G.R. No. 49070; July 5, 1944
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VALENTIN TURTAL, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On June 2, 1943, Luis Edlawan was killed in his house in Cotabato. His wife, Celerina Sabas, reported the crime the next day. A constabulary squad, including appellant Valentin Turtal (a released war prisoner living in the barracks), investigated. Initial suspicion fell on Agustin Estrada, the widow’s companion, due to discrepancies in their statements. Suspicion shifted to Turtal based on his behavior during the investigation. Turtal was arrested, subjected to an all-night interrogation by Inspector Puno, and tied tightly to a post using “the No. 2 system of tying.” The following day, June 4, he signed an extrajudicial confession (Exhibit A) admitting to the killing. His conviction for murder in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato was based on this confession and the testimony of the widow, Celerina Sabas.
ISSUE
Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder is supported by sufficient and credible evidence.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
The Court found the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Celerina Sabas, to be “self-contradictory and incredible.” Her testimony was inconsistent on critical points: whether she was the appellant’s paramour, the location of her husband at the time of the shooting (in the ceiling or on the ground floor), and how she identified the killer. The Court also noted that the nature of the victim’s head wound, as described by the constabulary, and the absence of a spent shell or bullet suggested it was caused by a blunt instrument, not a gunshot as alleged in the confession.
Regarding the extrajudicial confession (Exhibit A), the Court held it was not voluntary and therefore worthless as evidence. The appellant maintained his innocence during a night of interrogation and only confessed after being subjected to a third-degree method (“the No. 2 system of tying”) and being tied to a post. Inspector Puno admitted to this treatment. Consequently, there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. The appellant was ordered released.