People v. Parojinog
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 31, 1984, a group of INP-PC operatives were ambushed in Barangay Sangay Daku, Ozamiz City, resulting in the death of P/Sgt. Alex Velasquez, P/Cpl. Antonio Carreon, and Sgt. Aludio Torres. The information charged Renee Parojinog y Namu-ag, along with several others, with triple murder, alleging conspiracy, treachery, and the aggravating circumstance of 'band'. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch XV, Ozamiz City, found accused-appellant Renee Parojinog guilty of triple murder and sentenced him to an indeterminate imprisonment. The RTC considered the aggravating circumstance of 'band' offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to three (3) penalties of reclusion perpetua for each murder and directed the elevation of the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, primarily questioning the admissibility and weight given to his extra-judicial confession, alleging denial of his right to counsel during custodial investigation.
Issue(s)
Whether the extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellant is admissible in evidence. Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of triple murder. What is the appropriate penalty and civil indemnity to be imposed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modifications. The accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer three (3) penalties of reclusion perpetua for the murder of P/Sgt. Alex Velasquez, P/Cpl. Antonio Carreon, and Sgt. Aludio Torres. The civil indemnity for the heirs of each victim was increased to P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession: The Court held that the extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellant was admissible. The records showed that Pcpl. Benjamin de los Santos apprised the appellant of his constitutional rights, including the right to counsel of his choice or to be provided with one, and the right to remain silent. Atty. Fernando Fuentes III assisted the appellant throughout the investigation, and the appellant signed the confession after it was read to him and he confirmed its veracity before Fiscal Luzminda Uy. The Court found that the appellant's claim of denial of counsel was belied by the testimony of Atty. Fuentes III and Fiscal Uy. The Court also noted that the appellant did not object to Atty. Fuentes III's assistance at the time, only raising the issue during trial, which was deemed too late. Furthermore, the appellant did not claim to have been intimidated or promised leniency, and the settled rule is that a confession is admissible unless the accused successfully proves it was involuntary. On the guilt of the accused-appellant for triple murder: The Court found the accused-appellant guilty of triple murder. His extra-judicial confession admitted his membership in the NPA and his participation in the ambush that resulted in the death of the three lawmen. The Court considered his confession as evidence of his participation in the crime. The defense of alibi, which stated he was working on his cornfield, was deemed weak and could not prevail over his own admission in the confession, especially in light of his surrender to the governor in connection with the ambush. The Court found that the confession, corroborated by his surrender, underscored its veracity. On the appropriate penalty and civil indemnity: The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the penalty for triple murder should be reclusion perpetua for each offense. The trial court's imposition of an indeterminate sentence was deemed erroneous. The aggravating circumstance of 'band' was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, leading to the imposition of reclusion perpetua for each of the three murders, in accordance with established jurisprudence. The civil indemnity for the death of each lawman was increased to P50,000.00, consistent with the Court's prevailing policy.
Main Doctrine
An extra-judicial confession, if properly taken with the accused being informed of his constitutional rights and assisted by counsel, is admissible as evidence. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over a voluntary confession, especially when the accused surrendered to authorities.