GR 89075; (October, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 89075 October 15, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO GEROLAGA, EFREN ATIVO and REMEDIOS RUADO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Remedios Ruado-Sy, her former employee Roberto Gerolaga, and houseboy Efren Ativo were charged with the murder of Antonio Sy, Remedios’s brother-in-law. The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence and an extrajudicial confession made by Gerolaga to the police without the assistance of counsel. The trial court convicted all three of murder. The facts revealed that Antonio Sy, who lived with his brother Emilio and Remedios, was killed inside their residence. The defense presented a narrative where Gerolaga acted alone, claiming he killed Antonio in defense of Remedios, whom Antonio had attempted to assault with a knife after a confrontation over money and a threatening letter purportedly from the NPA.
ISSUE
The core issue was whether the guilt of all three accused for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Efren Ativo and Remedios Ruado for insufficiency of evidence, but convicted Roberto Gerolaga of homicide, not murder. The Court meticulously reviewed the records, emphasizing its duty to correct factual misapprehensions by the trial court, especially in direct appeals involving life imprisonment. The Court found no credible evidence of conspiracy among the three accused. The circumstantial evidence did not form an unbroken chain leading to a conclusion of guilt for Ativo and Ruado. Gerolaga’s extrajudicial confession was inadmissible as it was obtained without counsel, violating his constitutional rights, and could not be used against his co-accused. However, Gerolaga himself judicially admitted to the killing during trial. The Court rejected his claim of defense of a relative, finding no unlawful aggression by the victim at the precise moment of the killing, as Gerolaga initiated the attack. The qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and reward were not proven. Without these qualifiers, the crime committed was homicide. The penalty was reduced accordingly, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.