People v. Alegre

Facts:

•                Melecio Cudillan,Jesus Medalla, Ramiro Alegre, and Mario Comayas were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

•                During the pendency of this appeal, Melecio Cudillan died on arrival at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital on August 16, 1970, and the case as against the said accused, insofar as his criminal liability is concerned, was dismissed.

•                This case arose from the death of Adelina Sajo y Maravilla, Spinster, 57 years old, whose body was found in her bathroom inside her house. According to the Necropsy Report, she died of asphyxia by manual strangulation.

•                Her bedroom was in "shambles," evidently indicating that it was ransacked. The drawers and several cabinets were open, and some personal garments, hadbags and papers were scattered on the floor. No witness saw the commission of the crime.

•                Appellant Ramiro Alegre, who was then living with relatives in one of the rented rooms on the ground floor of the victim's house, was taken to the Pasay City police headquarters for investigation in connection with the case, but was later released that same day for lack of any evidence implicating him in the crime.

•                During the latter part of July, 1966, Melecio Cudillan was apprehended in Tacloban City, Leyte, in the act of pawning a bracelet, one of the pieces of jewelry taken from the victim. In explaining how he came into possession of the stolen pieces of jewelry, he admitted his participation in the killing and robbery of Adlina Sajo.

•                He executed an extrajudicial confession in Tacloban and another in Pasay where he named several individuals as participants in the crime.

•                The Secret Service Division identified defendants as those in the extrajudicial confession. And on this basis, an Information for Robbery with Homicide was filed by the Special Counsel of Pasay City against Celso Fernandez, alias "Esok," Jesus Medalla y Cudillan, Ramiro Alegre y Cerdoncillo, Mario Comayas y Cudillan, Melecio Cudillan y Arcillas, and one John Doe."

•                When arraigned, defendants entered a plea of not guilty.

•                The prosecution presented nine (9) witnesses. None of them, however, testified on the actual commission of the crime.

•                The recital of facts contained in the decision under review was based principally and mainly on the extrajudicial confessions of Melecio Cudillan.

•                The testimony of Sgt. Mariano Isla of the Pasay City police is to the effect that when he was investigating Melecio Cudillan, the latter pointed to Ramiro Alegre, Mario Comayas and Jesus Medalla as his companions in the commission of the crime. According to him, said appellants "just stared at him (Melecio Cudilla) and said nothing."

•                According to the trial court, had the appellants "really been innocent (they) should have protested vigorously and not merely kept their silence

•                However, during the trial, Melecio Cudillan repudiated both sworn statements as the product of compulsion and duress. He claimed that he was not assisted by counsel when he was investigated by the police. Appellants Jesus Medalla and Mario Comayas denied any involvement in the crime. They testified that at the time of the incident in question, they were attending an internment.

•                Appellant Ramiro Alegre did not testify but presented three (3) witnesses to support his defense, that at the time of the incident he was a welder working on a construction project.

 Issues:

WON the extrajudicial confessions of deceased Cudillan may be utilized against the appellants

•                NO

•                As a general rule, the extrajudicial declaration of an accused, although deliberately made, is not admissible and does not have probative value against his co- accused. It is merely hearsay evidence as far as the other accused are concerned. 3 While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, the facts and circumstances attendant in the case at bar do not bring it within the purview of such exceptions. The only evidence, therefore, linking the appellants to the crime would be their purported tacit admissions and/or failure to deny their implications of the crime made by Melecio Cudillan, and/or their purported verbal confessions to Hernando Carillo, an inmate of the Pasay City jail.

WON the silence of appellants while under police custody, in the face of statements of Melecio Cudillan implicating them as his companions in the commission of the crime, could be considered as tacit admission on their part of their participation therein.

•                NO

•                The settled rule is that the silence of an accused in criminal cases, meaning his failure or refusal to testify, may not be taken as evidence against him, 4 and that he may refuse to answer an incriminating question. 5 It has also been held that while an accused is under custody, his silence may not be taken as evidence against him as he has a right to remain silent; his silence when in custody may not be used as evidence against him, otherwise, his right of silence would be illusory. 6 The leading case of Miranda v. Arizona 7 held that the prosecution may not use at trial the fact that an individual stood mute, or claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, in the face of an accusation made at a police custodial interrogation. Prior to Miranda, it was the view of many authorities that a man to whom a statement implicating him in a crime is directed may fail to reply if he is in custody under a charge of the commission of that crime, not because he acquiesces in the truth of the statement, but because he stands on his constitutional right to remain silent, as being the safest course for him to pursue and the best way out of his predicament. 8 Other courts have held that the circumstance that one is under arrest by itself does not render the evidence inadmissible, and that an accusation of a crime calls for a reply even from a person under arrest or in the custody of an officer, where the circumstances surrounding him indicate that he is free to answer if he chooses. 9

•                We hold that the better rule is that the silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to deny statements by another implicating him in a crime, especially when such accused is neither asked to comment or reply to such implications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the commission of the crime. Such an inference of acquiescence drawn from his silence or failure to deny the statement would appear incompatible with the right of an accused against self-incrimination.

•                The right or privilege of a person accused of a crime against self- incrimination is a fundamental right. It is a personal right of great importance and is given absolutely and unequivocably.

•                It must be stressed here that even under a regime of martial law, the operations of our laws governing the rights of an accused person are not open to doubt.

•                The 1973 Constitution gives explicit constitutional sanction to the right to silence. Thus, in Section 20 of Article IV of the Constitution, there is this categorical mandate: "Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence."

•                This privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Constitution protects, therefore, the right of a person to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will, and to suffer no penalty for such silence. 13

•                Identifying the right of an accused to remain silent with right to privacy, this Court, in Pascual explained that the privilege against self-incrimination "enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force to surrender to its detriment."

•                We hold, therefore, that it was error for the trial court to draw from appellants' silence while under police custody, in the face of the incriminatory statements of Melecio Cudillan, the conclusion that the aforesaid appellants had tacitly admitted their guilt. We hold, further, that in view of the inadmissibility of the extrajudicial confession of Melecio Cudillan implicating herein appellants, the remaining evidence against them, consisting in the testimonies of Sgt. Mariano Isla and Hernando Carillo, is insufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction. Indeed, it is inherently improbable that herein appellants would have readily confessed their participation in the commission of a heinous crime to a casual acquaintance in a prison detention cell, considering that on the same occasion they strongly denied any involvement in such crime before the police authorities.