PEOPLE VS. TAMPUSG.R. No.

L-44690AQUINO, March 28, 1980

NATURE
Automatic review of CFI judgment convicting Tampus of murder, sentencing him to death; coaccusedAvila was also sentenced to death in another case but did not appeal in this case because
his sentencewas already under review
FACTS
-Tampus and Avila, members of the Oxo gang, avenged the stabbing of their co-gang member
Rosales bystabbing Saminado, a member of the Batang Mindanao gang which was a hostile
group to the Oxo gang. The accused and the victims were all prisoners in the national
penitentiary and are in the emergency ward.-How it happened: at around 10 am, Saminado
went to the toilet. Tampus and Avila followed Saminadoand, by means of their bladed
weapons, assaulted him. Tampus inflicted 8 incised wounds while Avilastabbed Saminado 9
times. Afterwards, the two surrendered to a prison guard their knives, saying"Surrender po
kami, sir. Gumanti lang po kami." Saminado died 11am upon arrival in the prison hospital.-the
officer of the day investigated the incident right away. 2 days after the killing, another prison
guardinvestigated the two and obtained their extradjudicial confessions wherein they admitted
that theyassaulted Saminado.-at the arraignment, they pleaded guilty even after they were told
regarding the gravity of the charge andinformed them that the death penalty might be imposed
upon them. When the prosecution presentedevidence, the two accused took the witness stand,
affirmed their confessions and testified as to themanner in which they repeatedly wounded
Saminado. The trial was held at the state penitentiary.
ISSUES
1. WON Tampus was denied his right to a public trial because the arraignment and hearing
were held atthe state penitentiary2. WON the extrajudicial admissions of Tampus and Avila
were admissible
HELD
1. NO.
Ratio.
For the convenience of the witnesses a case is tried in Bilibid Prison without any objection on
thepart of the accused is not a ground for reversal of the judgment of conviction. The accused
may waive hisright to have a public trial as shown in the rule that the trial court may motu
proprio exclude the publicfrom the courtroom when the evidence to be offered is offensive to
decency or public morals. The courtmay also, upon request of the defendant, exclude from the
trial every person except the officers of thecourt and the attorneys for the prosecution and
defense. (Sec. 14, Rule 119, Rules of Court. See 21 Am Jur2d 305, sec. 270).
Reasoning.

The New Bilibid Prison was the venue of the arraignment and hearing, and not the trial
court'ssession hall at Makati, Rizal, because this Court in its resolution of July 20, 1976 in L38141, where RodolfoAvila was one of the accused-appellants, refused, for security reasons, to
allow him to be brought toMakati So, this Court directed that the arraignment and trial in the
instant case, where Avila was a co-accused of Tampus, be held at the national penitentiary in
Muntinlupa. No showing that the public wasactually excluded from the place where the trial
was held or that the accused was prejudiced by theholding of the trial in the national
penitentiary.2. YES
Reasoning.
(1) Confession was voluntarily made. The investigator in taking it endeavored, according tohis
understanding, to comply with section 20 of the 1973 Constitution (refer to the case for the
salaysay);(2) Res Gestae: even if there was an initial investigation before the extrajudicial
confession was obtained(where the right against self-incrimination may not have been told to
the accused), Tampus and Avila hadalready admitted it when, after coming out of the toilet, the
scene of the crime, they surrendered toReynaldo S. Eustaquio, the first guard whom they
encountered, and they revealed to him that they hadcommitted an act of revenge; (3) they
already waived their right to remain silent and to have the right tocounsel when they gave freely
on the spur of the moment without any urging or suggestion; Admissionwas confirmed by their
extrajudicial confession, plea of guilty and testimony in court. They did not appealfrom the
judgment of conviction;***other issues are criminal issues***Disposition. WHEREFORE,
the lower court's judgment as to Jose Tampus is modified. He is sentenced toreclusion perpetua.
The lower court's judgment as to his civil liability is affirmed. Costs de oficio. SOORDERED.
(lacked 10 votes required)Separate OpinionsBARREDO, J., concurring:
I concur, but I believe it is best that the court should inform the accused of his right to remain
silent andnot wait for the lawyer to make the objection. TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting:- The
extra-judicial confession of the accused, having been taken after the 1973 Constitution is
manifestlybarred from admission under section 20 of the Bill of Rights (Article IV) thereof.grave doubts as to the alleged waiver by the accused of his constitutional right to counsel and to
remainsilent given in the middle of his "voluntary" extrajudicial confession during his custodial
interrogation bythe prison investigator-it was the trial courts duty to apprise and admonish the
accused of his consti right to remain silent andagainst self-incrimination. Any confession or
incriminatory statement obtained in violation thereof isexpressly declared "inadmissible in
evidence.