G.R. No. 123273 July 16, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUBEN TIDULA, VICTORIO TIDULA, DOMINGO GATO, SALVACION GATO, and JOSE PRIOR, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The accused-appellants were charged with Robbery with Homicide. The victim, Mark Michael Lazaro Zulueta, was found dead in his home on August 31, 1992, with his hands tied, mouth stuffed, and suffering from multiple stab wounds and a cervical fracture. Items, including a cassette recorder, a wristwatch, and jackets, were stolen. Police investigation led to the arrest of the appellants. Pablo Genosa, a co-accused who turned state witness, confessed and detailed the conspiracy. He testified that the plan to kill the victim and his mother was instigated by accused Salvacion Gato due to a prior quarrel, for a payment of P2,000. The plan was executed on August 31, 1992, by Ruben Tidula, Jose Prior, and Domingo Gato, who entered the house, killed the victim, and stole the items. Stolen jackets were recovered from some of the appellants upon arrest. The Regional Trial Court found all accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, with orders to pay indemnity and damages.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by the appellants pertain to the admissibility of evidence and the legality of their arrest. Specifically: 1) Whether the sworn statement and testimony of Pablo Genosa, allegedly obtained in violation of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation, are admissible; and 2) Whether the warrantless arrests of the appellants were legal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the damages. The Court held:
1. On the admissibility of Pablo Genosa’s testimony: The constitutional rights during custodial investigation apply only to extrajudicial confessions or admissions obtained from the person under investigation. Pablo Genosa’s sworn statement (an extrajudicial confession) was taken without the assistance of counsel and was therefore inadmissible against him. However, his testimony in open court during the trial was given freely under oath and subject to cross-examination. Any alleged violation of his rights during custodial investigation did not affect the admissibility of this judicial testimony, which was legally obtained and presented. His detailed testimony, corroborated by physical evidence (the recovered jackets), sufficiently established the conspiracy and the commission of the crime.
2. On the legality of the warrantless arrests: Objections to the illegality of an arrest must be made before the accused enters a plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. The appellants in this case pleaded not guilty during arraignment without questioning the legality of their arrest. Consequently, they waived any defect in their arrest, and the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over their persons.
3. On the finding of guilt: The testimony of Pablo Genosa, a co-conspirator, was credible and corroborated. His account of the conspiracy instigated by Salvacion Gato, the planning sessions, the execution of the crime, and the recovery of stolen items established the guilt of all appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. Conspiracy was proven by their collective planning and execution of the criminal design.
4. On the penalty and damages: The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The award of moral damages was deleted for lack of factual basis, but the civil indemnity of P50,000 for the victim’s death was sustained. The appellants were also ordered to return the stolen jackets or pay their value.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is DELETED. Costs against appellants.