EN BANC

[G.R. No. 51770. March 20, 1985.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO

GALIT , defendant-appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED; PROCEDURE FOR

PEACE OFFICER IN MAKING ARREST AND CONDUCTING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.
— This Court, in the case of Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, laid down the correct procedure
for peace o cers to follow when making an arrest and in conducting a custodial
investigation, and which We reiterate: "At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the
duty of the arresting o cer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be
shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to
remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might make could be used
against him. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a
relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means — by telephone if possible
— or by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting o cer to see
to it that this is accomplished. 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. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be
valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation
of the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in
part, shall be inadmissible in evidence."
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; A LONG QUESTION FOLLOWED BY A MONOSYLLABIC ANSWER
DOES NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. — A long question followed by a
monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the requirements of the law that the accused be
informed of his rights under the Constitution and our laws. Instead there should be
several short and clear questions and every right explained in simple words in a dialect
or language known to the person under investigation. Accused is from Samar and there
is no showing that he understands Tagalog. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, accused
was not permitted to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or a friend. In fact, his
sisters and other relatives did not know that he had been brought to the NBI for
investigation and it was only about two weeks after he had executed the salaysay that
his relatives were allowed to visit him. His statement does not even contain any waiver
of right to counsel and yet during the investigation he was not assisted by one. At the
supposed reenactment, again accused was not assisted by counsel of his choice.
These constitute gross violations of his rights.
3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; ADMISSIBILITY; CONFESSION OBTAINED
THROUGH FORCE AND INTIMIDATION, INADMISSIBLE. — The alleged confession and
the pictures of the supposed re-enactment are inadmissible as evidence because they
were obtained in a manner contrary to law.

DECISION
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 CONCEPCION, JR. , J : p

1. The prisoner was arrested for killing the victim on the occasion of a
robbery. He had been obtained and interrogated almost continuously for ve days, to
no avail. He consistently maintained his innocence. There was no evidence to link him to
the crime. Obviously, something drastic had to be done. A confession was absolutely
necessary. So the investigating o cers began to maul him and to torture him
physically. Still the prisoner insisted on his innocence. His will had to be broken. A
confession must be obtained. So they continued to maltreat and beat him. They
covered his face with a rag and pushed his face into a toilet bowl full of human waste.
The prisoner could not take any more. His body could no longer endure the pain
in icted on him and the indignities he had to suffer. His will had been broken. He
admitted what the investigating o cers wanted him to admit and he signed the
confession they prepared. Later, against his will, he posed for pictures as directed by
his investigators, purporting it to be a reenactment. LLpr

2. This incident could have happened in a Russian gulag or in Hitler's

Germany. But no it did not. It happened in the Philippines. In this case before Us.
3. The Revised Penal Code punishes the maltreatment of prisoners as
follows:
"ARTICLE 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. — The penalty of arresto
mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, in
addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused, shall be
imposed upon any public o cer or employee who shall over do himself in the
correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge, by the
imposition of punishments in a cruel and humiliating manner.

"If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain

some information from the prisoner, the offender shall be published by prision
correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disquali cation and a ne
not exceeding 500 pesos, in addition to his liability for the physical injures or
damage caused."

4. This Court in a long line of decisions over the years, the latest being the
case of People vs. Cabrera, 1 has consistently and strongly condemned the practice of
maltreating prisoners to extort confessions from them as a grave and unforgivable
violation of human rights. But the practice persist. Fortunately, such instances
constitute the exception rather than the general rule.
5. Before Us for mandatory review is the death sentence imposed upon the
accused Francisco Galit by the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal, in Crim. Case No.
CC-VII-2589 of said court. LibLex

6. The record shows that in the morning of August 23, 1917, Mrs. Natividad
Fernando, a widow, was found dead in the bedroom of her house located at Barrio
Geronimo, Montalban, Rizal, as a result of seven (7) wounded in icted upon different
parts of her body by a blunt instrument. 2 More than two weeks thereafter, police
authorities of Montalban picked up the herein accused, Francisco Galit, an ordinary
construction worker (pion) living in Marikina, Rizal, or suspicion of the murder. On the
following day, however, September 8, 1977, the case was referred to the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further investigation in view of the alleged limited
facilities of the Montalban police station. Accordingly, the herein accused was brought
to the NBI where he was investigated by a team headed by NBI Agent Carlos Flores. 3
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 NBI Agent Flores conducted a preliminary interview of the suspect who allegedly gave
evasive answers to his questions. 4 But the following day, September 9, 1977,
Francisco Galit voluntarily executed a Salaysay admitting participation in the
commission of the crime. He implicated Juling Dulay and Pabling Dulay as his
companions in the crime. 5 As a result, he was charged with the Crime of Robbery with
Homicide, in an information led before the Circuit Criminal Curt of Pasig. Rizal,
committed as follows:
"That on or about the 23rd day of August 1977 in the municipality of
Montalban, province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
together with Juling Doe and Pabling Doe, whose true identities and present
whereabouts are still unknown and three of them mutually helping and aiding one
another, with intent of gain and by means of force, intimidation and violence
upon the person of one Natividad Fernando while in her dwelling, did, then and
there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously take, steal and carry away from the
person of said Natividad Fernando, cash money of an undetermined amount,
belonging to said Natividad Fernando, thereby causing damage and prejudice to
the latter in an undetermined amount; that by reason or on the occasion of said
robbery, and for purpose of enabling them (accused) to take, steal and carry away
the said cash money in pursuance of their conspiracy and for the purpose of
insuring the success of their criminal act, with intent to kill, did, then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and stab with a dagger said
Natividad Fernando on the different parts of her body, thereby in icting multiple
injuries on the head and extremities, which directly caused her death, and the total
amount of the loss is P10,000.00 including valuables and cash."

Trial was held, and on August 11, 1978, immediately after the accused had terminated
the presentation of his evidence, the trial judge dictated his decision on the case in
open court, nding the accused guilty as charged and sentencing him to suffer the
death penalty; to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of P110,000.00, and to
pay the costs. Hence, the present recourse.
7. The incriminatory facts of the case, as found by the trial court, are as
follows:
"From the evidence adduced in this case, it was gathered that in the early
morning of August 23, 1977, a 70-year old woman named Natividad Fernando,
widow, in the twilight of her life, was robbed and then hacked to death by the
accused and two others in her (victim's) own residence at Montalban, Rizal.

"Prosecution witness Florentino Valentino testi ed that he heard accused

Francisco Galit and his wife having an argument in connection with the robbery
and killing of the victim, Natividad Fernando. It appears that on August 18, 1977,
accused Galit and two others, namely, Juling Dulay and a certain 'Pabling'
accidentally met each other at Marikina, Rizal, and in their conversation, the three
agreed to rob Natividad Fernando; that it was further agreed among them to enter
the premises of the victim's house at the back yard by climbing over the fence;
that once inside the premises, they will search every room, especially the aparador
and ling cabinets, with the sole aim of looking for cash money and other
valuables.
"Witness Valentino further testi ed that on August 22, 1977, at around 6:00
o'clock in the afternoon, accused Francisco Galit and his two companions, Juling
Dulay and Pabling, as per their previous agreement, met at the place where they
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 formerly saw each other in Marikina, Rizal; that the three conspirators took a
jeepney for Montalban and upon passing the Montalban Municipal Building, they
stopped and they waited at the side of the road until the hour of midnight; that at
about 12:00 o'clock that night, the three repaired to the premises of the victim,
Natividad Fernando; that they entered the said premises through the back wall of
the house; that while entering the premises of said house, Juling Dulay saw a
bolo, lying near the piggery compound, which he picked up and used it to destroy
the back portion of the wall of the house; that it was Juling Dulay who rst
entered the house through the hole that they made, followed by the accused Galit
and next to him was 'Pabling', that it was already early dawn of August 23, 1977
when the three were able to gain entrance into the house of the victim; as the
three could not nd anything valuable inside the rst room that they entered,
Juling Dulay destroyed the screen of the door of the victim, Natividad Fernando;
that upon entering the room of the victim, the three accused decided to kill rst
the victim, Natividad Fernando, before searching the room for valuables; that
Juling Dulay, who was then holding the bolo, began hacking the victim, who was
then sleeping, and accused Galit heard a moaning sound from the victim; that
after the victim was killed, the three accused began searching the room for
valuables; that they helped each other in opening the iron cabinet inside the room
of the victim, where they found some money; that when the three accused left the
room of the victim, they brought with them some papers and pictures which they
threw outside; that after killing and robbing the victim, the three accused went out
of the premises of the house, using the same way by which they gained entrance,
which was through the back portion of the wall; that the three accused walked
towards the river bank where they divided the loot that they got from the room of
the victim; that their respective shares amount to P70.00 for each of them; and
that after receiving their shares of the loot, the three accused left and went home.

"When witness Florentino Valentino was in his room, which was adjoining
that of accused Francisco Galit, he overheard accused Galit and his wife
quarreling about the intention of accused Galit to save their residence
immediately; that he further stated that he overheard accused Galit saying that he
and his other two companions robbed and killed Natividad Fernando.
"As a result of the killing, the victim, Natividad Fernando, suffered no less
than seven stab wounds. There was massive cerebral hemorrhage and the cause
of death was due to shock and hemorrhage, as evidenced by the Medico-Legal
Necropsy Report (Exhs. 'C' and 'C-2'), and the pictures taken of the deceased
victim (Exhs. 'E', 'E-1' and 'E-2')."

8. The accused, upon the other hand, denied participation in the commission
of the crime. He claimed that he was in his house in Marikina, Rizal, when the crime was
committed in Montalban, Rizal. He also assailed the admissibility of the extra-judicial
confession extracted from him through torture, force and intimidation as described
earlier, and without the benefit of counsel.
9. After a review of the records, We nd that the evidence presented by the
prosecution does not support a conviction. In fact, the ndings of the trial court relative
to the acts attributed to the accused are not supported by competent evidence. The
principal prosecution witness, Florentino Valentino merely testi ed that he and the
accused were living together in one house in Marikina, Rizal, on August 23, 1977,
because the mother of his wife is the wife of the accused; that when he returned home
at about 4:00 o'clock in the morning from the police station of Marikina, Rizal, the
accused and his wife were quarreling (nagtatalo); that he heard that the accused was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 leaving the house because he and his companions had robbed "Aling Nene", the owner
of a poultry farm and piggery in Montalban, Rizal; that the wife of the accused was
imploring him not to leave, but the latter was insistent; that he saw the accused carrying
a bag containing about two handfuls (dakot) of coins which he had taken from Aling
Nene; that upon learning of what the accused had done, he went to the Montalban
police the next day and reported to the police chief about what he had heard; and that a
weeks later, Montalban policemen went to their house and arrested the accused. 6
10. This Court, in the case of Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, 7 laid down the correct
procedure for peace o cers to follow when making an arrest and in conducting a
custodial investigation, and which We reiterate: cdll

"7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting
o cer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the
warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to
remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might make could be
used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with
his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means — by
telephone if possible — or by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of
the arresting o cer to see to it that this is accomplished. 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. The right
to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the
assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure
herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be
inadmissible in evidence."

11. There were no eyewitnesses, no property recovered from the accused, no

state witnesses, and not even ngerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime. The
only evidence against the accused is his alleged confession. It behooves Us therefore
to give it a close scrutiny. The statement begins as follows:.
"I. TANONG: Ipinagbibigay-alam ko sa inyo ang inyong mga karapatan
sa ilalim ng Saligang-Batas ng Pilipinas na kung inyong nanaisin ay
maaaring hindi kayo magbigay ng isang salaysay, na hindi rin kayo
maaaring pilitin o saktan at pangakuan upang magbigay ng
naturang salaysay, na anuman ang inyong sasabihin sa pagsisiyasat
na ito ay maaaring laban sa inyo sa anuraang usapin na maaaring
ilahad sa anumang hukuman o tribunal dito sa Pilipinas, na sa
pagsisiyasat na ito ay maaaring katulungin mo ang isang
manananggol at kung sakaling hindi mo kayang bayaran ang isang
manananggol ay maaaring bigyan ka ng isa ng NBI. Ngayon at alam
mo na ang mga ito nakahanda ka bang magbigay ng isang kusang-
loob na salaysay sa pagtatanong na ito?
"SAGOT: Opo"

12. Such a long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy
the requirements of the law that the accused be informed of his rights under the
Constitution and our laws. Instead there should be several short and clear questions
and every right explained in simple words in a dialect or language known to the person
under investigation. Accused is from Samar and there is no showing that he
understands Tagalog. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, accused was not permitted to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or a friend. In fact, his sisters and other
relatives did not know that he had been brought to the NBI for investigation and it was
only about two weeks after he had executed the salaysay that his relatives were
allowed to visit him. His statement does not even contain any waiver of right to counsel
and yet during the investigation he was not assisted by one. At the supposed
reenactment, again accused was not assisted by counsel of his choice. These
constitute gross violations of his rights. prcd

13. The alleged confession and the pictures of the supposed re-enactment
are inadmissible as evidence because they were obtained in a manner contrary to law.
14. Trial courts are cautioned to look carefully into the circumstances
surrounding the taking of any confession, especially where the prisoner claims having
been maltreated into giving one. Where there is any doubt as to the voluntariness, the
same must be rejected in toto.
15. Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Minister of Justice for
whatever action he may deem proper to take against the investigating officers.
16. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby. SET
ASIDE, and another one entered ACQUITTING the accused Francisco Galit of the crime
charged. Let him be released from custody immediately unless held on other charges.
With costs de oficio.
17. SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana,
Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., took no part.

Footnotes

1. G.R. No. 51858, promulgated January 31, 1985.

2. Exhs. "C", "D", "E", "E-1", "E-2"; t.s.n. of August 3, 1978, p. 7.
3. t.s.n. of August 3, 1978, p. 10.
4. Id., p. 26.
5. Exh. "F".
6. t.s.n. of August 9, 1978, pp. 3-11.
7. G.R. Nos. 61016 and 61107, April 26, 1983, 121 SCRA 538.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com