G.R. No. 95089 August 11, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NICOMEDES FABRO, FRANCISCO DIMALANTA, AMADO ALCALA, WILLIAM HOGE and “JOHN DOE,” accused, NICOMEDES FABRO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

An Information charged Nicomedes Fabro, Francisco Dimalanta, Amado Alcala, William Hoge, and “John Doe” with Murder for the killing of Dionisio Joaquin on April 12, 1987, in Olongapo City. Only Fabro, Dimalanta, and Alcala were arraigned (pleading not guilty); Hoge and “John Doe” were never arrested. During trial, Dimalanta and Alcala jumped bail, leaving only appellant Fabro to present evidence for the defense.
The prosecution’s evidence, through witness Anthony Beck, established that in the early morning of April 12, 1987, Beck and the victim Joaquin were asleep on the terrace of the Whiskey Bar. Beck was awakened by a gunshot and saw Joaquin dead with a bullet wound to the forehead. He saw a man running away, chased him but lost him. An old man later identified the fleeing man as “Badong,” who was later identified as Nicomedes Fabro. Fabro was surrendered to the CIS by his sister on April 13, 1987. After interrogation, he executed an extra-judicial confession (Exhibit “F”) in the presence of Atty. Isagani Jungco, implicating Dimalanta and Alcala. The defense, through Fabro’s sole testimony, claimed he was merely sleeping nearby, was awakened by shouts, saw the bloodied victim, and later signed a prepared confession under threat from the investigator.
The Regional Trial Court found Fabro, Dimalanta, and Alcala guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Only Fabro’s appeal was pursued, as the appeals of Dimalanta and Alcala were deemed dismissed for having jumped bail.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the extra-judicial confession of appellant Nicomedes Fabro was voluntarily executed and admissible as evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision, finding the extra-judicial confession admissible and sufficient to establish Fabro’s guilt.
The Court held that the constitutional rights of a person under custodial investigation (to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel) were duly observed in the execution of Fabro’s confession. The confession was made in the presence and with the assistance of Atty. Isagani Jungco, the IBP President for Zambales Chapter, who testified he fully apprised Fabro of his rights and that Fabro gave his statement voluntarily. The Court found no evidence of force, duress, or intimidation, noting that Fabro’s claim of being threatened was uncorroborated and belied by the testimony of the assisting counsel. The confession contained details only the perpetrator would know, enhancing its reliability.
Furthermore, the Court found the confession was corroborated by other evidence, such as the positive identification by witness Anthony Beck and the circumstances leading to Fabro’s surrender. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven, as the attack was sudden and from close range while the victim was asleep, rendering him defenseless. However, the Court found that the other alleged circumstances of evident premeditation and reward were not proven with equal certainty. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus affirmed, along with an order for indemnity to the victim’s heirs.