G.R. No. L-283, October 30, 1946
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SILVESTRE CARILLO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Silvestre Carillo, was convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Cebu and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with accessories, an indemnity of P2,000 to the heirs of the deceased, and costs. He admitted to killing Pastor Calma but disputed the manner and motive. The prosecution’s evidence consisted primarily of two confessions: Exhibit A, made to Capt. F.M. Palanca, a former guerrilla officer, and Exhibit B, a ratification before Assistant City Fiscal Cesar Kintanar. In Exhibit A, Carillo stated he shot Calma with a carbine at the Philippine Independent Church cemetery on June 29, 1945, motivated by hatred because Calma had previously tried to arrest him for the Japanese Kempetai, held his neck, and slapped him three times. Jorge Dapat corroborated by testifying he heard shots, saw a crowd at the cemetery, found Calma dead, and later saw Carillo with an American MP, where Carillo admitted to the shooting. At trial, Carillo presented a different version, claiming he was a soldier attempting to arrest Calma, an escaped prisoner and former Japanese undercover agent, and that Calma resisted by rushing to wrest his gun. He repudiated his confessions, alleging he signed Exhibit A due to obedience to his superior, Capt. Palanca, and that he was struck by an American MP during an earlier investigation. He claimed he signed Exhibit B without reading it, that it was not translated, and that Fiscal Kintanar suggested he plead guilty to be used as a witness against Calma’s wife. Defense witness Jorge Dapat testified that Calma was shot because he was an escaped prisoner who did not want to be returned to jail.

ISSUE

The primary issues revolve around the admissibility and voluntariness of the appellant’s extrajudicial confessions (Exhibits A and B) and whether their use violated constitutional or statutory protections against self-incrimination.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. It found both confessions to be voluntary and admissible. Regarding Exhibit A, the Court held it was freely made, as no violence, intimidation, or duress by Capt. Palanca was proven. Carillo’s claim of obeying a superior’s order did not explain why he made the specific, self-incriminating statements. The alleged incident with the American MP was deemed unrelated to the Palanca examination. Exhibit B was also found unimpeached; Carillo’s claim of signing it unknowingly was unsupported, and his testimony about a promise to be a witness against Calma’s wife was deemed nonsensical and not given earnestly. The Court ruled that the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination (Article III, Section 1(18) of the Constitution) does not render voluntary confessions inadmissible; it only protects against compulsory disclosure. It further held that Article 24 of Commonwealth Act No. 408 (Articles of War) applies to court-martial proceedings, not ordinary civil courts, and does not prohibit voluntary confessions. The Court found it unnecessary to decide whether paragraph 2, section 37 of Commonwealth Act No. 58 (Cebu City Charter), which restricted the use of sworn statements before the City Fiscal as evidence, was repealed by the Rules of Court, as Exhibit B was merely confirmatory of the sufficient and credible Exhibit A. The guilt of the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt by his voluntary confession in Exhibit A. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.