G.R. No. L-69374 March 16, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO (BERTING) ALMARIO, HECTOR & ZENON SAMONTE, ISAGANI SACOP, BRUNO ABLAO and FRANCISCO BALDEMECA, defendants. ALBERTO (BERTING) ALMARIO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On March 6, 1979, in Lumban, Laguna, Police Lieutenant Eleuterio Belen was shot and killed. Eyewitness Danilo Ramos testified that he saw appellant Alberto Almario shoot the victim twice. The victim’s body bore seven gunshot wounds. Almario and several others were later charged with murder. During the trial, the prosecution presented Almario’s extra-judicial confession, where he admitted to the killing. Almario, however, recanted this confession, claiming it was extracted through force and violence from military investigators. He presented evidence that he reported this coercion immediately after the investigation. The trial court convicted Almario of murder, sentenced him to death, and acquitted his co-accused for lack of evidence.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the extra-judicial confession of the appellant is admissible as evidence, given his claim that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the extra-judicial confession is inadmissible. The legal logic is anchored on the constitutional protection under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (mirrored in the 1987 Constitution ), which guarantees that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself and that any confession obtained through force, violence, threat, or intimidation is inadmissible. The Court found the appellant’s claim of physical coercion credible, as it was supported by his immediate reports of the maltreatment to authorities following the investigation. This timely complaint lent credence to his allegation that his will was vitiated. Consequently, the confession, being involuntarily given, must be excluded. However, the conviction was upheld based on other evidence. The positive identification by eyewitness Danilo Ramos, who saw the appellant shoot the victim, provided sufficient proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court modified the penalty. As the crime was not attended by any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, following the medium period of the penalty for murder. The civil indemnity was set at P30,000.00, and moral damages were reduced to P10,000.00, as the awards for actual damages were not substantiated by proper evidence.