this is how boring i have become in writing blah blahs
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 156983
Respondents,
-versus- For
VICTOR WOOD Destructive Arson
Petitioner
Promulgated:
February 1, 2007
x--------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BANGI, CJ.:
The Case
This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch 30 of Metro Manila convicting herein petitioner for the crime of Destructive Arson
Antecedent Facts
That on the night of February 29, 2006 in Baranggay San Beda, Mendiola, San Miguel, Manila, spouses Victor Wood and Ara Mina had a fight on the latter’s addiction to the game of Mahjong; that on the same night herein accused set their mahjong table and pieces on fire inside their dwelling. The fire grew big that it engulfed the ceiling of the spouses’ dwelling and spread through the entire San Beda Baranggay, burning all 163 houses therein, included the entire campus of San Beda College.
The Accused was arrested by agents of the Western Police District while evacuating their properties from their burning house and was taken directly to Camp Aguinaldo to submit him to an inquest. The accused was interrogated inside the interrogating room, which was being recorded and watched. Herein accused denied the allegations that he had caused the fire in Baranggay San Beda and invoked his right to remain silent until he talks to his lawyer. At about 2:00 AM of March 1, 2006 the agents interrogating the accused took a break and to eat meals. It is at this moment that herein accused got down to his knees and prayed: “Oh God, let me get away with it just this once.”
In about 10:00 AM of March 1, 2006, herein accused was charged for violation of Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code for causing destructive arson upon 163 houses and San Beda College. Victor Wood pleaded not guilty.
During the trial, the prosecution presented the recorded prayer of the accused was used as evidence for his confession of guilt. Herein was convicted by the Regional Trial Court, except of the decision reads:
“Whereas the evidence presented is clear that said accused has confessed his guilt at the moment he was being interrogated and that this court finds it absurd that the accused would feel so hopeless if he is indeed innocent of the crime charged against him. Other evidences and testimonies also corroborate the theory of the prosecution that the accused has intentionally caused the fire. Therefore, this court finds the accused guilty of Destructive Arson beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences the accused, Victor Wood, to Reclusion Pertpetua and to pay each of the affected families Php 50,000.00 and San Beda College Php 6,000.000.00 as actual and moral damages.” [1]
The Issues
The petition raises the following issues:
Whether the lower court erred in taking the prayer as a confession of the petitioner’s guilt.
Whether the recorded prayer of herein petitioner is admissible as evidence in the court of law.
Whether or not the Lower Court erred in convicting the petitioner for Destructive Arson.
The Ruling of the Court
There is no merit to the petition.
Despite of the merit of the arguments of herein petitioner, herein petitioner has failed to present substantial evidence to prove his innocence of the crime charged against him.
1. The petitioner’s prayer is not a confession of his guilt to the crime of Destructive Arson.
Section 3, Rule 116 of Revised Rules of Court provides that it is mandatory in a confession of guilt of a capital offense that the court shall inquire into the voluntariness of confession and the comprehension of the accused of the consequences of his confession. The Section provides:
Sec. 3. When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf. [2]
Said prayer cannot be, in any way, be a confession of guilt by the accused since he had pleaded not guilty for the crime of Destructive Arson upon his arraignment. Provided that said prayer is a confession of the guilt of the accused, such is not valid for it is done without the presence of his counsel and without him being informed of the consequences of his actions. Section 12 paragraph 1 and 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides:
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 presence of counsel. [3]
Paragraph 3 of the said constitutional provision further provides:
Sec. 12 (3). Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this of Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
[4]
The Lower Court erred in taking the prayer as confession of the guilt of the accused whereas it can also be construed to be a mere manifestation of the petitioner’s religion, wherein he calls upon his God in his time of need. A confession is an acknowledgement in express words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the main fact charged, or some essential parts thereof – there is no such thing as implied confession. (People v. Porio, 376 SCRA 596) It cannot be argued that the confession can be inferred from the prayer uttered by the petitioner for it will be a violation of his right to due process.
2. The recorded prayer of herein accused cannot be admitted as evidence by the prosecution.
The recording of the prayer of the accused is a violation of Republic Act 4200 or the Anti Wiretapping Law. Section 1 of RA 4200 provides:
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in Sec. 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition. [5]
Yes, the communication between the interrogators and herein petitioner was not private in nature as it is done in the lawful exercise of their functions. But they seized their investigation upon the invocation of the petitioner’s right to remain silent and to confer to his counsel, as mandated and protected by the Constitution. Thus, when herein petitioner got down to his knees to pray it was done in his private moment, being done not in the course of the investigation and especially without the presence of his attorney; RA 4200 is also quite clear in this aspect as articles gathered in violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law is inadmissible as evidence in the law of court. Section 4 of the aforecited statute states:
Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding Sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. [6]
The law is very clear on this and it does not require the lower court to construe the intention of the framers, for by mere use of common sense will lead an ordinary prudent man to learn that such recorded prayer is inadmissible as evidence.
3. Notwithstanding the errors of the lower court in the appreciation of evidence, it still has not acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
The petition to overrule the decision of conviction has no merit since it is not only from the said inadmissible evidence that the trial court had based its decision. It can be missed that Ara Mina, herein petitioner’s spouse had identified the petitioner as the one who burned the mahjong table and pieces inside their dwelling. When examined by the prosecution, the spouse pinpointed at his husband without butting an eyebrow. Excerpt of the transcript of the direct examination is as follow:
Counsel: What had happened between you and your husband in the night of February 29, 2006?
Mina: We had a fight over my addiction to the game of mahjong.
Counsel: And in the said fight what else had happened?
Mina: My husband took a match and rolled three pages of the broadsheet; he has set it into fire and burned the mahjong table and pieces in our sala.
Counsel: Did you not stop him from doing so?
Mina: I did but all he said was that it is better to burn the entire house for me to learn the value of money I gamble. [7]
This was corroborated by their maid, Maribel Manantan, who happened to have witness the fight of the spouses and the growth of the fire. Excerpts of the decision are as follow:
Counsel: Where were you when your bosses were fighting?
Manantan: I was hiding behind the refrigerator peeping to see them fight?
Counsel: And what did you notice in their fight?
Manantan: In the heat of their fight, Sir Vic got a broadsheet and some matches and set the mahjong table and pieces to fire inside the sala.
Counsel: What else happened while the mahjong table and pieces were burning?
Manantan: Ma’am Ara tried to stop Sir Vic but Sir Vic just said that it was better to burn the entire house down. [8]
These testimonies were not belied by the defense and the denial of the accused of the said crime was not substantiated by any valid evidence.
WHEREFORE, we affirm the decision of the lower court to hold Victor Wood guilty of Destructive Arson with cost against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
RAY JOHN E. BANGI
Chief Justice
WE CONCUR:
JOHN MICHAEL . BUESER
Associate Justice
LUISITO TONGSON
Associate Justice
BERNARDO TABUNAR
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo Regional Trial Court p 26
[2] Section 3, Rule 116, Revised Rules of Court
[3] Section 12, 1987 Constitution
[4] Ibid
[5] Section 1, Republic Act 4200
[6] Ibid
[7] Rollo, Regional Trial Court p 23
[8] Rollo, Regional Trial Court p 24
SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 156983
Respondents,
-versus- For
VICTOR WOOD Destructive Arson
Petitioner
Promulgated:
February 1, 2007
x--------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BANGI, CJ.:
The Case
This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch 30 of Metro Manila convicting herein petitioner for the crime of Destructive Arson
Antecedent Facts
That on the night of February 29, 2006 in Baranggay San Beda, Mendiola, San Miguel, Manila, spouses Victor Wood and Ara Mina had a fight on the latter’s addiction to the game of Mahjong; that on the same night herein accused set their mahjong table and pieces on fire inside their dwelling. The fire grew big that it engulfed the ceiling of the spouses’ dwelling and spread through the entire San Beda Baranggay, burning all 163 houses therein, included the entire campus of San Beda College.
The Accused was arrested by agents of the Western Police District while evacuating their properties from their burning house and was taken directly to Camp Aguinaldo to submit him to an inquest. The accused was interrogated inside the interrogating room, which was being recorded and watched. Herein accused denied the allegations that he had caused the fire in Baranggay San Beda and invoked his right to remain silent until he talks to his lawyer. At about 2:00 AM of March 1, 2006 the agents interrogating the accused took a break and to eat meals. It is at this moment that herein accused got down to his knees and prayed: “Oh God, let me get away with it just this once.”
In about 10:00 AM of March 1, 2006, herein accused was charged for violation of Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code for causing destructive arson upon 163 houses and San Beda College. Victor Wood pleaded not guilty.
During the trial, the prosecution presented the recorded prayer of the accused was used as evidence for his confession of guilt. Herein was convicted by the Regional Trial Court, except of the decision reads:
“Whereas the evidence presented is clear that said accused has confessed his guilt at the moment he was being interrogated and that this court finds it absurd that the accused would feel so hopeless if he is indeed innocent of the crime charged against him. Other evidences and testimonies also corroborate the theory of the prosecution that the accused has intentionally caused the fire. Therefore, this court finds the accused guilty of Destructive Arson beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences the accused, Victor Wood, to Reclusion Pertpetua and to pay each of the affected families Php 50,000.00 and San Beda College Php 6,000.000.00 as actual and moral damages.” [1]
The Issues
The petition raises the following issues:
Whether the lower court erred in taking the prayer as a confession of the petitioner’s guilt.
Whether the recorded prayer of herein petitioner is admissible as evidence in the court of law.
Whether or not the Lower Court erred in convicting the petitioner for Destructive Arson.
The Ruling of the Court
There is no merit to the petition.
Despite of the merit of the arguments of herein petitioner, herein petitioner has failed to present substantial evidence to prove his innocence of the crime charged against him.
1. The petitioner’s prayer is not a confession of his guilt to the crime of Destructive Arson.
Section 3, Rule 116 of Revised Rules of Court provides that it is mandatory in a confession of guilt of a capital offense that the court shall inquire into the voluntariness of confession and the comprehension of the accused of the consequences of his confession. The Section provides:
Sec. 3. When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf. [2]
Said prayer cannot be, in any way, be a confession of guilt by the accused since he had pleaded not guilty for the crime of Destructive Arson upon his arraignment. Provided that said prayer is a confession of the guilt of the accused, such is not valid for it is done without the presence of his counsel and without him being informed of the consequences of his actions. Section 12 paragraph 1 and 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides:
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 presence of counsel. [3]
Paragraph 3 of the said constitutional provision further provides:
Sec. 12 (3). Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this of Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
[4]
The Lower Court erred in taking the prayer as confession of the guilt of the accused whereas it can also be construed to be a mere manifestation of the petitioner’s religion, wherein he calls upon his God in his time of need. A confession is an acknowledgement in express words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the main fact charged, or some essential parts thereof – there is no such thing as implied confession. (People v. Porio, 376 SCRA 596) It cannot be argued that the confession can be inferred from the prayer uttered by the petitioner for it will be a violation of his right to due process.
2. The recorded prayer of herein accused cannot be admitted as evidence by the prosecution.
The recording of the prayer of the accused is a violation of Republic Act 4200 or the Anti Wiretapping Law. Section 1 of RA 4200 provides:
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in Sec. 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition. [5]
Yes, the communication between the interrogators and herein petitioner was not private in nature as it is done in the lawful exercise of their functions. But they seized their investigation upon the invocation of the petitioner’s right to remain silent and to confer to his counsel, as mandated and protected by the Constitution. Thus, when herein petitioner got down to his knees to pray it was done in his private moment, being done not in the course of the investigation and especially without the presence of his attorney; RA 4200 is also quite clear in this aspect as articles gathered in violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law is inadmissible as evidence in the law of court. Section 4 of the aforecited statute states:
Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding Sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. [6]
The law is very clear on this and it does not require the lower court to construe the intention of the framers, for by mere use of common sense will lead an ordinary prudent man to learn that such recorded prayer is inadmissible as evidence.
3. Notwithstanding the errors of the lower court in the appreciation of evidence, it still has not acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
The petition to overrule the decision of conviction has no merit since it is not only from the said inadmissible evidence that the trial court had based its decision. It can be missed that Ara Mina, herein petitioner’s spouse had identified the petitioner as the one who burned the mahjong table and pieces inside their dwelling. When examined by the prosecution, the spouse pinpointed at his husband without butting an eyebrow. Excerpt of the transcript of the direct examination is as follow:
Counsel: What had happened between you and your husband in the night of February 29, 2006?
Mina: We had a fight over my addiction to the game of mahjong.
Counsel: And in the said fight what else had happened?
Mina: My husband took a match and rolled three pages of the broadsheet; he has set it into fire and burned the mahjong table and pieces in our sala.
Counsel: Did you not stop him from doing so?
Mina: I did but all he said was that it is better to burn the entire house for me to learn the value of money I gamble. [7]
This was corroborated by their maid, Maribel Manantan, who happened to have witness the fight of the spouses and the growth of the fire. Excerpts of the decision are as follow:
Counsel: Where were you when your bosses were fighting?
Manantan: I was hiding behind the refrigerator peeping to see them fight?
Counsel: And what did you notice in their fight?
Manantan: In the heat of their fight, Sir Vic got a broadsheet and some matches and set the mahjong table and pieces to fire inside the sala.
Counsel: What else happened while the mahjong table and pieces were burning?
Manantan: Ma’am Ara tried to stop Sir Vic but Sir Vic just said that it was better to burn the entire house down. [8]
These testimonies were not belied by the defense and the denial of the accused of the said crime was not substantiated by any valid evidence.
WHEREFORE, we affirm the decision of the lower court to hold Victor Wood guilty of Destructive Arson with cost against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
RAY JOHN E. BANGI
Chief Justice
WE CONCUR:
JOHN MICHAEL . BUESER
Associate Justice
LUISITO TONGSON
Associate Justice
BERNARDO TABUNAR
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo Regional Trial Court p 26
[2] Section 3, Rule 116, Revised Rules of Court
[3] Section 12, 1987 Constitution
[4] Ibid
[5] Section 1, Republic Act 4200
[6] Ibid
[7] Rollo, Regional Trial Court p 23
[8] Rollo, Regional Trial Court p 24
posted by ray john @ 4:43 PM
1 Comments:
haha. ako din, brod. i've written in a medical history format sa blog ko. tsk, tsk. post-grad studies does things to people. ;p
Post a Comment
<< Home