GR 100801; (August, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 100801-02; August 25, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DONATO B. CONTINENTE and JUANITO T. ITAAS, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On April 21, 1989, U.S. Col. James N. Rowe and his driver, Joaquin Vinuya, were ambushed at a Quezon City intersection. Gunmen aboard a Toyota Corolla fired upon their vehicle, killing Rowe and seriously wounding Vinuya. The assailants fled, and the getaway car was later recovered. Initial investigations by military intelligence pointed to the involvement of appellants Donato Continente and Juanito Itaas as members of a CPP-NPA assassination team. Continente, an employee at the University of the Philippines, was apprehended on June 16, 1989. During custodial investigation, he executed a written confession admitting his role in the surveillance operation for the ambush. Itaas, identified as a member of an NPA Sparrow Unit, was arrested in Davao City in August 1989. Both were charged with murder and frustrated murder.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of appellants Donato Continente and Juanito Itaas for the crimes of murder and frustrated murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The Court upheld the validity and admissibility of Continente’s extrajudicial confession. It was executed with the assistance of counsel, Atty. Bonifacio Manansala, who was present during the questioning and signed the confession as a witness. The Court found no evidence that the confession was coerced, and it contained details only a participant would know, lending to its credibility. This confession, corroborated by the recovery of the getaway vehicle and intelligence reports, firmly established Continente’s participation in the conspiracy to assassinate Col. Rowe.
For appellant Itaas, the Court ruled that his identity and participation were sufficiently proven by the credible testimony of prosecution witness Rodolfo Salas. Salas positively identified Itaas as one of the gunmen at the ambush site. The defense of alibi proffered by Itaas was correctly rejected by the trial court, as it was not physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene. The collective actions of the appellants, pursuant to their conspiracy as members of the assassination team, made each liable for the consequences. The qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were correctly appreciated, as the attack was sudden and executed in a manner ensuring the victims had no chance to defend themselves, following a planned scheme.