmity.

Exhibit L completely belies the allegation that the

accused was not fully assisted by Atty. Generoso during the
investigation. Said document discloses that the accused
was informed of his constitutional rights by Atty. Generoso
in extenso. Atty. Generoso conferred with the accused,
warned the latter of the consequences of his confession and
even advised him not to make any however, the accused
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

15/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

insisted on going ahead with his confession, although he

only confessed to the robbery.
It was only after the said conference that the accused
gave a statement. After it was completed, Atty. Generoso
again explained to him the contents and the adverse effects
of his confession, but the accused found himself at ease
with his conscience by voluntarily affixing his signature
therein. If, indeed, he had any objections to his statement,
he should not have signed Exhibit L, or he should have at
least voiced out such objections to Atty. Generoso. Atty.
Generoso, as an officer of the PAO, would not have affixed
his signature in the extrajudicial confession as
_______________
25

206 SCRA 93 [1992].

232

232

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baello

counsel for26 the accused had he known of any infirmity in its

execution. If he did so, he would have been remiss in the
performance of his duty and unfaithful to his office. But
there must be convincing proof of that for he has in his
favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of
his duty.
The accused likewise assails what he perceives to be a
preconditioned (sic) of the mind on the part of the
investigator as well as the counsel that an admission was
about to take place and for 27that the accused must be
assisted only in this aspect. He28 then labors under a
misconception. In People vs. Layuso, we stated:
This Court denounces in the strongest terms possible the
widespread misconception that the presence of a lawyer under the
right to counsel provision of the Constitution is intended to stop
an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him.
The right to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercion
as would lead the accused to admit something false. The lawyer,
however, should never prevent an accused from freely and
voluntarily telling the truth. Whether it is an extrajudicial
statement or testimony in open court, the purpose is always the
ascertainment of truth.

The accused jointly discusses the remaining assigned

errors. He contends that there was no evidence of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

16/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

conspiracy with respect to the crime of robbery with

homicide, and faults the trial court for giving full credence
to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Eugenio Tagifa
(his brotherinlaw) and Prudencio Bagasina. He alleges
that Eugenio Tagifa testified against him because
the
29
former was threatened with arrest and prosecution. The
accused likewise impugns the testimony of Prudencio
Bagasina as inconsistent, highly improbable and
exaggerated.
These contentions are as hollow as those offered to
support the first assignment of error.
Anent his claim of lack of evidence of conspiracy for the
crime of robbery with homicide, the accused has absolutely
nothing but
_______________
26

See People vs. Aquino, 186 SCRA 851, 860 [1990].

27

Appellants Brief, 1213.

28

175 SCRA 47 [1989].

29

Appellants Brief, op. cit., 18.

233

VOL. 224, JULY 1, 1993

233

People vs. Baello

vague conclusions in between which is the theory, which he

fears to openly express, that since he confessed only to
robbery and that since it was only Jerry, his companion,
who killed Veronica Borja, he could only be held liable for
robbery but not for robbery with homicide. Indeed, the
accused deliberately and carefully confined his
participation to the robbery, and the prosecution had no
direct evidence that the accused took part in the killing of
Veronica. But the accused is not thereby absolved from any
liability for her death. Once conspiracy is established
between the accused and Jerry in the commission of the
crime of robbery, the accused would be equally culpable for
homicide committed by Jerry on the occasion of the
robbery, unless the former proved that he endeavored to
prevent
Jerry from committing homicide. In People vs. de la
30
Cruz, we said: The rule is likewise settled that when
homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of
a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty
as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide unless
proof is presented that the accused tried to prevent the
killing. Accused offered no such proof.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

17/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

The conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery was

sufficiently and convincingly established in this case. As
admitted by the accused in his sworn statement, he and
Jerry had a prior agreement to commit robbery in the
house of Eustaquio Borja. Together they went to the
latters house at 4:00 oclock in the morning of 10 October
1990, entered the house through the window at the second
floor, and once inside, he got the television set while Jerry
got the other items, and then, together again, they left the
house with their loot. These acts taken as a whole are more
than sufficient to establish a common design between Jerry
and the accused to commit robbery such acts eloquently
showed nothing less than a joint purpose and design, and a
community of interest which
established beyond doubt the
31
existence of a conspiracy. It is axiomatic that direct proof
is not essential to prove conspiracy it may be shown by
acts and
_______________
30

G.R. No. 102063, 20 January 1993, citing People vs. Garillo, 84 SCRA

537 [1978] and People vs. Bernales, 94 SCRA 604 [1979].

31

People vs. Lunar, 45 SCRA 119 [1972] People vs. Custodio, 47 SCRA

289 [1972].
234

234

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baello

circumstances from which may

logically be inferred the
32
existence of a common design or may be deduced from
the
33
mode and manner in which the offense is perpetrated.
Accuseds claim that his brotherinlaw, Eugenio Tagifa,
testified against him because he was intimidated with
arrest and prosecution is purely conjectural. It is to be
noted that the accused does not, in the main, dispute the
prosecutions evidence that he was the one who placed the
television set under the stairs of Tagifas house and that he
was seen carrying it on his shoulders in the early morning
of 10 October 1990. All that the accused could do was to
raise a feeble and unsubstantiated denial.
On the witness stand, Tagifa identified the sworn
statement he executed on 11 October 1990 (Exhibit A)
and openly admitted that it was the accused who brought
the television set, thus:
Q
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

18/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

Who brought the TV set under your stairs if you were

not the one?
A

My brother in law, sir.

Could you identify him, Mr. witness?

Yes, sir.

Will you point to him now?

Yes, sir. (witness pointing to a person who identified

himself34 as John Amet Baello, the accused in this
case).

The due execution of Tagifas sworn statement was not put

in doubt during his crossexamination by the counsel for
the defense. The impression then that Tagifa leaves us is
that he was telling the truth. The trial court, which was
obviously in a better position to decide the question of his
credibility, having heard him and observed his deportment
and manner of testifying, gave full faith and credit to
Tagifas testimony. We accord it the highest respect,
especially considering that we find no fact or circumstance
of value in the said testimony that it had overlooked or
misappreciated
and which if considered, may alter the
35
result.
_______________
32

People vs. Tingson, 47 SCRA 243 [1972].

33

People vs. Alonzo, 73 SCRA 484 [1976].

34

TSN, 18 December 1990, 56.

35

People vs. Garcia, 89 SCRA 440 [1979] People vs. Bautista, 92 SCRA

465 [1979] People vs. Florida, G.R. No. 90254, 24 September

235

VOL. 224, JULY 1, 1993

235

People vs. Baello

Prudencio Bagasinas testimony deserves a separate

treatment. He had the temerity to testify in open court that
he was just brought to the police station and then made to
sign a prepared statement, which was marked as Exhibit
P. He denied having been investigated at all. In the said
sworn statement, he declared that in the early morning of
10 October 1990, he saw the accused along Daang Kalabaw
at Santolan, Pasig, Metro Manila, carrying a television set
the same television set identified by Tagifa. The trial
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

19/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

court immediately perceived that he was lying through his

teeth and held him in contempt, thus:
COURT:
The witness is hereby cited in contempt for making
untruthful statements until further orders from this
Court. Send him to the provincial jail, for twentyfour36
hours. Let the hearing be continued on another date.

In short, the trial court gave full faith and credit to

Bagasinas sworn statement. We find no compelling reason
to disagree with the trial court.
37
The aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry was
properly appreciated against the accused as he and his
companion, Jerry, had entered the Borja residence through
the secondfloor window, a way not intended for ingress.
The evidence likewise 38shows that the aggravating
circumstance of nocturnity was present in the commission
of the crime as the darkness was taken advantage of by the
malefactors and such circumstance facilitated their evil
designs.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig (Branch 156), Metro Manila
in Criminal Case No. 84253 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
Costs against the accusedappellant.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano (Chairman), Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ.,
con
_______________
1992.
36

TSN, 3 April 1991, 11.

37

Article 14(18), Revised Penal Code.

38

Article 14(6), Id.

236

236

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Macasiano vs. National Housing Authority

cur.
Judgment affirmed in toto.
Note.The extrajudicial confession of accused taken
during custodial investigation where accused was unaided
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

20/21

11/1/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME224

by counsel is inadmissible in evidence (People vs.

Berinquel, 192 SCRA 561).
o0o

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001581e24eea427adce42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

21/21