G.R. No. 133685 -86. May 20, 2004.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. AMADO BAGNATE, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Amado Bagnate was charged with Murder for killing a 70-year-old blind woman, Auria Broña, and with Rape with Homicide for the sexual assault and killing of Rosalie Rayala, both occurring in the early hours of August 7, 1997, in Tabaco, Albay. During custodial investigation, he was informed of his constitutional rights in the Bicol dialect. He initially stated his counsel was in Manila, so the investigator offered the services of Atty. Paterno Brotamonte, which appellant accepted. Atty. Brotamonte conferred privately with appellant, informed him of his rights, and ascertained he was not harmed. Appellant then gave a detailed extrajudicial confession, with the investigation conducted in Bicol and translated into English for transcription, which he signed with his counsel present.
At trial, appellant repudiated his confession, claiming it was coerced through physical abuse and that he was not properly assisted by counsel, alleging Atty. Brotamonte merely acted as a translator for the police. The defense presented an alibi, asserting appellant was elsewhere during the crimes. The trial court convicted appellant of both charges and imposed the death penalty for each, prompting this automatic review.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether appellant’s extrajudicial confession was admissible, having been given with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; and (2) whether the prosecution proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for Murder and Rape with Homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. The extrajudicial confession was deemed admissible and voluntary. The Court meticulously examined the procedure and found the constitutional safeguards were scrupulously observed. Appellant was informed of his rights multiple times in a language he understood. Atty. Brotamonte was not a mere translator; he was a competent and independent counsel who privately conferred with appellant, explained his rights, and ensured the confession was given freely. His simultaneous translation of the questions and answers from Bicol to English for recording purposes did not diminish his role as an effective and vigilant defender of appellant’s rights. The confession was therefore a valid evidence of guilt.
The confession, corroborated by physical evidence and witness testimony, established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. For Murder, the killing of Auria Broña was qualified by treachery, as the attack was sudden and employed against a blind, elderly victim who could not defend herself. For the death of Rosalie Rayala, the crime was correctly classified as Rape with Homicide under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as the killing occurred by reason or on the occasion of the rape. However, the Court reduced the penalty for Murder to reclusion perpetua due to the absence of any aggravating circumstance. The death penalty for Rape with Homicide was affirmed, as the crime was committed in 1997 under Republic Act No. 7659 , and no mitigating circumstance was present. The Court awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the heirs of both victims.