People vs.

Victor

Facts: When Victor went to Boljoon to visit his wife, Guneda met him and proposed to him a
plan to rob the residence of an American named Myles Castle and the cottage of Charles Turner,
an American Peace Corps Volunteer assigned in the Municipality of Boljoon.

As planned, Victor, together with Montebon, who brought with him a .38 caliber homemade
revolver, proceeded and subsequently joined by Guneda, who led them to the house of Myles
Castle. Upon entering the cottage of Charles Turner, Montebon shot him at the back of his head
upon instruction of Guneda. After killing Turner, the trio ransacked the cottage of Turner’s
personal belongings, and returned to the culvert near the bridge where they left the things which
they found to be unimportant.

While the police officer was about to arrest Victor, Victor had already surrendered voluntarily

Upon interrogation, Victor verbally admitted being one of those who killed the American Peace
Corps Volunteer in Boljoon, Cebu. The team also recovered an empty .38 caliber revolver shell
inside the house of Victor who explained that said empty shell was left by his co-accused Roberto
Montebon.

That same evening at the Municipal Building of Boljoon, Victor and Montebon were
investigated one after the other. Both Victor and Montebon were informed of their constitutional
rights under custodial investigation, waived the same and voluntarily gave their sworn statements
wherein they did not only admit participation in the killing of Charles Turner but also implicated
their co-accused Ceferino Guneda

There being a prima facie case against the three accused, two Informations, were filed charging
them, respectively, with the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Illegal Possession of Firearm.

Guneda assails the extra-judicial confessions of his co-accused Roger Victor and Roberto
Montebon as inadmissible for having been obtained through force, threats and intimidation.
Guneda also alleges that the testimony of his co-accused Roger Victor, affirming the latter’s
extra-judicial confession, is not to be believed for being filled with inconsistencies and that such
affirmation, taken together with the extra-judicial confessions abovementioned, may not be used
in evidence against him pursuant to Sections 27 and 29, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

Issue: Whether the extra-judicial confession of an accused is admissible against a co-accused

Ruling: While the general rule is that an extra-judicial confession of an accused is binding only
upon himself and is not admissible against his co-accused, it has been held that such a confession
is admissible against a co-accused where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to
show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator. The judicial confession of Roger
Victor as corroborated by the other evidence, establishes the guilt of accused-appellant Guneda
beyond reasonable doubt.
People vs Pareja

Facts: Antonio Abad Tormis, lawyer and columnist-editor of Cebu City's leading daily
newspaper was killed.

A week after the occurrence, the police received a tip that Cesario Orongan and Gaspar Mesa,
might have had some participation in the commission of the crime. First to be apprehended was
Gaspar Mesa, who, admitted that he was the gunman's companion at the time; and positively
identified Cesar Roble as the one who fired the gun, pursuant to the instruction of a certain "Toto",
who had earlier supplied the fatal weapon. Mesa further declared in his sworn statement that hours
before the shooting he and Orongan were taken by Toto to the office of appellant Pareja, where
the murder plan was finalized.

Armed with this information, the police arrested Avelino Monzolin. Monzolin broke down and
confessed that he had been ordered by city treasurer Felipe B. Pareja to contact a killer who
would shoot Tormis for a reward of P400.00, because Tormis had been relentlessly attacking him
(Pareja) in The Republic News regarding the "garbage can scandal". Monzolin also pointed to
appellant Pareja as the mastermind of the killing.

Properly armed with search warrants earlier issued by Cebu City Judge Maambong, arresting
officers proceeded to the house of Pareja. They were received by Pareja himself, who did not
register any protest against the projected search.

Among the articles found inside was a .32 caliber revolver COLT, which the prosecution later on
established as the gun used in the killing.

‘In the meantime, a combined force of police-PC-NBI men went on a hunt for Orongan, finally
locating and arresting him.

Pareja, Avelino Monzolin, Gaspar Mesa and Cesario Orongan were charged with the crime of
murder in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The information, alleged conspiracy "with the
attendant qualifying circumstance of treachery, and the aggravating circumstances of: (1) evident
premeditation, (2) nocturnity, (3) taking advantage of superior strength or employing means to
weaken the defense, (4) with the aid of armed men or persons to insure or afford impunity, and
(5) in consideration of price, reward, or promise."

From this judgment of conviction, only Felipe B. Pareja appealed.

Issue: The lower court erred in declaring the extrajudicial confessions of Gaspar Mesa, Avelino
Monzolin and Cesario Orongan are admissible evidence against defendant-appellant Felipe B.
Pareja. Since it is a fundamental rule of evidence that confessions are admissible only against the
makers.

Ruling: The prevailing rule is that in the absence of collusion among the declarants, their
confessions should be read together in order to form a complete picture of the whole situation
and to consider them collectively as corroborative or confirmatory of what evidence there is
apart from the confessions themselves. Thus, while the confessions in question are not
admissible as proof in themselves of specific acts imputed to Pareja (co-accused other than the
maker of the confessions), they may be taken into consideration as strongly indicative of the
truth of the other evidence against him particularly the testimony of the confessed triggerman,
Cesario Orongan.

The case against the appellant is largely based on the evidence given by Cesar Orongan at the trial.
His credibility is assailed with understandable vehemence. And it is that credibility that finds
strong support in his own previous extra-judicial confession as well as in the confessions of Mesa
and Monzolin. Above all, Orongan's plea of guilt and willingness to pay for his crime is a well-
high conclusive proof of the truth of his confession and. by the same token, of his testimony on
the witness stand.

US vs. Juan Dela Cruz

Facts: A band, composed of not less than five persons, two of whom, the appellants in this case,
were armed with revolvers, one with a bolo, and the others with clubs, entered the town of Jaen,
where they met one Fortunato Jimenez. With threats of violence the band obliged Jimenez and
his party to return to his house, and upon arriving there, Timoteo Dizon, one of the band, went up
into the house with Jimenez, and threatening him with a revolver, demanded P500. Jimenez had
no money, but was compelled to give up his watch.

A short time thereafter, the Constabulary forces surprised and attacked the band, killing Dizon
and wounding another member of the band. The watch was found upon Dizon's body, and his
corpse was identified by Jimenez

The appellants were convicted of the crime of robo en cuadrilla (robbery in an armed band), and
the facts above set out, which were conclusively-established by the testimony of the witnesses at
the trial, fully established their guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, and we find no error in the
proceedings prejudicial to the rights of the accused.

Issue: Counsel contends that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed because, as he
alleges the trial court erred in admitting ante-mortem statements made by Timoteo Dizon in the
presence of appellants, and at the time uncontradicted by them, for the purpose of identifying the
appellants and establishing their participation in the commission of the crime.

Ruling: The court agrees with counsel for the appellant that the trial court erred in admitting the
ante-mortem statements of Dizon, for the purpose of identifying the appellants as members of the
band. Dying declarations or affirmations has always been strictly limited to criminal
prosecutions for homicide or murder, and must proceed from the very person alleged to have
been killed. Manifestly, therefore, the ante-mortem statement in this case is not admissible as a
"dying declaration."
The silence of the defendants, when they heard a self-confessed member of a band of robbers
charge them with being members of the band, should not be construed as an extra-judicial
admission of the truth of such charge, it appearing that these statements were made in the course
of an official investigation, and that the defendants were at that time under arrest charged with
the commission of the crime of robbery.

The Court thought, however, that while the admission of this testimony was error, it was error
without prejudice to the rights of the accused, because, as we have said before, the properly
admitted testimony of record fully and conclusively establishes the commission of the crime with
which the appellants were charged, and their identity as members of the band who committed it.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.