Professional Documents
Culture Documents
L-69377
51). Not long after, the group returned to Lawi-an's house, but without Carancio.
Albofera's hands, as wen as alias Jun's hands were bloodied. After washing their hands,
Albofera announced that they had already finished the killing. He also warned everyone,
particularly Esma, against revealing or saying anything to any person or the military,
otherwise he (Albofera) would hold him accountable. After that, E smaller went home
(tsn, October 20, 1982, pp. 52-54).
Meanwhile, at about the same time Efren Sisneros and his wife were weeding their farm
in Barangay Buenavista, Bansalan, which is adjacent to Bagong Silang, Managa, also in
Bansalan, when the son of accused Lawi-an, who is his compadre, arrived and informed
him that his father (the accused) wanted him (Sisneros) in his house. So, Sisneros went
with Lawi-an's son (tsn, September 16, 1982, pp. 3-7, 11). On reaching the front yard of
the Lawi-ans, Sisneros saw the ac cused Lawi-an at the window. A lot of people were
likewise in the house, and he recognized Boy Lawi-an and a certain Jun Menez among
others. Sisneros called for accused Lawi-an. The latter went down and they talked
downstairs. Accused Lawi-an explained that he had Sisneros fetched, because the people
inside the house were discussing on what to do with somebody a Bureau of Forestry
employee-later on Identified as Teodoro Carancio who was also inside the house at the
time, and that they were inclined to kill that person who, according to Lawi-an, was a
hindrance to the farmers, because he (the forester) had caused Lawi-an's uncle and
brother-in-law to be put in jail and fined for cutting trees in the forest. Shocked, Sisneros
could only say "do not do that because killing a person is great sin toward God."
Thereafter, accused Lawi-an went upstairs. Sisneros who was left downstairs went home
(tsn, September 16, 1982, pp. 11-16, 21).
The following day, at about 9:00 o'clock in the morning, Sisneros was at his farm when
accused Lawi-an and Jun Menez passed by and called him. When Sisneros got near the
two, accused Lawi-an told him that the forester was already killed and warned him not to
reveal this matter to anybody otherwise he would be killed (tsn, September 16, 1982, pp.
16-20.)
The threat to his life caused Sisneros to be cautious in not reporting at once the matter to
the authorities. However, in June 1981, Sisneros finally reported the killing of that
forester to his brother Margarito, a CHDF member in Bansalan. Margarito then
accompanied him to the municipal hall to see the Chief of Police, P/Sgt. Arnulfo Gohol.
Sisneros related the killing to Sgt. Gohol. That forester must have already been reported
missing, for Sgt. Gohol told Sisneros that the slain forester was Teodoro Carancio.
Sisneros asked that his Identity be kept secret in the meantime pending the arrest of
Albofera and Lawi-an. Sgt. Gohol acceded (tsn. September 16, 1982, pp. 19-20, 21-22).
The police authorities arrested accused Albofera on July 2, 1981. ...
xxx
xxx
xxx
Accused Romeo Lawi-an was subsequently arrested on July 4, 1981 (pp. 12, 15, Record).
Also in July, 1981, the two accused, shortly after their arrest, led the police authorities to
the place in Bagong Silang where they buried the slain forester, specifically in a hilly
portion near the forest where the trees were not quite big besides a coffee plantation (tsn,
January 6, 1983, pp, 84-87). And on the very spot pointed to by the two accused, the
authorities dug and recovered the cadaver, together with the clothings, namely: a maroon
sweater, a semi-green trousers and fatigue briefs worn by the victim, still intact. After
placing these in a sack, the group left at about 6:00 o'clock p.m. and returned to the
municipal building at around 10:00 p.m. (tsn, January 6, 1983, pp. 87-89, 94-101).
xxx
xxx
xxx1
On July 2, 1981, Albofera executed an extra-judicial confession before the Municipal Circuit
Judge. He stated therein that he was forced to join the NPA movement for fear of his life; that
said group had ordered the "arrest" of the victim, Carancio, a Forest Guard in the National Park,
because he was "a very strict employee of the government who arrested several kaingeros
already in the National Park and Romeo Lawi-an being one of his victims before, got mad of his
actuations prompting the latter to report said person to the NPA for possible punishments;" and
that the group "sentenced him (the victim) to die by stabbing." Albofera further declared:
Q. 21- Was said Carancio killed by the group?
A. Yes, sir, Carancio was stabbed to death by alias John, Romeo Lawi-an, alias "Dolly"
Fred, Albert and myself in succession.
Q. 22- Do you mean to say that you have participated in stabbing Carancio to death?
A. I was the last to thrust said bolo but I know that said victim was already dead when I
did it.
Accused for their part, maintain:
That in or about the middle of 1980, both the accused-appellants ALEXANDER
ALBOFERA and ROMEO LAWI-AN, who were farmer-residents at that time of Sitio
Balutakay, Barangay Mansaga, a remote settlement in the Municipality of Bansalan,
Davao del Sur, were fetched from their farm houses by four (4) persons, known to be
NPA elements operating in their locality and Identified with their aliases "Fred", "Dolly",
"John", and "Albert". Both accused together with Efren Sisneros and Rodrigo Esma were
brought by the said four (4) NPA's to a secluded forested area in order to witness the
execution of a man, whom the prosecution later claimed to be one Teodoro Carancio, an
employee of the Bureau of Forest Development. Thereafter, both the accused, Efren
Sisneros and Rodrigo Esma were ordered by these armed NPA to bury the remains of the
victim. Afterwards, they were warned, with threat to their lives, not to reveal or report to
the government authorities. 2
In the course of the trial, the prosecution presented a letter written in the Visayan dialect by
accused Alexander Albofera, while under detention, to witness Rodrigo Esma several days before
the latter testified on October 20, 1982, which was translated into English by the Trial Court
interpreter and reads as follows:
10-5-82
Dear Odeng,
Ding first of all how are you are in good health. As to me if you will also ask me I am here
suffering from hardship, so that Ding, help me that I can get out in this difficult condition
because your affidavit is the one that has weight. Ding, you go with Mining to my lawyer so that
I can study your reason because I will ride if what is your affidavit. If you will not appear before
the lawyer it will mean that you will pushed us. Ding, you know about this incident and that I do
not want this to happen but you were the one persisting in fact I asked you and you acceded so
that that happened. But now you are going to put us down will you not pity the uncle of your
wife and furthermore you were not threatened by me we have agreed about this thing now you
will free yourself. Ding you must bear in mind that you are a part of this if that will happen to me
I will include you so that we will be together in jail anyway your affidavit is there that you are
one of those who apprehended the forestry and Noy Roming will testify that no one threatened us
and also according to him that he will declare that the two of us apprehended so that the three of
us win be convicted. Ding why is it that we are not going to understand one another so that we
will not be hard-up we have still a way that will be taught by my lawyer in which we have
nothing to fear each one of us. Anyway you can still be a witness of the other side my lawyer
wants to know only your reason so that he can study this in order that I ran prepare and ride on it
so that you will not be included and I can also get out from this case because if you will not
make any arrangement our reasons will contradict with each other even though we have
exculpated you we will instead be together here if how many years will be my sentence yours
will also be the same because I will include you anyway you were present in the incident nobody
force us nobody can witness that you were force by me because that is not the truth. And Ding, I
have not squeal because it's difficult the other side no jail its's better for the government because
we will just be imprisoned you are the one who win know how to understand we win help one
another in order that no hazard of both of us anyway you will not be imprisoned of this you will
only help me in order that I can get out here. This is our agreement, is it not.
I hope you will remember our being together before we are very close but now because we have
a misunderstanding but our complainant you do not even know him will they look back at you
after this.
Your mercy
V
That the Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur gravely erred in admitting and
considering as competent evidence the illegally extracted extra-judicial confession of
accused Alexander Albofera (Exh. C) in violation of, and contrary to Sec. 20, Art. IV of
the Philippine Constitution of 1973 and the Supreme Court's judicial precedents in point.
VI
That the Trial Court gravely erred (1) in sustaining the prosecution's theory that both
accused-appellants were responsible and culpable for the killing of the alleged victim; (2)
in according credence to the testimonies of prosecution's witnesses Efren Sisneros and
Rodrigo K. Esma; (3) in failing to sustain the defense theory; and (4) in convicting and
sentencing both accused-appellants.
VII
Furthermore, the lower court gravely incurred the following patent reversible errors: (1)
in finding aggravating and qualifying circumstances in the alleged commission of
murder, and (2) in not absolving the two accused-appellants, and awarding damages. 4
Succintly stated, the essential issues posed are:
1) Whether or not "serious illegalities and jurisdictional infirmities," in fact, attended the
proceedings below and "constitutional and human rights of the accused brazenly trampled
upon."
2) Whether or not the extrjudicial confession of accused Alexander Albofera, and his
letter to Rodrigo Esma are admissible in evidence;
3) Whether or not the Identity of the victim and the fact of his death were duly proved;
4) Whether or not the circumstantial evidence adduced is sufficient to warrant conviction;
and
5) Whether or not qualifying and aggravating circumstances were duly proved.
On Irregularities alleged:
The charge of illegalities and infirmities is absolutely without basis. There was nothing illegal in
the accused's detention without bail. They were charged with and held for the crime of murder, a
capital offense and, therefore, were not entitled to bail where the evidence of guilt was strong.
That was for the Trial Court to evaluate. The preliminary investigation was far from being "hasty
and farcical." If the second stage thereof was not held it was because the accused had waived the
same and prayed for the transmittal of the case to the then Court of First Instance for trial on the
merits; it was not because they were deprived of the right. Much less has due process been
denied the accused. They were duly informed of the charge against them and they were given fun
opportunity to interpose and prove their defense.
On the Admissibility of the Extra-Judicial Confession of Accused A Alexander Albofera:
The preliminary questions addressed to said accused when his Sworn Statement was taken read:
P R E L I M I N A R Y:
Mr. Albofera, I am reminding you that you are now under investigation in connection
with the commission of an offense, but before I will proceed in it, I would like to inform
you that under the Constitution of the Philippines it is so provided that you have the right
to remain silent, the right to counsel of your own choice to be present with you while
being investigated, the right to self-incrimination and the right to due process, do you
understand this:
Answer Yes sir, I do.
I would like to inform you further, that the manner in which this investigation will be
conducted in English, but however, the contents of the same will be interpreted to you in
dialect you fully understand and speak, and if you choose to answer one of the question
or questions propounded to you, your answer will be reduced into writing and the same
will be used in evidence against you or to your favor in any court of justice in the
country, do you understand what I am explaining to you?
Answer Yes. sir, I understand it because you explained it to me clearly.
Do you need then the assistance of counsel to assist you while investigated?
Answer I think I do not need any yet this time because I know what I am going to
declare here it being the truth of the matter, sir.
Since you do not (have) any lawyer yet, are you willing to proceed with this investigation
and submit yourself freely into it?
Answer I wish that this investigation will be continued because lawyer is not
necessary yet.
Are you willing to swear and sign this statement of yours freely to justify that your
submission into the said investigation is free and voluntary?
Answer Yes sir, I will sign it if only to prove that all what I have stated are true and to
the best of my knowledge and ability.
(Sgd.) Alex Albofera
(Exhibits "C", "C-1").
Judicial precedents5 have laid down the rule that the foregoing form of questioning, does not
satisfy the Constitutional requirement that an accused be apprised of his constitutional rights to
remain silent and to counsel. It is, at best, ceremonial and perfunctory, with the answers being
mere formalisms put into the mouth of the affiant. What is contemplated is the transmission of
meaningful information, comprehended by the person under investigation, not a mere recitation
of the Constitutional mandates.
More, the extra-judicial confession was extracted without the assistance of counsel contrary to
the rulings of this Court in Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, No. L-61016, April 26, 1983, 121 SCRA 538,
affirmed in People vs. Galit, No. L-51770, March 20, 1985, 135 SCRA 465, People vs. Burgos,
L-68955, September 4, 1986, 144 SCRA 1, that "no custodial investigation shall be conducted
unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his
behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his
behalf."
While Albofera seemingly waived his right to counsel, which he is allowed to do, aside from the
fact that we are not convinced that the waiver was voluntary, knowing and intelligent, the waiver
was not valid because it was made without the assistance of counsel.6 That principle is now
enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, which explicitly requires that the waiver be in writing and in
the presence of counsel.7
For failure to meet such exacting standards, the extrajudicial confession of accused Albofera
must be stricken out and held inadmissible in evidence against him.8
On the admissibility of Albofera's Letter.
Accused Albofera contends that his letter to prosecution witness, Rodrigo Esma (Exhibit "B"), is
inadmissible in evidence against him under the exclusionary provisions of Section 4, Article IV
of the 1973 Constitution (substantially reproduced in Section 3, Article III of the 1987
Constitution), which provides:
Sec. 4 (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the Court, or when public safety and order require otherwise.
2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
congregated and a discussion followed as to the victim's fate. Albofera resented the victim's
determination to do his duty and the latter's statement that he was bringing an army man to help
him. Sufficient motive was provided to do away with the victim. Albofera tied the victim's hands
and, with Lawi-an and three others, took the victim to the forest. When the group returned not
long after, the victim was no longer with them. Witness Esma noticed Albofera's and "alias Jun's"
hands bloodied. After they had washed their hands, Albofera announced to everyone present at
Lawi-an's house that the victim had been done away with and warned everyone not to reveal the
incident to anyone including the military.
Apparent from the foregoing narrated circumstances is the fact that it was Albofera who was
"calling the shots;" that it was he who was the leader of the group and not "alias Jun" as he
would want this Court to believe.
Esma's testimony is worthy of credence. He was a friend of long standing of
Albofera.lawphi1 There was no reason for him to attribute to Albofera the commission of such a
serious crime as Murder, if such not the truth.
Accused Lawi-an must be held equally culpable. That he was part of the criminal design from its
initial stages until its culmination is revealed through the circumstances brought out by
prosecution witness, Sisneros who testified that while he was weeding his farm, Lawi-an, his
"compadre," sent his son to fetch him (Sisneros). With the son, they proceeded to Lawi-an's
house where Sisneros saw many people. Lawi-an went down the house and explained to Sisneros
that they were discussing what to do with the victim, and that they were inclined to kill him.
Sisneros advised against it and went home. The following morning, Lawi-an passed by Sisneros
farm and informed the latter that the victim had already been killed with the warning to Sisneros
not to reveal the incident to anyone.
Prosecution witness, Esma, further buttressed the fact of Lawi-an's participation in the criminal
plot when he testified that it was Lawi-an who informed Albofera that the victim was around
making a list of "kaingeros;" that it was on the strength of that information that Albofera coaxed
Esma into joining him to search for the victim; that Lawi-an was with Albofera and three others
who, starting from Lawi-an's house, took the victim to the forest and then returned thereafter
without the victim, obviously because the latter had been done away with.
While the degree of actual participation by Lawi-an in committing the offense is not described
with accuracy, Lawi-an's conduct before and after the commission of the crime shows that he
acted in concert with his co-accused Albofera. He indubitably cooperated with the latter and
three other persons in bringing about the death of the victim goaded by resentment against the
latter for his strict enforcement of forestry laws, which led to the incarceration of Lawi-an's uncle
and brother-in-law and the imposition of fines against them. The circumstances proven
sufficiently establish a community of purpose-a conspiracy among the perpetrators such that
the crime committed in furtherance thereof must be held to be the act of all regardless of the
extent and character of an accused's active participation.13