G.R. No. L-69971 July 3, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO LUVENDINO y COTAS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On January 17, 1983, 18-year-old Rowena Capcap, a student, failed to return home. Her bag was found dropped in the street. A search party discovered her body in a grassy vacant lot near her residence, with her pants pulled down, blouse rolled up, blood-stained underwear, and bloody fingerprint marks on her neck. An autopsy revealed she died from asphyxia due to manual strangulation, had spermatozoa present, and showed signs of a struggle. An information was filed charging Ernesto Luvendino, Cesar Borca, and Ricardo de Guzman with rape with murder. Only Luvendino was apprehended. After pleading not guilty, the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to death. Luvendino appealed, contesting the trial court’s handling of his counsel’s representation, the admission of an uncounseled re-enactment and extrajudicial confession, the credibility of a witness’s identification, and the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in not holding that the accused’s “demonstration” or re-enactment of the crime and his subsequent written admission of guilt were inadmissible for having been made without the benefit of counsel.
2. Whether the trial court erred in according credence to the identification and other statements made by prosecution witness Salvador B. Cemitara.
3. Whether the trial court erred in allowing Luvendino’s counsel to continue as such notwithstanding the counsel’s express mental reservations.

RULING

1. On the admissibility of the re-enactment and extrajudicial confession: The Supreme Court held that the re-enactment staged promptly upon Luvendino’s apprehension, prior to formal investigation and without a clear showing that he was informed of his constitutional rights or had waived them, was inadmissible. Regarding the extrajudicial confession, the Court found that Luvendino failed to substantiate his claim that it was involuntarily obtained through torture. The confession was taken after he was informed of his rights, in the presence of his mother and a lawyer, and he did not report any alleged maltreatment to them. However, the Court noted that under prevailing jurisprudence, such a confession, even if voluntarily given, is inadmissible if made without the assistance of counsel. Consequently, both the re-enactment and the extrajudicial confession were declared inadmissible in evidence.
2. On the credibility of witness Cemitara’s identification: The Supreme Court found that the trial court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of Salvador B. Cemitara. Cemitara positively identified Luvendino as one of the men he saw with the victim on the night of the crime. His testimony was detailed and consistent, and his initial reluctance to come forward was reasonably explained by fear due to threats. His identification was corroborated by other evidence, including the circumstances of the crime and the accused’s own statements during the inadmissible re-enactment.
3. On the counsel’s mental reservations: The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not err in requiring Atty. Luisito Sardillo to continue as counsel. The record showed that Atty. Sardillo actively participated in the trial, cross-examined witnesses, and presented evidence for the defense. His subsequent claim of mental reservations, made only after an adverse judgment, was deemed an afterthought and insufficient to prove ineffective assistance of counsel or a denial of due process.
Final Disposition: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment finding Ernesto Luvendino guilty of the crime of rape with homicide. However, due to the inadmissibility of the uncounseled extrajudicial confession and re-enactment, the Court modified the penalty. The death penalty was set aside, and Luvendino was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity of P50,000.00 to the victim’s heirs was affirmed.