10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

 
 

G.R. No. 181474. July 26, 2017.*

 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ROMALDO LUMAYAG y DELA CRUZ, DIONY OPINIANO y
VERANO, and JERRY1 DELA CRUZ y DIAZ, accused,
 
DIONY OPINIANO y VERANO, accused-appellant.

Constitutional Law; Right to Counsel; Extrajudicial Confessions;

Exclusionary Rule; Dela Cruz’s extrajudicial confession without counsel at
the police station without a valid waiver of the right to counsel — that is, in
writing and in the presence of counsel — is inadmissible in evidence.—Dela
Cruz’s extrajudicial confession without counsel at the police station without
a valid waiver of the right to counsel — that is, in writing and in the
presence of counsel — is inadmissible in evidence. It is undisputed that
Dela Cruz was neither assisted by a lawyer nor was his confession reduced
into writing. Further, when the police officers informed Dela Cruz of his
right to a lawyer, the latter did not say anything. Even so, such silence did
not constitute a valid waiver of his right to remain silent and to have a
competent and independent counsel. Article III, Section 12 of the
Constitution states that “[t]hese rights cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel.” Dela Cruz was merely told of his
Constitutional rights, but he was never asked whether he understood what
he was told or whether he wanted to exercise or avail himself of such rights.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; As a rule, findings of the trial
court on the credibility of a witness will generally not be disturbed on
appeal as it was the trial court which had the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the witness during trial.—The Regional Trial Court aptly gave
credence to Dela Cruz’s “graphic account of what transpired . . . that fateful
night of November 29, 1997.” The Regional Trial Court determined
Lumayag as the lead man, “who

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.
1  “Jerry” is spelled as “Gerry” in his Certificate of Live Birth (RTC Records, p.
226). However, the Regional Trial Court Decision (CA Rollo, p. 55) and the Court of
Appeals Decision (Rollo, p. 3) used the name “Jerry.”

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

 
 

505

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 505

People vs. Opiniano

hatched the plan to rob the couple,” along with appellant as his co-
conspirator. As a rule, findings of the trial court on the credibility of a
witness will generally not be disturbed on appeal as it was the trial court
which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness during
trial. Here, there is no showing that the Regional Trial Court overlooked or
arbitrarily disregarded facts and circumstances of significance to the case.
Same; Same; Same; Testimonial Evidence; The testimony of a single
witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to produce a conviction.—“The
testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to
produce a conviction.” Dela Cruz was categorical and coherent in stating
appellant Opiniano’s participation in the robbing and killing of the Spouses
Santos. His testimony remained unshaken even on a lengthy and intense
cross-examination from appellant Opiniano’s counsel and the prosecutor.
His answers were candid and spontaneous, which, according to the Regional
Trial Court, “could not have been glamorized or embellished by someone
ignorant and unknowing as Jerry [D]ela Cruz.” He positively identified
Lumayag and Opiniano as the assailants who stabbed the victim spouses
with a knife. Dr. Arizala testified that Eladio and Leonor died as a result of
several stab wounds, inflicted by sharp-edged and single-bladed
instruments, on different areas of their bodies. Moreover, the contents of the
bag seized from Dela Cruz — Marlboro cigarettes and coins in wrappers —
were the same things Estrella claimed to have been taken from the store of
her parents. The bloodstains on the cash recovered from Dela Cruz
correspond to the blood types of the victims.
Same; Same; Confessions; When several accused are tried together, the
confession made by one (1) of them during the trial implicating the others is
evidence against the latter.—When several accused are tried together, the
confession made by one (1) of them during the trial implicating the others is
evidence against the latter. In People v. De la Cruz, 130 SCRA 169 (1984):
An accused is always a competent witness for or against his co-accused, and
the fact that he had been discharged from the information does not affect the
quality of his testimony, for the admissibility, the relevancy, as well as the
weight that should be accorded his declarations are to be determined by the
Rules on Evidence. And in this connection, it has been held that the
uncorroborated testimony of an accused, when

 
 

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

506

506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano

satisfactory and convincing, may be the basis for a judgment of conviction

of his co-accused.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
   Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

LEONEN, J.:
 
This resolves the appeal filed by Diony Opiniano y Verano
(Opiniano) under Rule 124, Section 13(c)2 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, from the Decision3 dated July 31, 2007 of the
Court of Appeals affirming his conviction for the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide.4 In the Information5

_______________

2  RULES OF COURT, Rule 124, Sec. 13(c), as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC,
provides:
RULE 124. PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
....
SEC. 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme Court.— . . .
....
(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and
enter judgment imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed
to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of
Appeals. (Emphasis supplied)
3   Rollo, pp. 3-24. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon R.
Garcia, and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Jose C.
Reyes, Jr. of the Special Twelfth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4  Id., at p. 24.
5  CA Rollo, pp. 21-23.

 
 

507

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 507

People vs. Opiniano

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

dated December 3, 1997, Opiniano,6 Romaldo Lumayag (Lumayag),

and Jerry Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) were charged with the crime of
robbery with homicide:

That on or about the 29th day of November 1997, in Quezon City,

Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and
mutually helping one another, with intent of gain and by means of force,
violence and intimidation against persons, to wit: by entering the residence
of Eladio Santos y Gutierrez and Leonor Santos y Reyes located at No. 548
Tahimik St., Pag-ibig sa Nayon, this City, and once inside for the purpose of
enabling said accused, to take, steal and carry away cash money from the
house of said Eladio Santos y Gutierrez and Leonor Santos y Reyes, the said
accused with intent to kill and taking advantage of their superior strength,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treacherously
attack, assault and employ personal violence upon said Eladio Santos y
Gutierrez and Leonor Santos y Reyes, by stabbing them repeatedly with the
use of bladed weapons and big wooden stick, hitting them on the different
parts of their bodies, thereby inflicting upon them mortal wounds which
were the direct and immediate cause of their deaths and thereafter, the said
accused pursuant to their conspiracy, with intent of gain, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away:
One (1) bag containing money in different denominations amounting to
P5,139.00, more or less with some paper bills, black leather belt,
wallet with ID, sleeveless green shirt, Marlboro cigarettes, and three
(3) lighters and bids [sic] of rosary;
One (1) pair of gold earrings with diamond;

_______________

6  The name indicated in the Information was Diony Penano. However, “Penano”
was later changed to “Opiniano” upon motion of Atty. Raul Rivera, counsel for the
three accused, during trial (id., at p. 57, Regional Trial Court’s Decision).

 
 
508

508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano

Two (2) pieces of coins roughing [sic] paper with markings;

One (1) [C]itizen watch worth P1,500.00;
One (1) gold ring with big stone (brillante) worth P55,000.00;
One (1) gold ring with small stone (brillante) worth P15,000.00;
One (1) pair of earrings with diamonds worth P5,000.00;
One (1) pair of earrings with pearl worth P20,000.00.
from the house of said Eladio Santos y Gutierrez and Leonor Santos y
Reyes, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Eladio Santos y Gutierrez
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

and Leonor Santos y Reyes.

CONTRARY TO LAW.7

 
The three (3) accused pleaded not guilty during their
arraignment on January 12, 1998. No stipulations of fact were
entered during pretrial. Joint trial ensued.8
The prosecution presented Honorata S. Estrella (Estrella),
daughter of the victims; PO2 Rodolfo Paule (PO2 Paule) of the
Caloocan Police Station; SPO2 Rolando Ko (SPO2 Ko), PO3
Alberto Gomez, Jr. (PO3 Gomez), and PO2 Ferdinand Flores (PO2
Flores) of the La Loma Police Station; National Bureau of
Investigation Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Floresto Arizala, Jr. (Dr.
Arizala); and National Bureau of Investigation Forensic Biologist I
Pet Byron T. Buan (Forensic Biologist Buan) as witnesses.9 On the
other hand, the defense presented Dela Cruz and Opiniano as
witnesses.10

_______________

7   Id., at pp. 21-22, Information.

8   Id., at p. 57, Regional Trial Court’s Decision.
9   Rollo, pp. 6-7, Court of Appeals’ Decision.
10  Id., at pp. 11-12.

 
 

509

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 509

People vs. Opiniano

Evidence for the prosecution established the following facts:

On November 30, 1997, at around 2:30 a.m., spouses Eladio
Santos (Eladio) and Leonor Santos (Leonor) were found dead in the
garage of their house at No. 548 Tahimik St., Brgy. Pag-ibig sa
Nayon, Quezon City.11 At the time of the incident, Eladio was 72
years old while Leonor was 71 years old.12
The Spouses Santos were dealers of soft drinks and beer. They
maintained a store, adjacent to their two-storey house which sold
other commodities such as rice, cigarettes, and canned goods. Their
daughter, Estrella, helped manage the store daily from 8:00 a.m. or
9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m.13 Dela Cruz was their stay-in
helper. He had been working for them for only three (3) to five (5)
days before the couple were killed.14
Around 2:30 a.m. of November 30, 1997, Estrella received a call
from her sister that their parents were stabbed. She and her husband
hurriedly went to the store. They noticed policemen and reporters
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

waiting outside the store. When she entered the garage, Estrella saw
the bloodied and dead bodies of her parents, while the police took
pictures of the victims. She saw the store and the house in disarray.
She noticed that cigarettes, lighters, coins, and bills were missing.15
Estrella remembered wrapping some coins and signing her initials
on them for eventual bank deposit.16

_______________

11  CA Rollo, p. 57, Regional Trial Court’s Decision, and TSN, January 28, 1998,
p. 4, Testimony of Honorata S. Estrella.
12  Id.
13  TSN, January 28, 1998, pp. 4-6, Testimony of Honorata S. Estrella.
14  Id., and TSN, March 4, 1998, p. 7, Testimony of Honorata S. Estrella.
15  Id., at pp. 6-10.
16  Id., at p. 13.

 
 

510

510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano

When she went up to the second floor, she found the master
bedroom in shambles, and noticed that some money and her
mother’s pieces of jewelry were missing. The missing pieces of
jewelry were a watch worth P1,500.00, a ring with a big diamond
stone worth more than P55,000.00, a ring with small diamonds
worth at least P15,000.00, a pair of earrings with a Russian diamond
worth P5,000.00, and a pair of pearl earrings worth P20,000.00.
Estrella estimated that the total cash missing amounted to
P100,000.00.17 She also noticed that the kitchen knife was
missing.18 It had a “black rubber band wrapped around the
handle[.]”19 She later found the knife full of blood inside a case of
beer. The knife was turned over to the La Loma police.20
Around 9:00 p.m. of the previous day, November 29, 1997, PO2
Paule and SPO1 Eduardo Roderno (SPO1 Roderno) of the Caloocan
police were traversing C-3 Road aboard a police-marked vehicle
when they noticed a man carrying a heavy-looking bag. When they
approached him, the man ran away. After a brief chase, the man was
cornered. PO2 Paule noticed that he was nervous and sweating. His
right leg was stained with blood and his right waistline was bulging
with an object, which turned out to be a double bladed 9-inch mini
kris.21 He did not answer when asked about the bloodstain on his
leg.22

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

They brought him to the police station where he identified

himself as Jerry Dela Cruz.23 The bag yielded three (3) reams of
Marlboro cigarettes, a lighter, some coins, and a blue denim

_______________

17  Id., at pp. 10-13.

18  Id., at p. 12.
19  Id.
20  Id.
21  TSN, April 1, 1998, pp. 7-9, Testimony of PO2 Rodolfo Paule, TSN, July 21,
1998, p. 7, Testimony of PO2 Rodolfo Paule, and CA Rollo, p. 68, Regional Trial
Court’s Decision.
22  Id., at p. 9, Testimony of PO2 Rodolfo Paule.
23  Id. Spells his name as “Gerry,” while other parts of the RTC Records spell his
name as “Jerry.”

 
 

511

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 511

People vs. Opiniano

wallet with cash in different denominations amounting to P1,470.00.

PO2 Paule also noticed that the P500.00 bill in the wallet was
stained with fresh blood.24
Upon further interrogation, Dela Cruz verbally confessed that he
and his companions, whom he later revealed as “Ango” or
Lumayag,25 and Opiniano,26 “had just killed and robbed an old
couple.”27 He was supposed to bring the contents of the bag to his
cohorts in the illegal settlers’ area in Malabon.28 During cross-
examination, PO2 Paule affirmed that Dela Cruz was not aided by a
lawyer, nor was his confession reduced into writing. PO2 Paule
further testified that when they informed Dela Cruz of his right to a
lawyer, the latter remained silent.29
Dela Cruz then accompanied the police officers to the scene of
the crime. When they peeped through the gate, using a search light,
they saw a “female lying on the floor,”30 covered with blood.31 They
called the La Loma Police Station, which had jurisdiction over the
case.32 PO2 Paule and the other Caloocan police operatives, together
with Dela Cruz, then proceeded to Letre, Malabon where they were
able to apprehend Opiniano.33

_______________

24  Id., at pp. 11-14, Testimony of PO2 Rodolfo Paule.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

25  TSN, July 21, 1998, p. 16, Testimony of PO2 Rodolfo Paule, TSN, August 11,
1998, p. 7, Testimony of PO2 Ferdinand Flores, and TSN, September 29, 1998, pp. 4-
5, Testimony of PO2 Ferdinand Flores.
26  TSN, April 1, 1998, pp. 22-23, Testimony of PO2 Rodolfo Paule.
27  Id., at p. 15.
28  Id., at pp. 14-15.
29  TSN, July 21, 1998, pp. 10-11, Testimony of PO2 Rodolfo Paule.
30  TSN, April 1, 1998, p. 16, Testimony of PO2 Rodolfo Paule.
31  Id.
32  Id., at p. 17.
33  Id., at pp. 22-23.

 
 

512

512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano

SPO2 Ko, the officer on duty at Station 1, Mayon, La Loma,

Quezon City at that time, was assigned to investigate the case. When
he arrived at the crime scene at around 3:00 a.m. of November 30,
1997, members of the Scene of the Crime Operative led by a certain
Lt. Pelotin, and members of media and barangay tanods were
already in the area.34 Estrella also arrived.35
Upon the arrival of a barangay official, the gate was opened.36
SPO2 Ko saw Leonor “sprawled on the ground leaning on the wall
of the garage and . . . [Eladio] was placed on top of a bicycle[.]”37
Both were dead. He also saw that “[t]he store was forcibly opened
and some of the store articles were disarranged.”38 Inside the house,
he found one (1) of the rooms in the second floor ransacked and in
total disarray. He requested the Scene of the Crime Operative team,
which took pictures of the crime scene,39 to bring the bodies of the
victims to the morgue for appropriate autopsy by the National
Bureau of Investigation. He proceeded to the Caloocan police
precinct where he saw Dela Cruz and Opiniano.40
The Caloocan police turned over to SPO2 Ko the multi-colored
bag with its contents and the mini kris that were recovered from
Dela Cruz. SPO2 Ko brought the bloodstained bills, the mini kris,
and the knife found by Estrella to the National Bureau of
Investigation for testing of human blood.41 He did not take the
fingerprints of the accused or submit the items for fingerprinting at
the Philippine National Police Crime Labora-

_______________

34  TSN, February 11, 1998, pp. 3-4, Testimony of SPO2 Rolando Ko.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

35  Id., at p. 5.
36  Id., at pp. 4-5.
37  Id., at p. 5.
38  Id., at p. 4.
39  Id.
40  Id., at p. 5.
41  Id., at pp. 7-8.

 
 

513

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 513

People vs. Opiniano

tory before submitting them to the National Bureau of Investigation

because he thought it was no longer necessary.42
SPO2 Ko brought Dela Cruz and Opiniano to the La Loma Police
Station for further investigation.43 PO3 Gomez conducted the body
search on the suspects. As Opiniano was undressing, a pair of
earrings dropped to the floor.44 When asked whose they were,
Opiniano replied that they belonged to a distant relative.45
About 1:00 p.m. on November 30, 1997, PO2 Flores and other
La Loma police officers, together with Dela Cruz, were dispatched
to Kaysikat, Antipolo, Rizal where they arrested Lumayag.46 When
Lumayag was frisked, two (2) coin wrappers bearing initials were
found inside his pocket.47 Estrella later identified the initials in the
coin wrappers as hers.48
Dr. Arizala, the medicolegal officer of the National Bureau of
Investigation who conducted the autopsies of the victims, testified
that Eladio suffered 14 incised wounds, two (2) contusions, one (1)
abrasion, and five (5) stab wounds.49 On the other hand, Leonor
sustained 28 incised wounds, a contusion, five (5) abrasions, two (2)
lacerations, and three (3) stab

_______________

42  TSN, February 18, 1998, pp. 16-17, Testimony of SPO2 Rolando Ko.
43  TSN, February 11, 1998, p. 9, Testimony of SPO2 Rolando Ko.
44  RTC Records, p. 302, Affidavit of Apprehension of PO3 Alberto Gomez, Jr.
45  TSN, March 25, 1998, pp. 7-8, Testimony of PO3 Alberto Gomez, Jr.
46  TSN, August 11, 1998, pp. 5-8, Testimony of PO2 Ferdinand Flores, and TSN,
September 29, 1998, pp. 3-4, Testimony of PO2 Ferdinand Flores.
47  Id., at pp. 8-9.
48   TSN, February 11, 1998, p. 9, Testimony of SPO2 Rolando Ko, and TSN,
October 6, 1998, pp. 4-5 and 8, Testimony of Honorata S. Estrella.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

49  TSN, February 25, 1998, pp. 30 and 34-46, Testimony of Dr. Floresto Arizala,
Jr.

 
 

514

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano

wounds.50 Dr. Arizala said that the incised wounds could have been
caused by a knife while the numerous wounds could be attributed to
more than one (1) assailant.51 He also found that the stab wounds
sustained by the victims were mostly fatal.52
Forensic Biologist Buan testified that he had examined the blood
on the knives and peso bills recovered by the police, and his
findings, which were all stated in his Biology Report No. B-97-
1349,53 were as follows:54

_______________

50  Id., at pp. 52-53.

51  Id., at pp. 36 and 55-56.
52  Id., at pp. 43-45 and 58-60.
53  RTC Records, p. 285.
54  TSN, February 25, 1998, pp. 2 and 11-22, Testimony of Pet Byron T. Buan.
55   RTC Records, p. 285, Biology Report No. B-97-1349. The 12-inch bladed
weapon with rubberized handle was marked as Exhibit

 
 

515

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 515

People vs. Opiniano

Forensic Biologist Buan further testified that he had also

examined the fresh blood sample of Leonor and Eladio. His
examination showed that Leonor’s blood belonged to group type
“O,” while that of Eladio belonged to group type “B.”56
On the other hand, the defense presented their version of the facts
as follows:
Dela Cruz, who at the time of the commission of the crime was
only 16 years old,57 testified that he was employed on November 25,
1997 by the victims, whom he called Lolo and Lola. On November
26, 1997, Lumayag, his first cousin,58 visited him at his employer’s
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

house. Lumayag borrowed from him P50.00 to buy food. The

following day, November 27, 1997, Lumayag visited him again to
ask for cigarettes. Before leaving, however, Lumayag disclosed that
he would come back on November 29, 1997 to rob his employer’s
house.59 When Dela Cruz dissuaded Lumayag from his plans, the
latter merely replied, “Bahala ka, pupunta rin ako dyan.”60
Around 8:00 p.m. of November 29, 1997, Dela Cruz was eating
in the kitchen when he heard Leonor shouting for help. When he
went out of the kitchen, he saw Lumayag holding

_______________

“K,” the 9-inch bladed weapon with improvised holster was marked as Exhibit “L,”
the P500.00 (peso) bill was marked as Exhibit “M,” the P100.00 peso bills were
marked as Exhibit “N,” the P50.00 (peso) bills were marked as Exhibit “O” (id., at
pp. 12-14, Testimony of Pet Byron T. Buan).
56  Id., at pp. 22-24, Testimony of Pet Byron T. Buan.
57  RTC Records, p. 226, Certificate of Live Birth of Gerry Diaz Dela Cruz. Gerry
was born on July 28, 1981.
58  TSN, November 17, 1998, p. 2, Testimony of Romaldo Lumayag.
59  TSN, June 15, 1999, pp. 8-13, Testimony of Jerry Dela Cruz, and TSN, July
20, 1999, pp. 13-16, Testimony of Jerry Dela Cruz.
60  Id., at p. 16.

 
 

516

516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano

Leonor by the neck.61 When he asked Lumayag, “Bakit ganon?”62

the latter responded, “Wala kang pakialam. Lakad namin ito.”63
While Leonor was being held by Lumayag, Eladio “came out of
the room [in the lower portion of the house], he went inside the store
[and] took a knife.”64 When Eladio came out of the store, Lumayag
threw Leonor to Opiniano, grabbed the knife from Eladio, and
stabbed Eladio several times. Dela Cruz just stood by in fear. He
attempted to stop Lumayag, but the latter threatened him. As Eladio
fell, Dela Cruz turned around and saw Leonor already dead.
Opiniano stabbed her with a knife.65
Lumayag then went upstairs and came down carrying money in
paper bills. He counted the money, which amounted to P25,000.00,
and pocketed them.66 He then went to the store, took the paper-
wrapped coins from the drawer,67 and placed them inside Dela
Cruz’s bag.68 He also searched Leonor and got money from her.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

Likewise, he took Eladio’s wallet and placed the money in the

wallet.69
Lumayag then directed Dela Cruz to go with them.70 Dela Cruz
told them, “Patayin n’yo na lang ako; wala ng iba; madadamay din
ako.”71 Lumayag answered him, “Hindi kita papatayin pero sumama
ka na lang sa akin.”72 Dela Cruz told him that he would think it
over. Lumayag then instructed

_______________

61  Id., at pp. 19-21.

62  Id., at p. 21.
63  Id.
64  TSN, June 15, 1999, p. 22, Testimony of Jerry Dela Cruz, and TSN, August 4,
1999, pp. 3-4, Testimony of Jerry Dela Cruz.
65  Id., at pp. 22-27.
66  Id., at pp. 28-30.
67  Id., at p. 30.
68  Id.
69  Id., at p. 31.
70  Id., at pp. 32-33.
71  Id., at p. 33.
72  Id.

 
 

517

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 517

People vs. Opiniano

Dela Cruz to bring the money to Letre, Malabon or else he would

kill him.73
After the two (2) had left, Dela Cruz also left for Letre, but was
caught by the Caloocan police officers upon reaching Monumento.74
For his part, Opiniano put up the defense of denial and alibi. He
testified that when he was arrested on the night of November 29,
1997, he was babysitting his cousin Manang Ligaya Verano’s child
at her house in Letre, Malabon.75 He did not know the victims or
why Dela Cruz, who was his town mate from Samar, implicated him
in the crime.76
On February 8, 2000, Branch 76, Regional Trial Court, Quezon
City rendered a Decision,77 which found Opiniano and Lumayag
guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide and
imposed upon them the penalty of reclusion perpetua. On the other
hand, the trial court found Dela Cruz as an accessory to the crime
and imposed upon him an indeterminate prison sentence of two (2)

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

years, four (4) months, and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2)
months of prisión correccional.78 The dispositive portion of the
decision read:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused Romaldo Lumayag and Diony

Opiniano guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals in conspiracy with
each other, for the crime of robbery with homicide described and penalized
under Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by

_______________

73  Id., at pp. 33-34.

74  Id., at pp. 34-36.
75   TSN, December 1, 1998, pp. 3-8 and 10-11, Testimony of Diony Opiniano,
and TSN, January 19, 1999, pp. 6-8, Testimony of Diony Opiniano.
76   Id., at p. 15, and TSN, January 12, 1999, pp. 3-11, Testimony of Diony
Opiniano.
77  CA Rollo, pp. 55-76. The Decision was penned by Judge Monina A. Zenarosa.
78  Id., at p. 75.

 
 

518

518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano

RA 7659 there being no modifying circumstance, and applying Art. 63, par.
2 of the Revised Penal Code, they are hereby sentenced to each suffer
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. Also, finding the accused Jerry dela
Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accessory for the crime of robbery
with homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of minority, and applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of two years[,] 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months of
prisión correccional.
As to the civil liability, the accused Romaldo Lumayag and Diony
Opiniano are ordered to indemnify the heirs of Eladio Santos and Leonor
Santos, jointly and solidarily as follows:
1. The amount of P80,000.00 as their share in the civil
indemnity for the death of the two victims;
2. The amount of P80,000.00 as their share in the moral
damages for death of the two victims;
3. The amount of P134,775.00 as their share in the actual
damages for the expenses incurred as a result of their death;
4. The amount of P81,500.00 representing their share in the
reimbursement of the value of the pieces of jewelry taken during the
robbery.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

As to the civil liability of Jerry dela Cruz who was found guilty as
accessory, he is also ordered to indemnify the heirs of Eladio and Leonor
Santos as follows:
1. [T]he amount of P20,000.00 as his share in the civil
indemnity for the two victims;
2. The amount of P20,000.00 as his share in the moral damages;
3. The amount of P20,000.00 as his share in the actual damages;

 
 

519

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 519

People vs. Opiniano

4. The amount of P10,000.00 as his share in the reimbursement

for the articles taken.
The earrings recovered has already been returned to the Santos heirs. The
cash in bills and coins in the amount of P5,000.00 more or less and the
reams of Marlboro cigarettes are ordered returned to the heirs of Eladio and
Leonor Santos.
SO ORDERED.79 (Underscoring in the original)

 
Only Opiniano appealed the Regional Trial Court’s decision.80 In
view of People v. Mateo,81 this Court referred the case to the Court
of Appeals for intermediate review.82
On July 31, 2007, the Special Twelfth Division of the Court of
Appeals affirmed in toto83 the Regional Trial Court’s decision.
According to the Court of Appeals, the direct testimony of Dela
Cruz admitting their participation in the crime and Opiniano’s
possession of the stolen items were clear proofs of his involvement
in the crime.84 Thus:

WHEREFORE, premise[s] considered the Appeal is DISMISSED.

The Decision dated February 8, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
76, Quezon City is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED.85 (Emphasis in the original)

 
The records of this case were elevated to this Court on February
14, 2008,86 pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ October

_______________

79  Id., at pp. 75-76.

80  RTC Records, p. 267, Regional Trial Court’s Order.
81  477 Phil. 752, 770-773; 433 SCRA 640, 657 (2004) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

82  Rollo, pp. 4-5, Court of Appeals’ Decision.

83  Id., at pp. 3-24.
84  Id., at pp. 17-24.
85  Id., at p. 24.

 
 

520

520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano

18, 2007 Resolution,87 which gave due course to Opiniano’s Notice

of Appeal.88
At issue is the sufficiency of evidence to convict the appellant of
robbery with homicide.
The Regional Trial Court considered the following circumstances
sufficient to prove the culpability of the appellant for the offense:

1. That Jerry dela Cruz was caught albeit by chance by Caloocan City
policemen while carrying a heavy bag which when opened yielded reams of
Marlboro cigarettes and cash in coins and bills, among others;
2. The fact that dela Cruz’s leg had fresh bloodstains and a 9-inch kris
found in his person. His immediate story to the police led to the discovery of
the dead bodies of the Santos couple in their residence;
3. That articles such as the cigarettes and bills in different
denominations were among those taken from the victims’ house; the
bloodstains found on some bills corresponded to the blood types of Eladio
and Leonor Santos;
4. That the pair of earrings which fell from the underwear of Diony
Opiniano when under investigation at the police station belonged to the old
woman and among those missing from her room; and
5. That the two paper wrappers found in Lumayag’s pants bore the
initial HE for Honorata Estrella, the daughter of the Santoses who herself
used to wrap the coins in the store and would add her initials prior to
bringing them to the bank for deposit.89

_______________

86  Id., at p. 1, Court of Appeals Judicial Records Division’s Letter to Supreme Court

Judicial Records Office.

87  CA Rollo, p. 250.

88  Id., at p. 245.
89  Id., at pp. 67-68.

 
 

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

521

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 521

People vs. Opiniano

Appellant Opiniano contends, however, that the totality of the

circumstantial evidence is “insufficient to support [his] conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.”90 He further argues that the extrajudicial
confession of Dela Cruz, implicating him in the crime, is
inadmissible in evidence, as it was obtained without the assistance
of counsel.91 Lastly, Opiniano points to inconsistencies in the
testimonies of Dela Cruz and of the police officers, which allegedly
make their story incredible.92
We sustain the conviction of appellant Opiniano.
I
 
Dela Cruz’s extrajudicial confession without counsel at the police
station without a valid waiver of the right to counsel — that is, in
writing and in the presence of counsel — is inadmissible in
evidence.93 It is undisputed that Dela Cruz was neither assisted by a
lawyer nor was his confession reduced into writing.94 Further, when
the police officers informed Dela

_______________

90  Id., at p. 131, Brief for the Accused-Appellants Romaldo Lumayag and Diony
Opiniano.
91  Id., at pp. 131-133.
92  Id., at pp. 135-136.
93   People v. Bariquit, 395 Phil. 823, 847; 341 SCRA 600, 622 (2000) [Per
Curiam, En Banc]; People v. Bonola, G.R. No. 116394, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA
238, 254 [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
CONST., Art. III, Sec. 12(1) and (3) provide:
Sec. 12(1). Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
....
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
94  TSN, July 21, 1998, p. 10, Testimony of PO2 Rodolfo Paule.

 
 

522

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano

Cruz of his right to a lawyer, the latter did not say anything.95 Even
so, such silence did not constitute a valid waiver of his right to
remain silent and to have a competent and independent counsel.
Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution states that “[t]hese rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.”
Dela Cruz was merely told of his Constitutional rights, but he
was never asked whether he understood what he was told or whether
he wanted to exercise or avail himself of such rights.

Q You stated that after a thorough interrogation, he confessed to killing and

robbing two couples. When he made that confession, was he assisted by
a lawyer?
A No.
Q Was his confession in writing?
A No, sir, but he verbally admitted.
Q Did you inform the accused of his right to a lawyer of his own choice?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what did he say?
A Nothing, sir.
Q He did not tell you that he wanted a lawyer?
A No, sir, because our normal procedure sir is, every time we interrogate the
person, we always inform him of his constitutional rights.96

 
This kind of perfunctory giving of the so-called Miranda rights is
what this Court has previously frowned upon as ineffective and
inadequate compliance with the mandates of the Constitution.97 Any
confession obtained under these cir-

_______________

95  Id., at p. 11.
96  Id., at pp. 10-11.
97   People v. Obrero, 387 Phil. 937, 953; 332 SCRA 190, 205 (2000) [Per J.
Mendoza, Second Division], citing People v. Santos,

 
 

523

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 523

People vs. Opiniano

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

cumstances is flawed and cannot be used as evidence not only

against the declarant but also against his co-accused.98
In People v. Jara,99 this Court held that where a confession was
illegally obtained from two (2) of the accused, and consequently
were not admissible against them, with much more reason should
the same be inadmissible against a third accused who had no
participation in its execution.
Hence, Dela Cruz’s extrajudicial confession is likewise
inadmissible against appellant Opiniano.
 
II
 
Nonetheless, even without Dela Cruz’s extrajudicial confession,
Opiniano’s conviction still stands. The eyewitness account of Dela
Cruz, corroborated by the testimony and findings of Dr. Arizala and
Forensic Biologist Buan, suffices to convict accused-appellant
Opiniano of the crime charged.
The Regional Trial Court aptly gave credence to Dela Cruz’s
“graphic account of what transpired . . . that fateful night of
November 29, 1997.”100 The Regional Trial Court determined
Lumayag as the lead man, “who hatched the plan to rob the
couple,”101 along with appellant as his co-conspirator.102 As a rule,
findings of the trial court on the credibility of a witness will
generally not be disturbed on appeal as it was the trial court which
had the opportunity to

_______________

347 Phil. 723, 733; 283 SCRA 443, 455 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division];
People v. Binamira, 343 Phil. 1, 21; 277 SCRA 232, 249 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban,
Third Division]; and People v. Ramirez, 292 Phil. 413, 427-431 (1993) [Per J. Davide,
Jr., Third Division].
98  People v. Rodriguez, 395 Phil. 876, 885-888; 341 SCRA 645, 656 (2000) [Per
J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
99  228 Phil. 490, 508; 144 SCRA 516, 536 (1986) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc].
100  CA Rollo, p. 69.
101  Id.
102  Id.

 
 

524

524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

observe the demeanor of the witness during trial.103 Here, there is no

showing that the Regional Trial Court overlooked or arbitrarily
disregarded facts and circumstances of significance to the case.
Dela Cruz’s straightforward narration showed how Lumayag and
appellant Opiniano acted in concert to commit the robbery with
homicide:

ATTY. PEREZ
....
Q Will you demonstrate to me what you saw or what did Romaldo Lumayag
do to your lola?
A (Witness demonstrating; Romaldo Lumayag held the neck of the lola with
his right arm)
Q When you saw this being done by Romaldo Lumayag, what did you do,
Mr. Witness?
A When I asked him “Bakit ganon?” He answered: “Wala kang pakialam.
Lakad namin ito.”
Q Do you remember what happened thereafter?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened?
A While lola was being held and she was shouting, lolo came out from the
room.
Q And what happened after your lolo came out from the room?
A When my lolo came out of the room, he went inside the store and [sic]
took a knife.
....
Q Was he able to get a knife?
A Yes, sir.

_______________

103  People v. Nang, 351 Phil. 944, 951-952; 289 SCRA 16, 26-27 (1998) [Per J.
Romero, Third Division]; People v. Sotto, 341 Phil. 184, 194; 275 SCRA 191, 200
(1997) [Per J. Regalado, Second Division]; People v. Arcamo, 193 Phil. 124 129-130;
105 SCRA 707, 713-714 (1981) [Per Curiam, En Banc].

 
 

525

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 525

People vs. Opiniano

Q And what did he do after he got the knife?

A When my lolo came out of the store, my cousin threw my lola towards
Opiniano and Romaldo Lumayag grabbed the knife from lolo.
....

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

Q .  .  . [B]efore Romaldo dragged your lola to Opiniano, where was

Opiniano then?
A He was outside the store, si[r].
Q Why? What was he doing there?
A He closed the store.
Q That is after lola shouted for help?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when your cousin Romaldo Lumayag was able to grab the knife
from your lolo, what did Romaldo Lumayag do?
A He stabbed my lolo.
Q You saw this Romaldo Lumayag stabbed your lolo?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what did you do?
A I just stood there because I was afraid.
Q You did not help your lolo?
A I tried to pacify but I could not do so.
Q Why?
A Romaldo did not want me to pacify him. He was threatening me.
Q Do you remember how many times did Romaldo Lumayag stab your
lolo?
A Several times, sir.
....
Q Is that in one moment, Mr. Witness?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what happened thereafter, Mr. Witness? What happened to your lolo?
A He fell by the sidecar.

 
 

526

526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano

Q By the way, Mr. Witness, you earlier testified that at that time, Opiniano
was holding also your lolo, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you remember what happened thereafter?
A When I turned around, I saw my lola already dead.
Q Why?
A Opiniano killed my lola.
Q And do you remember what he used in killing your lola?
A Knife, sir.
Q Did you see that knife?
A Yes, sir.
....

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

Q You made mention, Mr. Witness, that your lolo was stabbed by Romaldo
Lumayag. Did you see what he used in stabbing your lolo?
A Yes, sir.
....
Q Kindly examine this knife, Mr. Witness, and tell us if that was the knife
that was used?
A This is the same knife used by Romaldo Lumayag.
Q And that was the knife which was taken by your lolo from the store?
A Yes, sir, which he grabbed.
....
Q You said, Mr. Witness, that your lola was being held by Opiniano. Is that
correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you kindly tell us again, Mr. Witness, what happened to her.
....
A She was stabbed by Opiniano.

 
 

527

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 527

People vs. Opiniano

Q And did you see the knife used by Opiniano in stabbing your lola?
A Yes, sir.
....
Q What happened after that?
A My cousin went upstairs.
....
Q Then, after that what happened?
A When he went downstairs, he was carrying money.
....
Q Did you know how much was that money Romaldo Lumayag was
holding then?
....
A P25,000.00, sir.
Q How did you know that the money he was holding was P25,000.00?
A He counted it on the floor.
Q Thereafter, what did he do with the money?
A He put them in his pocket.
Q Do you remember what did he do after that?
....
A While carrying my bag, he went inside the store, he took the money from
the drawer and removed my clothes and threw them in the store and then,
he put the money inside the bag.
....

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

Q After putting these denominations in your bag, Mr. Witness, do you

remember what did Romaldo Lumayag do afterwards?
A He frisked my lola and got the money from her pocket.
Q Do you remember where did Romaldo Lumayag put the money which he
got from the pockets of your lola?

 
 

528

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano

A He took the wallet of my lolo and put the money there.

....
Q Mr. Witness, do you remember what did Romaldo Lumayag do with the
wallet after putting the money of your lola inside?
A He put it inside the pocket of the bag.
Q After Romaldo Lumayag put the wallet at the side pocket of this bag, Mr.
Witness, do you remember what happened next?
A He told me to go with them.104

 
“The testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is
sufficient to produce a conviction.”105 Dela Cruz was categorical and
coherent in stating appellant Opiniano’s participation in the robbing
and killing of the Spouses Santos. His testimony remained unshaken
even on a lengthy and intense cross-examination from appellant
Opiniano’s counsel and the prosecutor. His answers were candid and
spontaneous, which, according to the Regional Trial Court, “could
not have been glamorized or embellished by someone ignorant and
unknowing as Jerry [D]ela Cruz.”106 He positively identified
Lumayag and Opiniano as the assailants who stabbed the victim
spouses with a knife. Dr. Arizala testified that Eladio and Leonor
died as a result of several stab wounds, inflicted by sharp-edged107
and single-bladed108 instruments, on different areas of their bodies.
Moreover, the contents of the bag seized

_______________

104  TSN, June 15, 1999, pp. 21-33, Testimony of Jerry Dela Cruz.
105   People v. Correa, 349 Phil. 615, 627; 285 SCRA 679, 689 (1998) [Per J.
Martinez, En Banc]. See also People v. Macaliag, 392 Phil. 284, 296; 337 SCRA 502,
515 (2000) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
106  CA Rollo, p. 70, Regional Trial Court’s Decision.
107  TSN, February 25, 1998, p. 44, Testimony of Dr. Floresto Arizala, Jr.
108  Id., at p. 60.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

 
 

529

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 529

People vs. Opiniano

from Dela Cruz — Marlboro cigarettes and coins in wrappers —

were the same things Estrella claimed to have been taken from the
store of her parents.109 The bloodstains on the cash recovered from
Dela Cruz correspond to the blood types of the victims.110
When several accused are tried together, the confession made by
one (1) of them during the trial implicating the others is evidence
against the latter.111
In People v. De la Cruz:112

An accused is always a competent witness for or against his co-accused,

and the fact that he had been discharged from the information does not
affect the quality of his testimony, for the admissibility, the relevancy, as
well as the weight that should be accorded his declarations are to be
determined by the Rules on Evidence. And in this connection, it has been
held that the uncorroborated testimony of an accused, when satisfactory and
convincing, may be the basis for a judgment of conviction of his co-
accused.113

_______________

109  TSN, March 4, 1998, pp. 3-4, Testimony of Honorata S. Estrella.

110  TSN, February 25, 1998, pp. 11-24, Testimony of Pet Byron T. Buan.
111  People v. Guiapar, 214 Phil. 475, 485; 129 SCRA 539, 544 (1984) [Per J.
Makasiar, En Banc], citing People v. Cañete, 150 Phil. 17; 43 SCRA 14 (1972) [Per
Curiam, En Banc]; People v. Orzame, 123 Phil. 931, 936; 17 SCRA 161, 165 (1966)
[Per Curiam, En Banc]; United States v. Manabat and Simeon, 42 Phil. 569, 573-574
(1921) [Per J. Ostrand, En Banc]; and United States v. Remegio, 37 Phil. 599, 610-
611 (1918) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
112  215 Phil. 144; 130 SCRA 169 (1984) [Per J. Escolin, Second Division].
113  Id., at p. 148; pp. 173-174, citing United States v. Wayne Shoup, 35 Phil. 56,
60 (1916) [Per J. Johnson, En Banc], and United States v. Remigio, 37 Phil. 599, 610-
611 (1918) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].

 
 

530

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

Appellant Opiniano points to inconsistencies in Dela Cruz’s

testimony vis-à-vis the testimonies of the police officers. For
instance, Dela Cruz testified that the police recovered a knife, a pair
of earrings, and a ring from appellant Opiniano. However, PO2
Paule testified that no jewelry or weapon was taken from appellant
Opiniano.114 Also, Dela Cruz’s testimony that appellant Opiniano
was “slumped in a bangketa”115 when he was arrested in Letre,
Malabon was allegedly contradicted by PO2 Paule’s testimony that
appellant was “lying on a bench”116 when they found him.117
These inconsistencies do not minimize the value of Dela Cruz’s
testimony. These minor contradictions pertained to matters
surrounding the arrest of appellant Opiniano and do not affect his
credibility.118 They do not disturb the fact that Dela Cruz saw
appellants Opiniano and Lumayag commit the gruesome crime, and
the consistency of his testimony on these points. The Regional Trial
Court’s conclusions were founded principally on the direct, positive,
and categorical assertions made by Dela Cruz as regards material
events in the crime.
Dela Cruz’s credibility is enhanced by the absence of any
improper motive.119 There was no evidence adduced to show that he
harbored any ill feelings towards appellant Opiniano. In fact, they
were town mates from Gandara, Samar.120 Even

_______________

114  CA Rollo, p. 135, Brief for the Accused-Appellants Romaldo Lumayag and
Diony Opiniano.
115  Id., at p. 136.
116  Id.
117  Id., at pp. 135-136.
118  See People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 351
[Per J. Peralta, En Banc], citing People v. Cabtalan, 682 Phil. 164, 168; 666 SCRA
174, 178 (2012) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
119  People v. Alicando, 321 Phil. 656, 720; 251 SCRA 293, 341 (1995) [Per J.
Puno, En Banc].
120  TSN, November 17, 1998, pp. 2-3, Testimony of Romaldo Lumayag.

 
 

531

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 531

People vs. Opiniano

appellant Opiniano admits that he could not think of a single reason

why Dela Cruz implicated him in the crime.121

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

In contrast, appellant Opiniano could only offer a lame denial

and alibi, which were replete with inconsistencies. There is no
corroborative evidence that appellant Opiniano was in another place
at the time the crime was committed; neither was it clearly shown
that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the scene
of the crime.122
All told, the prosecution proved appellant Opiniano’s guilt
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. We
affirm the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of
Appeals.
As to civil liability, we reduce the actual damages to P121,550.00
because these were the only expenses proven with receipts.123
Hence, appellants Opiniano’s and Lumayag’s share in the actual
damages would be P101,550.00. Further, in line with current
jurisprudence,124 this Court increases appellants Opiniano’s and
Lumayag’s share in the award of civil indemnity and moral damages
from P80,000.00 to P130,000.00 each, for the death of the two (2)
victims. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be
imposed on all damages awarded from the date of the finality of this
judgment until fully paid.125

_______________

121   TSN, December 1, 1998, p. 15, Testimony of Diony Opiniano, and TSN,
January 12, 1999, pp. 3-11, Testimony of Diony Opiniano.
122  See People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 208524, June 1, 2016, 792 SCRA 80, 92 [Per
J. Del Castillo, Second Division], citing People v. Madeo, 617 Phil. 638, 660; 602
SCRA 425, 446 (2009) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division], and People v. Lozada,
454 Phil. 241, 253; 406 SCRA 494, 504 (2003) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
123  RTC Records, pp. 272-273.
124  People v. Jugueta, supra note 118.
125  People v. Jumawan, 733 Phil. 102, 159; 722 SCRA 108, 171 (2014) [Per J.
Reyes, First Division]; People v. Vidaña, 720 Phil. 531, 545; 708 SCRA 592, 607
(2013) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division]; People v. Cruz, 714 Phil. 390,
400-401; 701 SCRA 548, 560

 
 

532

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Opiniano

WHEREFORE, the July 31, 2007 Decision of the Court of

Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01265, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION as to the amounts awarded. Accused-appellant
Diony Opiniano y Verano is found GUILTY beyond reasonable

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and

sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Accused-appellants Diony Opiniano and Romaldo Lumayag are
jointly and severally ordered to pay the heirs of the victims, the
following amounts:
1. P130,000.00 as their share in the civil indemnity for the death
of the two (2) victims;
2. P130,000.00 as their share in the moral damages for the death
of the two (2) victims;
3. P101,550.00 as their share in the actual damages for the
expenses incurred as a result of their death;
4. P81,500.00 representing their share in the reimbursement of
the value of the pieces of jewelry taken during the robbery.
Furthermore, all monetary awards for damages shall earn interest
at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the
finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Mendoza and Martires, JJ.,

concur.

_______________

(2013) [Per J. Reyes, First Division], citing People v. Cabungan, 702 Phil. 177, 190;
689 SCRA 236, 249 (2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division]; People v. Gani,
710 Phil. 466, 476; 697 SCRA 530, 540 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division], citing
People v. Amistoso, 701 Phil. 345, 364; 688 SCRA 376, 395 (2013) [Per J. Leonardo-
De Castro, First Division]; People v. Arpon, 678 Phil. 752, 792; 662 SCRA 506, 540
(2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].

 
 

533

VOL. 832, JULY 26, 2017 533

People vs. Opiniano

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—It has already been held that “the infractions of the so-
called Miranda rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial
confession or admission made during custodial investigation.”
(People vs. Bio, 750 SCRA 572 [2015])
The fact that the extrajudicial confession was made by Antonio
while inside a detention cell does not by itself render such
confession inadmissible. (People vs. Dacanay, 807 SCRA 130
[2016])
 
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/27
10/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 832

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddf0f4c6a003976b9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/27