PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.ANACLETO Q.

OLVIS,
G.R. No. 71092
September 30, 1987

Forced re-enactments, like uncounselled and coerced confessions come within

the ban against self- incrimination. Evidence based on such re-enactment is a
violation of the Constitution and hence, incompetent evidence. Here, accused is not
merely required to exhibit some physical characteristics; by and large, he is likewise
made to admit criminal responsibility against his will. It is a police procedure just as
condemnable as an uncounselled confession.
The lack of counsel makes statement in contemplation of law, 'involuntary' even
if it were otherwise voluntary.

FACTS:

On September 9, 1975, authorities from the Integrated National Police station of

Barrio Polanco, in Zamboanga del Norte, received a report that a certain Deosdedit
Bagon is missing. Bagon had been in fact missing since two days before. He was last
seen by his wife in the afternoon of September 7, 1975, on his way home to Sitio
Sebaca where they resided.

A search party was conducted by the authorities to mount an inquiry. As a matter of

police procedure, the team headed off to Sitio Sebaca to question possible
witnesses. There, they chanced upon an unnamed volunteer, who informed them
that Deosdedit Bagon was last seen together with Dominador Sorela, one of the
accused herein.

The authorities then thereafter picked up Sorela for interrogation. Sorela bore several
scratches on his face, neck and arms when the police found him. According to him,
he sustained those wounds while clearing his ricefield. Apparently unconvinced, the
police had Sorela take them to the ricefield where he sustained his injuries. But half
way there, Sorela illegally broke down, and, in what would apparently crack the case
for the police, admitted having participated in the killing of the missing Bagon. Sorela
allegedly confessed having been with Deosdedit Bagon, a friend of his, in the
evening of September 7, 1976 in Sitio Sebaca. They were met by Romulo Villarojo
and Leonardo Cademas, Sorela's co-accused herein and likewise friends of the
deceased, who led them to a secluded place in the ricefields.

According to their confessions Villarojo attacked Bagon with a bolo, hacking him at
several parts of the body until he, Bagon, was dead. Moments later, Sorela fled,
running into thick cogon grasses where he suffered facial and bodily scratches.

The police soon picked up Villarojo and Cademas. Together with Sorela, they were
turned over to the custody of Captain Encabo the Polanco Station Commander.

The police thereafter made the three re-enact the crime. Sorela was directed to lead
them to the grounds where Discredit Bagon was supposed to have been buried. But
it was Villarojo who escorted them to a watery spot somewhere in the ricefields,
where the sack-covered, decomposing cadaver of Bagon lay in a shallow grave.

The necropsy report prepared by the provincial health officer disclosed that the
deceased suffered twelve stab and hack wounds, six of which were determined to be
fatal.
In the re-enactment, the suspects, the three accused herein, demonstrated how the
victim was boloed to death. A photograph, shows the appellant Villarojo in the
posture of raising a bolo as if to strike another, while Solero and Cademas look on.
Another photograph, portrays Villarojo in the act of concealing the murder weapon
behind a banana tree, apparently after having done the victim in.

Initial findings of investigators disclosed that the threesome of Solero, Villarojo, and
Cademas executed Discredit Bagon on orders of Anacleto Olvis, then Polanco
municipal mayor, for a reward of P3,000.00 each.

While in custody, the three executed five separate written confessions each. The first
confessions were taken on September 9, 1975 in the local Philippine Constabulary
headquarters. The second were made before the Polanco police. On September 18,
1975, the three accused reiterated the same confessions before the National Bureau
of Investigation Dipolog City sub-office. On September 21, 1975 and September 25,
1975, they executed two confessions more, again before the Philippine Constabulary
and the police of Polanco.

In their confessions of September 9, 1975, September 14, 1975, September 21,

1975, and September 25, 1975, the said accused again pointed to the then accused
Anacleto Olvis as principal by inducement, who allegedly promised them a reward of
P3,000.00 each.

In their confessions of September 18, 1975, sworn before agents of the National
Bureau of Investigation, however, they categorically denied Olvis' involvement in the
knowing. We note that the three were transported to the Dipolog City NBI sub-office
following a request on September 10, 1975 by Mrs. Diolinda O. Adaro daughter of
Olvis, and upon complaint by her of harassment against her father by his supposed
political enemies.

The court a quo rendered separate verdicts on the three accused on the one hand,
and Anacleto Olvis on the other. However Olvis was acquitted, while the three were
all sentenced to die for the crime of murder.

In acquitting Olvis, the trial court rejected the three accused's earlier confessions
pointing to him as the mastermind, and denied the admissibility thereof insofar as far
as he was concerned. It rejected claims of witnesses that the three accused-
appellants would carry out Olvis' alleged order to kill Bagon upon an offer of a reward
when in fact no money changed hands.

With the acquittal of Olvis, however the remaining accused-appellants subsequently

repudiated their alleged confessions in open court despite prior confessions, and now
were alleging that there were threats by the Polanco investigators of physical harm if
they refused to "cooperate" in the solution of the case. They likewise alleged that
they were instructed by the Polanco police investigators to implicate Anacieto Olvis in
the case. They insisted on their innocence.

The accused Romulo Villarojo averred, specifically, that it was the deceased who had
sought to kill him, for which he acted in self-defense. For the defense, the accused
Romulo Villarojo admitted hacking the victim to death with a bolo. He stressed,
however, that he did so in self- defense. He completely absolved his co-accused
Dominador Sorela and Leonardo Cademas from any liability.
The murder of Deosdedit Bagon was witnessed by no other person. The police of
Polanco had but the three accused-appellants' statements to support its claiming.

Issues:

(1.) Whether these statements, as any of the extrajudicial confession can

stand up in court.
(2.) Whether Villarojo’s claim of self-defense tenable?

Ruling:

(1.) No. The three accused-appellants' extrajudicial confessions are

inadmissible in evidence. Prior to any questioning, the person must be
warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does
make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the
presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed

At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he

must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right
to remain silent. For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed
simply to make them aware of the threshold requirement for an intelligent
decision as to its exercise. More important, such a warning is an absolute
pre-requisite in overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation
atmosphere.

The confessions in the case at bar suffer from a Constitutional infirmity In

their supposed statements dated September 9, 14, and 21, 1975, the
accused-appellants were not assisted by counsel when they "waived"
their rights to counsel. The lack of counsel makes statement in
contemplation of law, 'involuntary' even if it were otherwise voluntary,
technically.”

Forced re-enactments, like uncounselled and coerced confessions come

within the ban against self- incrimination. The 1973 Constitution, the
Charter prevailing at the time of the proceedings below, says:

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

This should be distinguished, parenthetically, from mechanical acts the

accused is made to execute not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to
ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation. This
includes requiring the accused to submit to a test to extract virus from his
body, or compelling him to expectorate morphine from his mouth, or
making her submit to a pregnancy test, or a foot printing test or requiring
him to take part in a police lineup in certain cases." In each case, the
accused does not speak his guilt. It is not a prerequisite therefore that he
be provided with the guiding hand of counsel. But a forced re-enactment
is quite another thing. Here, the accused is not merely required to exhibit
some physical characteristics; by and large, he is made to admit criminal
responsibility against his will. It is a police procedure just as condemnable
as an uncounselled confession. It should be furthermore observed that
the three accused-appellants were in police custody when they took part
in the re-enactment in question. It is under such circumstances that the
Constitution holds a strict application.
 Any statement he might have made thereafter is therefore subject to the
Constitutional guaranty. In such a case, he should have been provided
with counsel.

(2.) The records will disclose that the deceased suffered twelve assorted
wounds caused by a sharp instrument. The assault severed his right hand
and left his head almost separated from his body. This indicates a serious
intent to kill, rather than self-defense.

In finding that Villarojo did take the life of the victim, superior strength or
nocturnity is unfound. In the absence of any other proof, the severity and
number of wounds sustained by the deceased are not, by themselves,
sufficient proof to warrant the appreciation of the generic aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Hence, Villarojo should be
liable for plain homicide, and accused-appellants Leonardo Cademas and
Dominador Sorela are acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.