TodayisTuesday,April18,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.207950September22,2014

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Plaintiffappellee,
vs.
MARKJASONCHAVEZyBITANCORalias"NOY",Accusedappellant.

DECISION

LEONEN,J.:

Every conviction for any crime must be accompanied by the required moral certainty that the accused has
committedtheoffensechargedbeyondreasonabledoubt.Theprosecutionmustprove"theoffender'sintenttotake
personalpropertybeforethekilling,regardlessofthetimewhenthehomicide[was]actuallycarriedout"1!norderto
convictforthecrimeofrobberywithhomicide.Theaccusedmayneverthelessbeconvictedoftheseparatecrime
of homicide once the prosecution establishes beyond reasonable doubt the accused's culpability for the victim's
death.

IntheinformationdatedNovember8,2006,MarkJasonChavezyBitancor(Chavez)waschargedwiththecrimeof
robberywithhomicide:

ThatonoraboutOctober28,2006,intheCityofManila,Philippines,thesaidaccused,didthenandtherewilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and means of force, violence and intimidation upon the person of
ELMERDUQUEyOROS,bythenandthere,withintenttokill,stabbingthelatterrepeatedlywithakitchenknife,
therebyinflictinguponhimmortalstabwoundswhichwerethedirectandimmediatecauseofhisdeaththereafter,
andonthesaidoccasionorbyreasonthereof,accusedtook,robbedandcarriedawaythefollowing:

One(1)UnitNokiaCellphone

One(1)UnitMotorolaCellphone

Six(6)pcs.LadiesRing

Two(2)pcs.Necklace

One(1)pc.BraceletAllofundeterminedvalueandundeterminedamountofmoney,allbelongingtosaidELMER
DUQUEyOROS@BARBIEtothedamageandprejudiceofthesaidowner/orhisheirs,inthesaidundetermined
amountinPhilippinescurrency.

Contrarytolaw.2

Chavez pleaded not guilty during his arraignment on December 4, 2006. The court proceeded to trial. The
prosecutionpresentedAngeloPeamante(Peamante),P/ChiefInspectorSoniaCayrel(PCICayrel),SPO3Steve
Casimiro(SPO3Casimiro),Dr.RomeoT.Salen(Dr.Salen),andRaymundSenofaaswitnesses.Ontheotherhand,
thedefensepresentedChavezasitssolewitness.3

Thefactsasfoundbythelowercourtareasfollows.

On October 28, 2006, Peamante arrived home at around 2:45 a.m., coming from work as a janitor in Eastwood
City.4 When he was about to go inside his house at 1326 Tuazon Street, Sampaloc, Manila, he saw a person
wearingablack,longsleevedshirtandblackpantsandholdingsomethingwhileleavingthehouse/parlorofElmer
Duque(Barbie)at1325TuazonStreet,Sampaloc,Manila,justsixmetersacrossPeamanteshouse.5

Therewasalightattheleftsideofthehouse/parlorofBarbie,hisfavoritehaircutter,soPeamantestatedthathe
wasabletoseethefaceofChavezandtheclotheshewaswearing.6
Chavez could not close the door of Barbies house/parlor so he simply walked away. However, he dropped
somethingthathewasholdingandfelldownwhenhesteppedonit.7Hewalkedawayafter,andPeamantewas
notabletodeterminewhatChavezwasholding.8Peamantethenenteredhishouseandwenttobed.9

Sometimeafter10:00a.m.,theSceneoftheCrimeOffice(SOCO)teamarrived,ledbyPCICayrel.Shewasjoined
byPO3RexMaglansi(photographer),PO1JoelPelayo(sketcher),andafingerprinttechnician.10Theyconducted
an initial survey of the crime scene after coordinating with SPO3 Casimiro of the Manila Police District Homicide
Section.11

The team noted that the lobby and the parlor were in disarray, and they found Barbies dead body inside.12They
took photographs and collected fingerprints and other pieces of evidence such as the 155 pieces of hair strands
foundclutchedinBarbieslefthand.13TheydocumentedtheevidencethenturnedthemovertotheWesternPolice
DistrictChemistryDivision.Dr.Salenwascalledtoconductanautopsyonthebody.14

Ataround11:00a.m.,PeamanteslandladywokehimupandtoldhimthatBarbiewasfounddeadat9:00a.m.He
theninformedhislandladythathesawChavezleavingBarbieshouseat2:45a.m.15

At around 1:00 p.m., Dr. Salen conducted an autopsy on the body and found that the time of death was
approximately12hourspriortoexamination.16Therewere22injuriesonBarbiesbody21werestabwoundsin
various parts of the body caused by a sharp bladed instrument, and one incised wound was caused by a sharp
object.17Four(4)ofthestabwoundswereconsideredfatal.18

Thenextday,thepoliceinvitedPeamantetotheManilaPoliceStationtogiveastatement.Peamantedescribed
toSPO3CasimirothephysicalappearanceofthepersonhesawleavingBarbiesparlor.19

Accompaniedbyhismother,ChavezvoluntarilysurrenderedonNovember5,2006toSPO3Casimiroatthepolice
station.20Chavezwasthen22yearsold.21Hismothertoldthepolicethatshewantedtohelphersonwhomightbe
involvedinBarbiesdeath.22

SPO3 Casimiro informed them ofthe consequences in executing a written statement without the assistance of a
lawyer.However,Chavezsmotherstillgaveherstatement,subscribedbyAdministrativeOfficerAlexFrancisco.23
ShealsosurrenderedtwocellularphonesownedbyBarbieandabaseballcapownedbyChavez.24

The next day, Peamante was again summoned by SPO3 Casimiro to identify from a lineup the person he saw
leaving Barbies house/parlor that early morning of October 28, 2006.25 Peamante immediately pointed to and
identifiedChavezandthereafterexecutedhiswrittenstatement.26Therewerenoissuesraisedinrelationtotheline
up.

On the other hand, Chavez explained that he was athome on October 27, 2006, exchanging text messages
withBarbieonwhethertheycouldtalkregardingtheirmisunderstanding.27AccordingtoChavez,Barbiesuspected
that he was having a relationship with Barbies boyfriend, Maki.28 When Barbie did not reply to his text message,
ChavezdecidedtogotoBarbieshouseataround1:00a.m.ofOctober28,2006.29Barbieallowedhimtoenterthe
house,andhewenthomeafter.30

On August 19, 2011, the trial court31 found Chavez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with
homicide:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds accused MARK JASON CHAVEZ y BITANCOR @ NOY
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicideand hereby sentences him to suffer the
penaltyofreclusionperpetuawithouteligibilityforparole.

Further,heisorderedtopaytotheheirsofthevictim,ElmerDuqueyOrosthesumof75,000.00asdeathindemnity
andanotherP75,000formoraldamages.

SOORDERED.32

On February 27, 2013, the Court of Appeals33 affirmed the trial courts decision.34 Chavez then filed a notice of
appealpursuanttoRule124,Section13(c)oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure,asamended,elevatingthe
casewiththiscourt.35

This court notified the parties tosimultaneously submit supplemental briefs if they so desire. Both parties filed
manifestationsthattheywouldmerelyadopttheirbriefsbeforetheCourtofAppeals.36

In his brief, Chavez raised presumption of innocence, considering that the trial court "overlooked and misapplied
somefactsofsubstancethatcouldhavealtereditsverdict."37Hearguedthatsincetheprosecutionreliedonpurely
circumstantialevidence,convictionmustrestonamoralcertaintyofguiltonthepartofChavez.38Inthiscase,even
ifPeamantesawhimleavingBarbieshouse,PeamantedidnotspecifywhetherChavezwasactingsuspiciously
atthattime.39
As regards his mothers statement,Chavez argued its inadmissibility as evidence since his mother was not
presentedbeforethecourttogivethedefenseanopportunityforcrossexamination.40Headdedthataffidavitsare
generallyrejectedashearsayunlesstheaffiantappearsbeforethecourtandtestifiesonit.41

ChavezarguedthatbasedonDr.Salensfindings,Barbieswoundswerecausedbytwosharpbladedinstruments,
thus,itwaspossiblethatthereweretwoassailants.42Itwasalsopossiblethattheassailantscommittedthecrime
afterChavezhadleftBarbieshouse.43Giventhatmanypossibleexplanationsfitthefacts,thatwhichisconsistent
withtheinnocenceofChavezshouldbefavored.44

On the other hand, plaintiffappellee argued that direct evidence is not indispensable when the prosecution
isestablishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt of Chavez.45 The circumstantial evidence presented before the trial
courtlaiddownanunbrokenchainofeventsleadingtonootherconclusionthanChavezsactsofkillingandrobbing
Barbie.46

On the argument made by Chavez that his mothers statement was inadmissible as hearsay, plaintiffappellee
explained that the trial court did not rely on, and did not even refer to, any of the statements made by Chavezs
mother.47

Finally,insofarasChavezssubmissionthatDr.Salentestifiedonthepossibilitythatthereweretwoassailants,Dr.
Salenequallytestifiedonthepossibilitythattherewasonlyone.48ThesoleissuenowbeforeusiswhetherChavez
isguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofrobberywithhomicide.

Wereversethedecisionsofthelowercourts,butfindChavezguiltyofthecrimeofhomicide.

ChavezwasfoundguiltyofthespecialcomplexcrimeofrobberywithhomicideundertheRevisedPenalCode:

Art.294.RobberywithviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersonsPenalties.Anypersonguiltyofrobberywiththe
useofviolenceagainstorintimidationofanypersonshallsuffer:

1)Thepenaltyofreclusionperpetuatodeath,whenbyreasonoronoccasionoftherobbery,thecrimeofhomicide
shallhavebeencommitted....49

Chavez invokes his constitutional right to be presumed innocent, especially since the prosecutions evidence is
purelycircumstantialandaconvictionmuststandonamoralcertaintyofguilt.50

The Rules of Court expressly provides that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to establish guilt beyond
reasonabledoubtfortheconvictionofanaccused:

SEC.4.Circumstantialevidence,whensufficient.Circumstantialevidenceissufficientforconvictionif:

(a)Thereismorethanonecircumstance

(b)Thefactsfromwhichtheinferencesarederivedareprovenand

(c)Thecombinationofallthecircumstancesissuchastoproduceaconvictionbeyondreasonabledoubt.51

Thelowercourtsfoundthatthecircumstantialevidencelaiddownbytheprosecutionledtonootherconclusionthan
thecommissionbyChavezofthecrimecharged:

Intheinstantcase,whilethereisnodirectevidenceshowingthattheaccusedrobbedandfatallystabbedthevictim
to death, nonetheless, the Court believes that the following circumstances form a solid and unbroken chain of
eventsthatleadstotheconclusion,beyondreasonabledoubt,thataccusedMarkJasonChavezyBitancor@Noy
committedthecrimecharged,vi[z]:first,ithasbeendulyestablished,astheaccusedhimselfadmits,thathewentto
theparlorofthevictimataround1:00oclockinthemorningof28October2006andtheaccusedwasallowedby
the victim to get inside his parlor as it serves as his residence too second, the victims two (2) units of cellular
phones (one red Nokia with model 3310 and the other one is a black Motorola) without sim cards and batteries,
whichweredeclaredaspartofthemissingpersonalbelongingsofthevictim,werehandledtoSPO3SteveCasimiro
bythemotheroftheaccused,AnjanetteC.Tobiason05November2006whentheaccusedvoluntarilysurrendered,
accompaniedbyhismother,atthepolicestation:third,on28October2006atabout2:45oclockinthemorning,
witnessAngeloPeamante,whoarrivedfromhiswork,sawapersonholdingand/orcarryingsomethingandabout
togetoutofthedoorofthehouseofthevictimlocatedat1325G.TuazonStreet,Sampaloc,Manila,andtryingto
closethedoorbutthesaidpersonwasnotabletosuccessfullydoso.Helaterpositivelyidentifiedthesaidpersonat
thepolicestationasMARKJASONCHAVEZyBITANCOR@NOY,theaccusedhereinandfinally,thetimewhen
the accused decided on 27 October 2006 to patch up things with the victim and the circumstances (Dr. Salens
testimonythatthebodyofthevictimwasdeadformoreorlesstwelve(12)hours)whenthelatterwasdiscovered
fatallykilledon28October2006isnotacoincidence.
Theprosecutionhasequallyestablished,basedonthesamecircumstantialevidence,thattheaccusedhadindeed
killedthevictim.52

Factualfindingsbythetrialcourtonitsappreciationofevidencepresentedbytheparties,andevenitsconclusions
derivedfromthefindings,aregenerallygivengreatrespectandconclusiveeffectbythiscourt,moresowhenthese
factualfindingsareaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals.53

Nevertheless, this court has held that "[w]hat is imperative and essential for a conviction for the crime of robbery
with homicide is for the prosecution to establish the offenders intent to take personal property before the killing,
regardless of the time when the homicide is actually carried out."54 In cases when the prosecution failed to
conclusivelyprovethathomicidewascommittedforthepurposeofrobbingthevictim,noaccusedcanbeconvicted
ofrobberywithhomicide.55

The circumstantial evidence relied on by the lower courts, as quoted previously, do not satisfactorily establish an
originalcriminaldesignbyChaveztocommitrobbery.

Atmost,theintenttotakepersonalpropertywasmentionedbyChavezsmotherinherstatementasfollows:

NasiNoynaakinganakaynagtapatsaakintungkolsakanyangkinalamansapagkamatayniBarbieatkasabay
ang pagbigay sa akin ng dalawang (2) piraso ng cellular phones na pag/aari [sic] ni Barbie na kanyang kinuha
pagka/tapos[sic]nginsidente.

NaipinagtapatdinsaakinniNoynaangginamitnapanaksaknaisangkutsilyonagamitnaminsabahayayinihulog
niyasamanholesatapatngamingbahaymataposanginsidente.

AtangisangpirasongkwintasnakinuharinnyamulakayBarbieaynaisanlaniyasaisangsanglaansaQuezon
City.

Naangsuotniyangtsinelasaynag/iwan[sic]ngbakassapinangyarihannginsidente.Atsyarinangnakasugatsa
kanyangsarilingkamayng[sic]maganapanginsidente.

Na sinabi niya sa akin na wala siyang intensyon na patayin [sic] si Barbie kundi ay pagnakawan lamang.56
(Emphasissupplied)

However, this statement is considered as hearsay, with no evidentiary value, since Chavezs mother was never
presentedasawitnessduringtrialtotestifyonherstatement.57

Anoriginalcriminaldesigntotakepersonalpropertyisalsoinconsistentwiththeinflictionofnolessthan21stab
woundsinvariouspartsofBarbiesbody.58

Thenumberofstabwoundsinflictedonavictimhasbeenusedbythiscourtinitsdeterminationofthenatureand
circumstancesofthecrimecommitted.

Thismayshowanintentiontoensurethedeathofthevictim.Inacasewherethevictimsustainedatotalof36stab
woundsinhisfrontandback,thiscourtnotedthat"thisnumberofstabwoundsinflictedonthevictimisastrong
indicationthatappellantsmadesureofthesuccessoftheirefforttokillthevictimwithoutrisktothemselves."59

This court has also looked into the number and gravity of the wounds sustained by the victim as indicative ofthe
accusedsintentiontokillthevictimandnotmerelytodefendhimselforothers.60

Inthespecialcomplexcrimeofrobberywithhomicide,homicideiscommittedinorder"(a)tofacilitatetherobberyor
the escape of the culprit (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot (c) to prevent discovery of the
commissionoftherobberyor(d)toeliminatewitnessestothecommissionofthecrime."6121stabwoundswould
beoverkillforthesepurposes.ThesheernumberofstabwoundsinflictedonBarbiemakesitdifficulttoconcludean
originalcriminalintentofmerelytakingBarbiespersonalproperty.

InPeoplev.Sanchez,62thiscourtfoundaccusedappellantliablefortheseparatecrimesofhomicideandtheftfor
failureoftheprosecutiontoconclusivelyprovethathomicidewascommittedforthepurposeofrobbingthevictim:

But from the record of this case, we find that the prosecution palpably failed to substantiate its allegations of the
presenceofcriminaldesigntocommitrobbery,independentoftheintenttocommithomicide.Thereisnoevidence
showing that the death of the victim occurred by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The prosecution was
silentonaccusedappellantsprimarycriminalintent.Didheintendtokillthevictiminordertostealthecashandthe
necklace? Or did he intend only to kill the victim, the taking of the latters personal property being merely an
afterthought?Wherethehomicideisnotconclusivelyshowntohavebeencommittedforthepurposeofrobbingthe
victim,orwheretherobberywasnotprovenatall,therecanbenoconvictionforroboconhomicidio.63

II
ThiscourtfindsthattheprosecutionprovedbeyondreasonabledoubttheguiltofChavezfortheseparatecrimeof
homicide.

First,thealibiofChavezstillplaceshimatthesceneofthecrimethatearlymorningofOctober28,2006.

The victim, Elmer Duque, went by the nickname, Barbie, and he had a boyfriend named Maki. Nevertheless,
ChavezdescribedhisfriendshipwithBarbietobe"[w]erelikebrothers."64Hetestifiedduringcrossexaminationthat
hewasafrequentvisitoratBarbiesparlorthathecannotrecallhowmanytimeshehadbeenthere.65Thisspeaks
ofacloserelationshipbetweenChavezandBarbie.

Chavez testified that he went to Barbies house at 1:00 in the morning of October 28, 2006 to settle his
misunderstandingwithBarbiewhosuspectedhimofhavingarelationshipwithBarbiesboyfriend:

MARKJASONCHAVEZwasafriendtothevictim,Barbie,foralmostthree(3)yearsandthetwo(2)treatedeach
otherlikebrothers.Thelatter,however,suspectedMarkJasonofhavingarelationshipwithMakiAover,Barbies
boyfriendforsix(6)months,whichresultedinamisunderstandingbetweenthem.MarkJasontriedtopatchthings
upwithBarbiesothruatextmessagehesentontheeveningof27October2006,heaskediftheycouldtalk.When
Barbiedidnotreply,hedecidedtovisithimathisparlorataround1:00oclockinthemorning.Barbielethiminand
theytriedtotalkaboutthesituationbetweenthem.Theirrift,however,wasnotfixedsohedecidedtogohome.Later
on,helearnedthatBarbiewasalreadydead.66

This court has considered motive as one of the factors in determining the presence of an intent to kill,67 and a
confrontationwiththevictimimmediatelypriortothevictimsdeathhasbeenconsideredascircumstantialevidence
forhomicide.68

Second,thenumberofstabwoundsinflictedonBarbiestrengthensanintentiontokillandensureshisdeath.The
prosecution proved that there was a total of 22 stab wounds found indifferent parts of Barbies body and that a
kitchenknifewasfoundinamanholenearChavezshouseatNo.536,5thStreet,SanBeda,SanMiguel,Manila.69

TheCourtofAppealsrecitationoffactsquotedthestatementofChavezsmother.Thisprovides,amongothers,her
sonsconfessionforstabbingBarbieandthrowingtheknifeusedinamanholeneartheirhouse:

NasiNoynaakinganakaynagtapatsaakintungkolsakanyangkinalamansapagkamatayniBarbieatkasabay
ang pagbigay sa akin ng dalawang (2) piraso ng cellular phones na pag/aari [sic] ni Barbie na kanyang kinuha
pagka/tapos[sic]nginsidente.

Na ipinagtapat din sa akin ni Noy na ang ginamit na panaksak na isang kutsilyo na gamit namin sa bahay ay
inihulogniyasamanholesatapatngamingbahaymataposanginsidente.

AtangisangpirasongkwintasnakinuharinnyamulakayBarbieaynaisanlaniyasaisangsanglaansaQuezon
City.

Naangsuotniyangtsinelasaynag/iwan[sic]ngbakassapinangyarihannginsidente.Atsyarinangnakasugatsa
kanyangsarilingkamayng[sic]maganapanginsidente.

Na sinabi niya sa akin na wala siyang intensyon na patayin [sic] si Barbie kundi ay pagnakawan lamang.70
(Emphasissupplied)

Even if this statement was not taken into account for being hearsay, further investigation conducted still led tothe
unearthingofthekitchenknifewithahairstrandfromamanholenearChavezshouse.71

Third, no reason exists to disturb the lower courts factual findings giving credence to 1) Peamantes positive
identificationofChavezasthepersonleavingBarbieshousethatearlymorningofOctober28,200672and2)the
medicolegals testimony establishing Barbies time of death as 12 hours prior to autopsy at 1:00 p.m., thus,
narrowingthetimeofdeathtoapproximately1:00a.m.ofthesameday,October28,2006.73

AllthesecircumstancestakentogetherestablishChavezsguiltbeyondreasonabledoubtforthecrimeofhomicide.

III

There is a disputable presumption that "a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongfulactisthetakerandthedoerofthewholeactotherwise,thatthingwhichapersonpossesses,orexercises
actsofownershipover,areownedbyhim."74Thus,whenapersonhaspossessionofastolenproperty,hecanbe
disputablypresumedastheauthorofthetheft.75

BarbiesmissingcellularphoneswereturnedovertothepolicebyChavezsmother,andthiswasneverdeniedby
thedefense.76Chavezfailedtoexplainhispossessionofthesecellularphones.77TheCourtofAppealsdiscussed
that"acellularphonehasbecomeanecessaryaccessory,nopersonwouldpartwiththesameforalongperiodof
time, especially in this case as it involves an expensive cellular phone unit, as testified by Barbies kababayan,
witnessRaymondSeno[f]a."78

However,withChavezandBarbiescloserelationshiphavingbeenestablished,thereisstillapossibilitythatthese
cellphoneswerelenttoChavezbyBarbie.

The integrity of these cellphones was also compromised when SPO3 Casimiro testified during crossexamination
thatthepolicemadenomarkingsonthecellphones,andtheirSIMcardswereremoved.

Q:Butyoudidnotplaceanymarkingonthecellphone,Mr.witness?

A:No,sir.

Atty.Villanueva:Nofurtherquestions,YourHonor.

Court:Whenyoureceivedtheitems,therewerenomarkingsalso?

Witness:No,YourHonor.

Court:Thecellularphones,weretheycompletewiththesimcardsandthebatteries?

A:Theresnosimcard,YourHonor.

QNosimcardandbatteries?

AYes,YourHonor.

Q:NomarkingswhenyoureceivedandyoudidnotplacemarkingswhenthesewereturnedovertothePublic
Prosecutor,nomarkings?

A:Nomarkings,YourHonor.79

Theothermissingitemswerenolongerfound,andnoevidencewaspresentedtoconcludethattheseweretakenby
Chavez. The statement of Chavezs mother mentioned that her son pawned one of Barbies necklaces ["At ang
isangpirasongkwintasnakinuharinnyamulakayBarbieaynaisanlaniyasaisangsanglaansaQuezonCity"80],
but,asearlierdiscussed,thisstatementismerehearsay.

Inanycase,thepenaltyforthecrimeoftheftisbasedonthevalueofthestolenitems.81Thelowercourtmadeno
factualfindingsonthevalueofthemissingitemsenumeratedintheinformationoneNokiacellphoneunit,one
Motorolacellphoneunit,sixpiecesladiesring,twopiecesnecklace,andonebracelet.

At most, prosecution witness Raymund Senofa, a town mate of Barbie, testified that he could not remember the
modeloftheMotorolafliptypecellphonehesawusedbyBarbiebutthatheknewitwasworth19,000.00moreor
less.82ThisamountstohearsayashehasnopersonalknowledgeonhowBarbieacquiredthecellphoneorforhow
much.

ThesecircumstancescreatereasonabledoubtontheallegationthatChavezstolethemissingpersonalpropertiesof
Barbie.

Itiscontrarytohumannatureforamothertovoluntarilysurrenderherownsonandconfessthathersoncommitted
aheinouscrime.

Chavezwas22yearsold,nolongeraminor,whenhevoluntarilywenttothepolicestationonNovember5,2006for
investigation,83andhismotheraccompaniedhim.SPO3CasimirotestifiedthatthereasonshesurrenderedChavez
wasbecause"shewantedtohelpherson"84and"perhapstheaccusedfeltthat[theinvestigatingpolice]aregetting
nearertohim."85Nevertheless,duringcrossexamination,SPO3Casimirotestified:

Q:Regardingthemother,Mr.witness,didIgetyourightthatwhenthemotherbroughtherson,accordingtoyou
shetriedtohelpherson,isthatcorrect?

A:ThatisthewordIremember,sir.

Q:Ofcourse,saidhelpyoudonotknowexactlywhatshemeantbythat?

A:Yes,sir.

Q:Itcouldmeanthatsheistryingtohelphersontobeclearedfromthisallegedcrime,Mr.witness?

A:Maybe,sir.86
Chavezsmother"turnedover(2)unitsofCellularphonesandaverredthathersonMarkJasontoldherthatsaid
cellphonesbelong[ed]tovictimBarbie...[that]NOYwaswoundedintheincidentandthatthefatalweaponwasput
in a manhole infront[sic] of their residence."87 The records are silent on whether Chavez objected to his mothers
statements.Therecordsalsodonotshowwhythepoliceproceededtogethismotherstestimonyasopposedto
gettingChavezstestimonyonhisvoluntarysurrender.

Atmost,thelowercourtfoundthatChavezsmotherwasinformedbytheinvestigatingofficeratthepolicestationof
theconsequencesinexecutingawrittenstatementwithouttheassistanceofalawyer.88Sheproceededtogiveher
statement dated November 7, 2006 on her sons confession of the crime despite the warning.89 SPO3 Casimiro
testifiedduringhiscrossexamination:

Q:DoyourememberifanybodyassistedthisAnjanetteTobiaswhensheexecutedthisAffidavityoumentioned?

A:Shewaswithsomeneighbors.

Atty.Villanueva

Q:Howaboutalawyer,Mr.Witness?

A:None,sir.

Q:So,inotherwords,nolawyerinformedheroftheconsequenceofheractofexecutinganAffidavit?

A:Wesomehowinformedherofwhatwillbetheconsequencesofthatstatement,sir.

Q:So,youandyourpoliceofficercolleagueatthetime?

A:Yes,sir.90

Thebookingsheetandarrestreportstatesthat"when[theaccusedwas]appraised[sic]ofhisconstitutionalrights
andnatureofchargesimputedagainsthim,accusedoptedtoremainsilent."91Thisbookingsheetandarrestreport
isalsodatedNovember7,2006,ortwodaysafterChavez,accompaniedbyhismother,hadvoluntarilygonetothe
policestation.

TherighttocounseluponbeingquestionedforthecommissionofacrimeispartoftheMirandarights,whichrequire
that:

...(a)anypersonundercustodialinvestigationhastherighttoremainsilent(b)anythinghesayscanandwillbe
usedagainsthiminacourtoflaw(c)hehastherighttotalktoanattorneybeforebeingquestionedandtohavehis
counsel present when being questioned and (d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any
questioningifhesodesires.92

TheMirandarightswereincorporatedinourConstitutionbutweremodifiedtoincludethestatementthatanywaiver
oftherighttocounselmustbemade"inwritingandinthepresenceofcounsel."93

Theinvocationoftheserightsappliesduringcustodialinvestigation,whichbegins"whenthepoliceinvestigationis
nolongerageneralinquiryintoanunsolvedcrimebuthasbeguntofocusonaparticularsuspecttakenintocustody
bythepolicewhostartstheinterrogationandpropoundsquestionstothepersontoelicitincriminatingstatements."94

ItmayappearthattheMirandarightsonlyapplywhenoneis"takenintocustodybythepolice,"suchasduringan
arrest.Theserightsareintendedtoprotectordinarycitizensfromthepressuresofacustodialsetting:

ThepurposesofthesafeguardsprescribedbyMirandaaretoensurethatthepolicedonotcoerceortrickcaptive
suspectsintoconfessing,torelievethe"inherentlycompellingpressures""generatedbythecustodialsettingitself,"
"which work to undermine the individuals will to resist," and as much as possible to free courts from the task of
scrutinizingindividualcasestotrytodetermine,afterthefact,whetherparticularconfessionswerevoluntary.Those
purposesareimplicatedasmuchbyincustodyquestioningofpersonssuspectedofmisdemeanoursastheyareby
questioningofpersonssuspectedoffelonies.95(Emphasissupplied)

Republic Act No. 743896 expanded the definition of custodial investigation to "include the practice ofissuing an
invitationtoapersonwhoisinvestigatedinconnectionwithanoffenseheissuspectedtohavecommitted,without
prejudicetotheliabilityoftheinvitingofficerforanyviolationoflaw."97

ThismeansthateventhosewhovoluntarilysurrenderedbeforeapoliceofficermustbeapprisedoftheirMiranda
rights.Forone,thesamepressuresofacustodialsettingexistinthisscenario.Chavezisalsobeingquestionedby
aninvestigatingofficerinapolicestation.Asanadditionalpressure,hemayhavebeencompelledtosurrenderby
hismotherwhoaccompaniedhimtothepolicestation.
Thiscourt,thus,findsthatthecircumstantialevidencesufficientlyprovesbeyondreasonabledoubtthatChavezis
guiltyofthecrimeofhomicide,andnotthespecialcomplexcrimeofrobberywithhomicide.

OntheserviceofChavezssentence,thetrialcourtissuedtheorderdatedNovember14,2006inthat"asprayed
for,thesaidpoliceofficerisherebyorderedtoimmediatelycommitaccused,MarkJasonChavezyBitancor@Noy
to the Manila City Jail and shall be detained thereat pending trial of this case and/or untilfurther orders from this
court."98 The order of commitment dated September 28, 2011 was issued after his trial court conviction in the
decisiondatedAugust19,2011.

Chavez has been under preventive detention since November 14, 2006, during the pendency of the trial. This 1wphi1

period may be credited in the service of his sentence pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended:

ART.29.Periodofpreventiveimprisonmentdeductedfromtermofimprisonment.Offendersoraccusedwhohave
undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of
liberty,withthefulltimeduringwhichtheyhaveundergonepreventiveimprisonmentifthedetentionprisoneragrees
voluntarilyinwritingafterbeinginformedoftheeffectsthereofandwiththeassistanceofcounseltoabidebythe
samedisciplinaryrulesimposeduponconvictedprisoners,exceptinthefollowingcases:

1.Whentheyarerecidivists,orhavebeenconvictedpreviouslytwiceormoretimesofanycrimeand

2.Whenuponbeingsummonedfortheexecutionoftheirsentencetheyhavefailedtosurrendervoluntarily.

Ifthedetentionprisonerdoesnotagreetoabidebythesamedisciplinaryrulesimposeduponconvictedprisoners,
heshalldosoinwritingwiththeassistanceofacounselandshallbecreditedintheserviceofhissentencewith
fourfifthsofthetimeduringwhichhehasundergonepreventiveimprisonment.

Creditforpreventiveimprisonmentforthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuashallbedeductedfromthirty(30)years.

Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to the possible maximum
imprisonmentoftheoffensechargedtowhichhemaybesentencedandhiscaseisnotyetterminated,heshallbe
released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the
same is under review. Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release under this
paragraphshallbetheactualperiodofdetentionwithgoodconducttimeallowance:Provided,however,Thatifthe
accusedisabsentwithoutjustifiablecauseatanystageofthetrial,thecourtmaymotuproprioordertherearrestof
the accused: Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous
crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be
sentencedisdestierro,heshallbereleasedafterthirty(30)daysofpreventiveimprisonment.99

Finally,thiscourtlamentsthatobjectevidenceretrievedfromthesceneofthecrimewerenotproperlyhandled,and
no results coming from the forensic examinations were presented to the court. There was no examination of the
fingerprints found on the kitchen knife retrieved from the manhole near the house of Chavez.100 There were no
resultsoftheDNAexaminationdoneonthehairstrandsfoundwiththeknifeandthoseintheclutchesofthevictim.
NeitherwasthereacomparisonmadebetweenthesestrandsofhairandChavezs.Therewasnoreportregarding
any finding of traces of blood on the kitchen knife recovered, and no matching with the blood of the victim or
Chavezs.Theresultsofthiscasewouldhavebeenrenderedwithmoreconfidenceatthetrialcourtlevelhadall
thesebeendone.Inmanycases,eyewitnesstestimonymaynotbeasreliableorwouldhavebeenbeliedhad
objectevidencebeenproperlyhandledandpresented.

Wedealwiththelifeofapersonhere.Everyoneslifewhetheritbethevictimsortheaccusedsisvaluable.
TheConstitutionandourlawsholdtheselivesinhighesteem.Therefore,investigationssuchastheseshouldhave
beenattendedwithgreaterprofessionalismandmorededicatedattentiontodetailbyourlawenforcers.Thequality
of every conviction depends on the evidence gathered, analyzed, and presented before the courts. The publics
confidence on our criminal justice system depends on the quality of the convictions we promulgate against the
accused.Allthosewhoparticipateinourcriminaljusticesystemshouldrealizethisandtakethistoheart.

WHEREFORE,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisMODIFIED.AccusedappellantMarkJasonChavezyBitancoralias
"Noy" is hereby declared GUILTYbeyond reasonable doubt of the separate and distinct crime of HOMICIDE.
Inasmuch as the commission of the crime was not attended by any aggravating or mitigating circumstances,
accusedappellant Chavez is hereby SENTENCEDto suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years
andone(1)dayofprisionmayor,asminimum,toseventeen(17)yearsandfour(4)monthsofreclusiontemporal,
asmaximum.

AccusedappellantChavez'speriodofdetentionshallbedeductedifconsistentwithArticle29oftheRevisedPenal
Code.
SOORDERED.

MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

ARTUROD.BRION MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
ActingChiefJustice

Footnotes
1
358Phil.527,537(1998)[PerJ.Quisumbing,FirstDivision].
2
Rollo,pp.3and31.
3
CArollo,p.32.
4
Rollo,p.4CArollo,p.33.
5
Id.
6
CArollo,p.33.
7
Rollo,p.4CArollo,p.33.
8
Id.
9
CArollo,p.33.
10
Rollo,p.4.
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
Rollo,p.5CArollo,p.33.
16
Rollo,p.5.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Rollo,p.6CArollo,p.33.
20
Rollo,p.5.CArollo,pp.3334.
21
RTCrecords,p.4.
22
Rollo,p.6CArollo,p.34.
23
Id.
24
Rollo,p.7CArollo,p.34.
25
Id.
26
Id.
27
Rollo,p.9CArollo,p.34.
28
Id.
29
Id.
30
Id.
31
CA rollo, pp. 3148. The decision was penned by Presiding Judge Hon. Rosalyn D. MislosLoja of the
RegionalTrialCourtBranch41,Manila.
32
Id.at4748.
33
Id.at214.CourtofAppealsEighth(8th)Division,pennedbyAssociateJusticeAgnesReyesCarpioand
concurredinbyAssociateJusticesRosalindaAsuncionVicenteandPriscillaJ.BaltazarPadilla.
34
Rollo,p.13.
35
Id.at15.
36
Id.at24and27.
37
CArollo,p.71.
38
Id.
39
Id.
40
Id.at72.
41
Id.
42
Id.at7273.
43
Id.at73.
44
Id.
45
Id.at115,citingPeoplev.Labagala,G.R.No.184603,August2,2010,626SCRA267[PerJ.Perez,First
Division].
46
Id.at115116.
47
Id.at116117.
48
Id.at117118.
49
REV.PEN.CODE,art.294.
50
CArollo,p.71.
51
RULESOFCOURT,Rule133,sec.4.SeePeoplev.Lamsenetal.,G.R.No.198338,February20,2013,
691SCRA498,507[PerJ.PerlasBernabe,SecondDivision].
52
Rollo,p.12CArollo,pp.4546.
53
Peoplev.Musa,609Phil.396,410(2009)[PerJ.Brion,SecondDivision].
54
Peoplev.Sanchez,358Phil.527,537(1998)[PerJ.Quisumbing,FirstDivision].
55
Id. at 538, citing People v. Salazar, 342 Phil. 745, 765 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division], citing
U.S.v.Baguiao,4Phil.110,112(1905)[PerJ.Torres,EnBanc].
56
Rollo,pp.67.
57
Peoplev.Sorrel,343Phil.890,898(1997)[PerJ.Vitug,FirstDivision],citingOsiasv.CourtofAppeals,
326Phil.107(1996)[PerJ.Hermosisima,Jr.,EnBanc],citingPeoplev.Santos,224Phil.129(1985)[PerJ.
Escolin,EnBanc]Peoplev.Lavarias,132Phil.766(1968)[PerJ.Fernando,EnBanc]Peoplev.Carlos,47
Phil.626(1925)[PerJ.Ostrand,EnBanc].
58
Rollo,p.5.
59
Peoplev.Paragua,326Phil.923,930(1996)[PerJ.Hermosisima,Jr.,FirstDivision].
60
SeePeoplev.Ramos,G.R.No.190340,July24,2013,702SCRA204,216[PerJ.DelCastillo,Second
Division], citing People v. Pateo, G.R. No. 156786, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 609, 617 [Per J. Ynares
Santiago,FirstDivision]Peoplev.Bracia,G.R.No.174477,October2,2009,602SCRA351,370371[Per.
J.Brion,SecondDivision]Casitasv.People,466Phil.861,870(2004)[PerJ.Callejo,Sr.,SecondDivision].
61
People v. Quemeggen, 611 Phil. 487 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division]. This was cited in the
prosecutionsmemorandumwiththetrialcourt,RTCrecords,p.348.
62
358Phil.527(1998)[PerJ.Quisumbing,FirstDivision].
63
Id.at538.
64
TSN,February14,2011,p.6.
65
TSN,March7,2011,p.9.
66
Briefforaccusedappellant,CArollo,pp.6970,citingTSN,February14,2011,pp.49.
67
SeeSerranov.People,G.R.No.175023,July5,2010[PerJ.Brion,ThirdDivision],citingRiverav.People,
515Phil.824,832(2006)[PerJ.Callejo,Sr.,FirstDivision],citingPeoplev.Delim,444Phil.430,450(2003)
[PerJ.Callejo,Sr.,EnBanc].
68
SeePeoplev.Sanchez,358Phil.527,535(1998)[PerJ.Quisumbing,FirstDivision].
69
Rollo,pp.5and7.
70
Id.at67.
71
Id.at7.
72
RTCrecords,p.46,decision.
73
Rollo,p.10.
74
REV.RULESONEVIDENCE,rule131,sec.2(j).
75
SeeLozanov.People,G.R.165582,July9,2010,624SCRA596,603[PerJ.Mendoza,ThirdDivision].
76
Rollo,p.10.
77
Id.at10.
78
Id.at1011.
79
TSN,June17,2009,pp.2324.
80
Rollo,p.5.
81
SeeREV.PENALCODE,art.309.
82
RTCrecords,p.42.
83
TSN,February14,2011,p.9.
 84
TSN,June17,2009,p.13.
85
Id.
86
Id.at21.
87
RTCrecords,p.9.
88
Rollo,p.6.
89
Id.
90
TSN,November5,2008,pp.1920.
91
RTCrecords,p.20.
92
Peoplev.Mojello,468Phil.944,952953(2004)[PerJ.YnaresSantiago,EnBanc].
93
CONST.,art.III,sec.12Peoplev.Mojello,468Phil.944,953(2004)[PerJ.YnaresSantiago,EnBanc].
94
People v. Lara, G.R. No. 199877, August 13, 2012, 678 SCRA 332, 348 [Per J. Reyes, Second
Division],citingPeoplev.Amestuzo,413Phil.500,508509(2001)[PerJ.Kapunan,FirstDivision].
95
Luzv.People,G.R.No.197788,February29,2012,667SCRA421,433434[PerC.J.Sereno,Second
Division],citingBerkemerv.McCarty,468U.S.420(1984).
96
Rep.ActNo.7438(1992),AnActDefiningCertainRightsofPersonArrested,DetainedorUnderCustodial
Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining, and Investigating Officers, and Providing
PenaltiesforViolationsThereof.
97
Rep.ActNo.7438(1992),sec.2.
98
RTCrecords,p.23.
99
REV.PENALCODE,sec.29,asamendedbyRep.ActNo.10592(2013).
100
TSN,June17,2009,pp.1011.SPO3Casimirotestifiedthathe,aswellasPoliceInspectorIshmaelDela
Cruzwhoturnedovertheknifetohim,heldtheknifewiththeirbarehands.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation