G.R. No. 185710
(ALEX ALEMAN, Appellant.)
January 19, 2010
This case is about the requirements of a valid extrajudicial confession and the establishment of the existence of corpus delicti in murder cases.
The Issues Presented
Accused Aleman raises two issues:
a) Whether or not the prosecution was able to present evidence of corpus delicti; and
b) Whether or not accused Aleman’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence.
The Rulings of the Court
1. Corpus delicti has been defined as the body, foundation, or substance of a crime. The evidence of a dead body with a gunshot wound on its back would be evidence that murder has been committed. Corpus delicti has two elements:
(a) That a certain result has been established, for example, that a man has died and
(b) That some person is criminally responsible for it.
The prosecution is burdened to prove corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or by circumstantial or presumptive evidence.
The defense claims that the prosecution failed to prove corpus delicti since it did not bother to present a medical certificate identifying the remains found at the dump site and an autopsy report showing such remains sustained gunshot and stab wounds that resulted in death; and the shells of the guns used in killing the victim.
But corpus delicti need not be proved by an autopsy report of the dead victim’s body or even by the testimony of the physician who examined such body. While such report or testimony is useful for understanding the nature of the injuries the victim suffered, they are not indispensable proof of such injuries or of the fact of death. Nor is the presentation of the murder weapons also indispensable since the physical existence of such weapons is not an element of the crime of murder.
Here, the police authorities found the remains of Cortez at the place pointed to by accused Aleman. That physical confirmation, coming after his testimony of the gruesome murder, sufficiently establishes the corpus delicti of the crime. Of course, that statement must be admissible in evidence.
2. There is no reason for it not to be. Confession to be admissible must be a) voluntary; b) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; c) express; and d) in writing. These requirements were met here.
A lawyer, not working with or was not beholden to the police, Atty. Besinga, assisted accused Aleman during the custodial investigation. Officer Tabucon testified that he saw accused Aleman, before the taking of his statement, conversing with counsel at the police station. Atty. Besinga did not dispute this claim.
Aleman alleges torture as the reason for the execution of the confession. The appellate court is correct in ruling that such allegation is baseless. It is a settled rule that where the defendant did not present evidence of compulsion, where he did not institute any criminal or administrative action against his supposed intimidators, where no physical evidence of violence was presented, all these will be considered as indicating voluntariness. Here, although Aleman claimed that he bore torture marks on his head, he never brought this to the attention of his counsel, his relatives, or the prosecutor who administered his oath.
Accused Aleman claims, citing People v. Galit, that long questions followed by monosyllabic answers do not satisfy the requirement that the accused is amply informed of his rights. But this does not apply here. Tabucon testified that he spoke to Aleman clearly in the language he knew. Aleman, joined by Atty. Besinga, even signed a certification that the investigator sufficiently explained to him his constitutional rights and that he was still willing to give his statement.
Further, Aleman asserts that he was lacking in education and so he did not fully realize the consequences of a confession. But as the CA said, no law or jurisprudence requires the police officer to ascertain the educational attainment of the accused. All that is needed is an effective communication between the interrogator and the suspect to the end that the latter is able to understand his rights. This appears to have been done in this case.
Moreover, as the lower court noted, it is improbable that the police fabricated Aleman’s confession and just forced him to sign it. The confession has details that only the person who committed the crime could have possibly known. What is more, accused Datulayta’s confession corroborate that of Aleman in important details. Under the doctrine of interlocking confessions, such corroboration is circumstantial evidence against the person implicated in it.
The Court notes that, when it modified the award of civil damages to the heirs of Cortez, the CA made both accused Aleman and Datulayta, jointly and severally liable, for the damages as modified. But the appeal by one or more of several accused cannot affect those who did not appeal, except if the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to them. Here accused Datulayta pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide and the trial court ordered him to pay only P50,000.00 in civil indemnity to the heirs of Cortez. The CA erred in expanding that liability when he did not appeal from his conviction.
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the Court AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals’ judgment in CA-G.R. CR-HC 00311 dated January 21, 2008 against accused Alex Aleman. The Court, however, DELETES from such judgment the portion increasing the civil liability of accused Jeffrey Datulayta who did not appeal from the RTC decision against him.
No comments:
Post a Comment