People v. Tito Zuela GR No.

112177 January 27, 2000

Bill of Rights
People v. Tito Zuela
GR No. 112177January 27, 2000
FACTS:
The case is an appeal of accused MaximoVelarde y de los Reyes, Nelson Garcia y Temporas
and Tito Zuela y Morandarte from the decision of the RTCfinding them guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the extra-judicial confessions were executed in accordance with the
provisions of the 1973 Constitution?
RULING:
The right to counsel attaches the moment an investigating officer starts to ask questions to
elicit information on the crime from the suspected offender.. In other words, the moment
there is a move or even urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even
plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he
should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall
be made in writing and in the presence of counsel.
There was no evidence that Maximo executed a waiver of his right to counsel. In light of
these facts, we are constrained to rule that MaximoVelardes extra-judicial statement is
inadmissible in evidence. An uncounselled extra-judicial confession without a valid waiver of
the right to counsel that is, in writing and in the presence of counsel is inadmissible in
evidence. Contrary to the ruling of the trial court, the defect in the confessions of Tito and
Nelson was not cured by their signing the extra-judicial statements before Judge Bagalacsa.?
Nevertheless, the infirmity of accused-appellants sworn statements did not leave a void in
the prosecutions case. Accused-appellant Maximo repeated the contents of his sworn
statement to RomualdaAlgarin who, in turn, related these in court. Such declaration to a
private person is admissible in evidence against accused-appellant Maximo pursuant to Rule
130, Section 26 of the Rules of Court stating that the act, declaration or omission of a party
as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. The trial court, therefore,
correctly gave evidentiary value to Romualdas testimony.
And in the recent case of People vs. Andan, the Court reiterated the doctrine enunciated in
the Maqueda case. In Andan, the Court said that when the accused talked with the mayor as
confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession did not violate
his constitutional rights. Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to
a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an
ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime.
Treachery was not alleged in the information but the suddenness of the assault upon Hegino
and Maria from behind was proven beyond reasonable doubt. As such, treachery may be
appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Treachery exists when an adult person
illegally attacks a child of tender years and causes his death.

The crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and
penalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court correctly considered the
crime as robbery with homicide and not robbery with triple homicide as charged in the
information. The term homicide in Article 294(1) is used in its generic sense, embracing not
only the act which results in death but also all other acts producing anything short of death.
Neither is the nature of the offense altered by the number of killings in connection with the
robbery. The multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of the robbery is only appreciated
as an aggravating circumstance. This would preclude an anomalous situation where, from
the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one killing would be treated in the
same way that robbery with multiple killings wouldbe.

G.R. No. 112177

January 28, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
TITO ZUELA y MORANDARTE, MAXIMO VELARDE y DE LOS REYES, and NELSON GARCIA y
TEMPORAS,accused-appellants.
PARDO, J.:
The case is an appeal of accused Maximo Velarde y de los Reyes, Nelson Garcia y Temporas and
Tito Zuela y Morandarte from the decision1 of the Regional Trial Court, Camarines Sur, Libmanan,
Branch 24, finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and sentencing
each of them to reclusion perpetua, and to pay jointly and severally the amount of one hundred
thousand (P100,000.00) pesos to the heirs of Maria Abendao and John Abendao, and fifty
thousand (P50,000.00) pesos to the heirs of Hegino Hernandez, without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.2
On July 29, 1985, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Julian C. Ocampo III filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Libmanan, Camarines Sur an information charging accused Maximo Velarde y de los Reyes, Nelson
Garcia y Temporas and Tito Zuela y Morandarte with "robbery with triple homicide" committed as
follows:
That in the evening of April 27, 1985 in Camagong, Cabusao, Camarines Sur, Philippines,
the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually aiding each
other, with intent to gain, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with violence
and intimidation gainst [sic] persons, that is by shooting and stabbing one Hegino
Hernandez, Sr., Maria S. Abendao and John-John Abendao, thereby inflicting upon them
mortal injuries that caused their instantaneous death, take, rob and carry away the following
personal properties belonging to the said Maria Abendao, to wit:
(1) Cash money
(2) one gold ring
(3) one Seiko wrist watch

P 21,000.00
P 750.00
P 1,250.00
P 23,000.00

That as a consequence of the felonious act of the accused, the heirs of the deceased
suffered damages in the amount of P25,000.00 each, representing indemnity for death, loss
of earning capacity and moral damages.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
On June 1, 1985 Maximo Velarde was arrested at Magallanes, Sorsogon, while accused Nelson
Garcia and Tito Zuela were arrested at Cabusao, Camarines Sur on June 4, 1985 and June 9, 1985,
respectively.
On March 26, 1987, all three accused, were arraigned with the assistance of their counsel, and
pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial ensued.
The evidence established the following facts:
Maria Abendao was engaged in business. She has a store operated a passenger jeepney and
engaged in the buy and sale of palay. Her house cum store was beside that of her sister Romualda
Algarin's house, by the roadside in Barcelonita, Cabusao, Camarines Sur. Romualda also had a
store.
1wphi1.nt

Accused Nelson Garcia was Maria's store helper. Accused Tito Zuela alias "Anting" helped
Romualda in her store during palay season. The other accused Maximo Velarde was known to
Romualda because she met him at a birthday party held at Maria's house on April 19, 1985. The
three accused were friends.
On April 27, 1985, Maria made three (3) deliveries of palay on board to her jeepney, driven by
Hegino Hernandez, Jr., to the ricemill of Gerardo Benitez in San Juan, Libmanan, Camarines Sur.
Every delivery costs seven thousand (P7,000.00) pesos. The three deliveries were made at 9:00 in
the morning, 2:00 in the afternoon and 7:30 in the evening.4
Between 6:00 and 7:00 in the evening of that day, from a distance of five (5) arms length, Romualda
saw the three (3) accused board the jeepney of Maria, bound for San Juan, Libmanan, Camarines
Sur. Because the jeepney was filled with palay, they merely hold on the railing of the jeepney.5 There
were other passengers namely, Pablo Abendao and Roberto Echiaca.6
Gerardo Atienza, the buyer of palay, saw Maximo inside the jeepney during the second and third
delivery of palay to his ricemill.7 For each delivery, Gerardo paid Maria the amount of seven
thousand (P7,000.00) pesos.
The following morning, the bodies of Hegino Hernandez, Maria and John-John Abendao were
found in rigor mortiscondition at New Poblacion, Cabusao, Camarines Sur.8
Dr. Restituto Sampilo, municipal health officer of Cabusao, found Maria in a reclining position on the
front seat of the jeepney. John was in a semi-kneeling position, facing his mother with both hands
clasping her left hand. Hegino was at the steering wheel with his body, from the abdomen up, resting
on the side of the vehicle and his head outside of it.9 A bullet that exited from Hegino's left eyebrow
caused the wound near his right ear.10
Maria had a horizontal stab wound at the front part of her neck just above the xyphoid process. 11 Her
seven (7) year old son, John, had a three (3) inch slashed horizontal wound at the front base of the
neck, a two (2) inch wound on the left upper arm and two (2) stab wounds on the lateral side of the

neck at the junction of the right shoulder.12Hegino had a small wound with slightly depressed edges,
about an inch from the highest tip of the right ear, a wound with everted and lacerated edges above
the middle part of the left eyebrow, and seven (7) stab wounds at the back. 13
Though there were no eyewitnesses, the prosecution established how the crime was committed with
the testimony of Romualda Algarin, which was in turn based on the extrajudicial admission given by
Maximo Velarde to Romualda when she visited the latter at the Camaligan municipal jail on June 6,
1985.
Maximo, Tito and Nelson conceived the plan to hold-up Maria while drinking in front of Romualda's
store because Maximo needed money for his fare to Manila.
When the palay-laden jeepney of Maria left for Libmanan, Camarines Sur Maximo, Tito and Nelson
boarded it. They alighted at sitio Cagumpis, Camagong, Cabusao, Camarines Sur to attend a
wedding.14 Maximo was supposed to board the jeepney on its way back to Barcelonita, while the
other two (2) accused, Tito and Nelson would wait along the road at the crossing of New Poblacion
and Camagong, Camarines Sur to board the jeepney and hold-up Maria.
Everything went according to plan. Nelson and Tito hailed the jeepney at the crossing of Cabusao,
Camarines Sur. Upon reaching an uninhabited place, Tito alias "Anting" told Velarde: "Oragui na
ngaya ang driver."15 Maximo poked a gun at the driver and shot him. He also shot Maria at the neck
when the latter shouted.16
Nelson and Tito alighted from the jeepney. Nelson went to the front side of the jeepney, while Tito
approached the right front side of the jeepney, in the process stepping on the sleeping John-John
who was then awakened. The boy stood up and said, "You will see I will tell my father that you killed
my mother."17 To avoid being identified by the boy, Tito told Maximo "Oragui na ini."18 Maximo took
hold of the boy's hair and slashed his neck.
Tito took Maria's money and divided it, each accused receiving about seven thousand (P7,000.00)
pesos from the loot.
Tito and Nelson went back to Barcelonita, Cabusao, Camarines Sur. Maximo proceeded to Manila.
On June 1, 1985, Lt. Ernesto J. Idian, Station Commander, Cabusao Police Station, Cabusao,
Camarines Sur assisted by two (2) other policemen, arrested Maximo in Magallanes, Sorsogon.
Though no warrant of arrest had been issued, Maximo was immediately brought to the Camaligan
police station in Camaligan, Camarines Sur where he was investigated and asked to give a written
statement in the presence of Atty. Jose Ocampo from the Citizen's Legal Assistance Office (CLAO),
Naga City.19
On June 4, and 9, 1985, Tito and Nelson were taken into police custody without a warrant. They
underwent custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel because no lawyer could be
found in Cabusao, Camarines Sur.
On the last page of each accused's confession appeared a statement, in their own handwriting, to
the effect that they voluntarily gave their statements and that no one coerced or promised them
anything to admit responsibility for the crime.
Maximo, Nelson and Tito signed their individual statements before Judge Lore R. Valencia
Bagalacsa, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Libmanan, Camarines Sur on three (3) different dates. 20 She

followed the same procedure and line of questioning, using the local dialect, in ascertaining the
voluntariness of the three (3) accused's confessions. She ordered Lt. Idian and his companions to
leave her and the accused inside the chamber.21 Satisfied that they were properly apprised of their
rights and that they voluntarily executed their statements, she had them sign their individual
extrajudicial statements.
Antonio Abendao, the husband of Maria, was working at Saudi Arabia when his family was killed.
He came to know about the tragic death of his wife and son through an overseas call from his
brother Renato Abendao. When he learned about it, he became unconscious. He arrived in the
Philippines five (5) days after.22 He knew Nelson Garcia because he was the son of his cousin. He
was also familiar with Tito Zuela, but he did not know Maximo Velarde. He spent twenty thousand
(P20,000.00) pesos for the funeral of his wife and son. He gave one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos
financial assistance to the family of their driver, Hegino.23
On the other hand Maximo, Tito and Nelson interposed common defenses: (1) denial and (2) that
they were tortured and forced to make a confession. In addition, Tito and Nelson claimed they were
not assisted by counsel when their confessions were taken, while Maximo alleged the defense
of alibi saying that he did not leave Magallanes, Sorsogon anytime in 1985.
On June 1, 1985, five (5) persons, led by Lt. Idian, went to the house of Maximo Velarde in
Magallanes, Sorsogon to fetch him because his parents wanted him at Cabusao, Camarines Sur as
his brother Benito Velarde died. He was shown the picture of the cadaver of his brother. Maximo
went with the group of Lt. Idian on board a red car and traveled to Naga City, arriving there between
7:00 and 8:00 in the evening.
In a dark place before reaching Naga City, the driver stopped the vehicle to urinate. Before the driver
could return, Maximo felt a hard object hit his head and he passed out. When he regained
consciousness, he was already handcuffed. Pointing a gun at him, Lt. Idian told him that he had two
choices, either to die or sign the statement they prepared because his brother had wronged them.
He was warned not to tell anyone that he was mauled. Thereafter, they proceeded to the Camaligan
municipal jail.
Two days later or on June 3, 1985, Maximo was brought out of the jail and ushered into a small room
where he saw three persons, namely Lt. Idian, Atty. Jose Ocampo from CLAO; Naga City and Pat.
Gonsalo Refe, a police investigator from Cabusao, Camarines Sur. Atty. Ocampo read to him the
contents of a prepared statement, which in substance mentioned that some people died and that he
was responsible for their death. Maximo refused to sign. Atty. Ocampo stepped out of the room,
followed by Lt. Idian and he overheard that he would be made to sign the statement in Atty.
Ocampo's office in Naga City. Atty. Ocampo then left and Lt. Idian returned to the room.
Upon Lt. Idian's return to the smaller room, he kicked Maximo in the stomach and poked a gun at
him. Consumed by fear, Maximo promised that he would sign the prepared statement. He was then
handed a piece of paper and ordered to copy its contents on the prepared statement. Found on
page 5 of his extrajudicial confession was this statement, in his own handwriting:
Opo binasa ko po ang apedabeth na ito na may 5# pahina na pawang totoo at sasareling
kagustohan at walang nantakot o nangako.24
On June 4, 1985, Maximo again signed the statement before Judge Lore R. Valencia Bagalacsa,
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Libmanan, Camarines Sur. From the time accused Maximo was
arrested, he was never released. Maximo denied that he saw and talked to Romualda on June 6,

1985 at the Camaligan municipal jail because he had been detained at the Libmanan municipal jail
since June 4, 1985.
For his part, Nelson Garcia denied any knowledge of the crime. On June 4, 1985, the group of Pat.
Gonsalo Refe went to his house and invited him to the office of Lt. Idian. He was brought to the
Camaligan Police Station. Upon their arrival, Lt. Idian talked to him and tried to convince him to
confess to the killing of the Abendaos. Because Nelson refused, Lt. Idian brought him upstairs and
mauled him. He was transferred to Nage City jail, where he was detained for two (2) hours.
Thereafter, he was brought to the Cabusao Police Station where Pat. Rodolfo O. Cario subjected
him to another investigation. Because of his continued refusal to confess, he was mauled again, this
time by Pat. Cario.
To avoid further injury to his person, on June 5, 1985, Nelson Garcia was forced to sign the prepared
statement. He was neither informed of its contents nor assisted by counsel. He was handed a piece
of paper, the contents of which he was ordered to copy, in his own handwriting, and in substance
was similar to what Maximo was ordered to copy as his own extrajudicial statement. He was brought
to the office of Judge Bagalacsa that same afternoon so that he could sign his extrajudicial
statement.
From the time he was invited to the office of Lt. Idian, Nelson was never released from police
custody. He was first detained at the Libmanan municipal jail, and later on transferred to the Tinangis
Penal Farm in Pili, Camarines Sur. Though he suffered physically from the beatings he got from the
policemen, he was never permitted to see a doctor. His relatives were not able to visit or talk to him
because the policemen prohibited visitors.25
Like Nelson, Tito alias "Anting," denied participation in the crime. On July 9, 1985, Pat. Refe invited
him to the office of Lt. Idian in Cabusao, Camarines Sur. Upon arrival at the police station, he was
investigated about his knowledge of the crime. Failing to elicit any information from him, he was
brought to Libmanan jail where he spent the night.
The following day, Tito was again brought to Cabusao Police Station and presented to Lt. Idian. In Lt.
Idian's office, he was investigated about his involvement in the crime. When he could not provide
any answer, he was made to board the police jeep, to be brought back to the Libmanan jail.
Along the way, the police jeep stopped and Pat. Cabrera got off and kicked Tito who fell to the
ground. He heard a gunshot and was shown the piece of paper that he was ordered to sign before
Judge Bagalacsa. He was threatened with death should he refuse to sign the prepared statement.
Out of fear for his life, Tito promised to sign. Thereafter, they boarded the police jeep and proceeded
to the office of Judge Bagalacsa Libmanan, in Camarines Sur.
Upon arrival at the office of Judge Bagalacsa, he was ordered to sign the statement without the
assistance of counsel and without being informed of its contents. Thereafter, he was brought to
Libmanan municipal jail and later to Tinangis Penal Farm. Like his co-accused, he was never
released from police custody from the time of arrest.
On August 26, 1993, the trial court promulgated its decision convicting the three (3) accused of
robbery with homicide, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, after a careful and serious evaluation of the evidence presented by the
prosecution and the defense, the Court is morally convinced beyond reasonable doubt, that

the three (3) accused Maximo Velarde, Tito Zuela and Nelson Garcia had committed the
crime of Robbery with Homicide and, therefore, sentences them to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay jointly and severally an indemnity in the
amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS for the Heirs of Maria
Abendao and John Abendao and FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS for the Heirs
of Hegino Hernandez, without imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
GIVEN this 26th day of July, 1993 at Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Philippines.
(Sgd.) SALVADOR G. CAJOT
Presiding Judge26
On the same day, all three (3) accused filed a notice of appeal with the trial court.
In their appeal, accused-appellants claim that the trial court erred in:
(1) relying on Maximo Velarde's extra-judicial confession notwithstanding the violation of his
constitutional rights;
(2) giving full faith and credit to Romualda Algarin's testimony; and
(3) finding all three (3) accused guilty as charged despite the prosecution's failure to prove
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Considering that there were no eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime, the extra-judicial
confessions of the three (3) accused play a pivotal role in the determination of their culpability. The
Court is duty-bound, therefore, to resolve the issue of whether or not the extra-judicial confessions
were executed in accordance with the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, in light of the fact that the
crime took place in 1985.
The pertinent provision of the 1973 Constitution provides:
Art. IV, Section 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any
person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain
silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means, which vitiates the free will, shall be used against him. Any
confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. 27
The right to counsel attaches the moment an investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit
information on the crime from the suspected offender. It is at this point that the law requires the
assistance of counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting forced or coerced admissions or
confessions from the person undergoing interrogation. In other words, "the moment there is a move
or even urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which
may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then and there be
assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the
presence of counsel."28
Lt. Idian's team apprehended appellant Maximo in Magallanes Sorsogon on June 1, 1985 when no
warrant had been issued for his arrest. Immediately thereafter, the arresting peace officers

investigated appellant Maximo. His statement was reduced in writing when they were in Camaligan,
Camarines Sur. It was in Camaligan that CLAO lawyer Ocampo was summoned to assist appellant
Maximo in the execution of his written confession. Atty. Ocampo was not present during the entire
duration that accused Maximo was subjected to custodial investigation as could be inferred from the
testimony of Pat. Rodolfo Cario, to wit:
Q: And after taking the statement of Velarde, what did you do with the statement of Velarde?
A: It was presented to Atty. Ocampo.
Q: Do you want to tell me that inspite of the fact that he was present when the confession
was made you still present the statement to Atty. Ocampo?
A: In order to let him sign the statement.
Q: And where did Atty. Ocampo sign the confession of Velarde?
A: It was sign [sic] at Naga because he went ahead.
Q: Do you mean to tell me now that after the confession was made, the confession was left
to you and after the confession was brought to his office at the CLAO Office in Naga, is that
what you want to tell this court.
A: We went to Naga with Lt. Idian and Velarde.
Q: But it remains a fact that Atty. Ocampo was already at Naga when the statement of
Velarde was presented to him for signature, is that correct?
A: Yes he went ahead to Naga.29
There was no evidence that Maximo executed a waiver of his right to counsel. In light of these facts,
we are constrained to the rule that Maximo Velarde's extra-judicial statement is inadmissible in
evidence.30 "An uncounselled extra-judicial confession without a valid waiver of the right to counsel
that is, in writing and in the presence of counsel is inadmissible in evidence." 31
The respective sworn statements of appellants Tito and Nelson were likewise inadmissible in
evidence because they were executed without the assistance of counsel. Despite the fact that the
reason for the absence of lawyer during the custodial investigation was the scarcity of lawyers in the
area, the Court could not be lenient in this case. The absence or scarcity of lawyers in any given
place is not a valid reason for defying the constitutional mandate on counseled confessions.
Contrary to the ruling of the trial court, the defect in the confessions of Tito and Nelson was not
cured by their signing the extra-judicial statements before Judge Bagalacsa.
Nevertheless, the infirmity of accused-appellants' sworn statements did not leave a void in the
prosecution's case. Accused-appellant Maximo repeated the contents of his sworn statement to
Romualda Algarin who, in turn, related these in court. Such declaration to a private person is
admissible in evidence against accused-appellant Maximo pursuant to Rule 130, Section 26 of the
Rules of Court stating that the "act, declaration for omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against him." The trial court, therefore, correctly gave evidentiary value to
Romualda's testimony. In People vs. Maqueda,32 we held:

However, the extrajudicial admissions of Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and to Ray Dean
Salvosa stand on a different footing. These are not governed by the exclusionary rules under
the Bill of Rights. Masqueda voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the
course of an investigation, but in connection with Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a state
witness; and as to the other admission, it was given to a private person. The provisions of
the Bill of Rights are primarily limitations on government, declaring the rights that exist
without the governmental grant, that may not be taken away by government and that
government has the duty to protect; or restrictions on the power of the government found
"not in particular specific types of action prohibited, but in the general principle that keeps
alive in the public mind the doctrine that governmental power is not unlimited." They are the
fundamental safeguards against aggressions of arbitrary power, or state tyranny and abuse
of authority. In laying down the principles of the government and fundamental liberties of the
people, the Constitution did not govern the relationships between individuals.
Accordingly, Maqueda's admissions to Ray Dean Salvosa, a private party, are admissible in
evidence against the former under Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. In Aballe
vs. People (183 SCRA 196 [1990]), this Court held that the declaration of an accused
expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against him and
any person, otherwise competent to testify as a witness, who heard the confession, is
competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it. The
said witness need not repeat verbatim the oral confession; it suffices if he gives its
substance. By analogy, that rule applies to oral extrajudicial admission. (Emphasis
supplied)33
And in the recent case of People vs. Andan34 the Court reiterated the doctrine enunciated in
the Maqueda case. In Andan, the Court said that "when the accused talked with the mayor as
confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession did not violate his
constitutional rights. Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a
spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary
manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime." Of course, accusedappellant Maximo attempted to discredit Romualda's credibility as a witness when he swore that he
could not have been in Camaligan on June 6, 1985 because since June 4, 1985 until some three
weeks later, he was detained at the Libmanan jail.35 The trial court correctly disregarded this selfserving uncorroborated assertion.
The defense failed to attribute any ill-motive on the part of Romualda for testifying on accusedappellant Maximo's admission and therefore the presumption that in so testifying, she was impelled
by no other reason than to tell the truth, stands. The fact that she is related to two of the victims did
not render her testimony incredible. Relationshipper se is not proof of prejudice.36 She might have
been mistaken as to the date when she talked with accused-appellant Maximo while he was
detained considering the more than three-year gap between June 1985 and September to October
1988 when Romualda testified. However, it is not necessary that the witness should be able to fix
accurately the date of the conversation in which the admission was made. What is important is that
the witness is able to state the substance of the conversation or declaration. 37
Romualda's testimony on accused-appellant Maximo's admission sealed not only the latter's fate but
also that of appellants Tito and Nelson. The rule that an extrajudicial confession is binding only upon
the confessant and is not admissible against his co-accused because the latter has no opportunity to
cross-examine the confessant and therefore, as against him, the confession is hearsay,38 is not
applicable here. What is involved here is an admission, not a confession. Wharton distinguished
these terms as follows:

A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his

guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement by the accused, direct or
implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to
prove his guilt. In other words, an admission is something less than a confession, and is but
an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a
conviction and which tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt. 39
Appellants Tito and Nelson were afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witness Romualda on
accused-appellant Maximo's declaration. They could have questioned its veracity by presenting
evidence in support of their defenses of denial and alibi so they could put to test Romualda's
credibility. Having failed to do so, Romualda's testimony, which the trial court correctly considered as
credible, stands unscathed.
Romualda's testimony on the substance of accused-appellant Maximo's admission standing alone,
may not be the basis for conviction of the appellants. However, such testimony, taken with
circumstances duly established by the prosecution, point unerringly to accused-appellants'
culpability. These circumstances are: (1) accused-appellants and the victims were all residents of
Barcelonita, Cabusao, Camarines Sur, a small barangay where everyone knew everybody; (2)
accused-appellants Tito and Nelson helped in the stores of the sisters Maria and Romualda a week
before the incident; (3) Romualda saw the three accused-appellants as they boarded Maria's
jeepney during its lastpalay delivery to Libmanan; (4) Gerardo Atienza saw accused-appellant
Maximo with Maria's group during the jeepney's second delivery of palay; (5) Atienza saw accusedappellant Maximo riding in Maria's jeepney after the last delivery; (6) after the commission of the
crime, accused-appellants Tito and Nelson no longer went to the store of Romualda; (7) accusedappellants never attended the wake of the victims, and (8) accused-appellant Maximo fled to Manila.
These circumstances form an unbroken chain, which, by themselves lead to a fair and reasonable
conclusion that accused-appellants were the culprits in the robbery with homicide. 40 Under the law,
circumstantial evidence is sufficient basis for conviction as long as: (1) there is more than one
circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved, and (3) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.41 These requisites were present in this case.
Accused-appellants' diverse course of action after the commission of the crime, with accusedappellant Maximo going to Manila and accused-appellants Tito and Nelson staying in Barcelonita, do
not negate their guilt. As regards accused-appellant Maximo, his flight to Manila and to Magallanes,
Sorsogon with no plausible explanation therefor is a clear indication of guilt. 42 With respect to
accused-appellants Tito and Nelson, their decision to stay in Barcelonita did not mean that they were
not equally guilty as accused-appellant Maximo. As this Court once said:
Accused-appellant argues that had he participated in the crime, his natural reaction would
have been to flee. We do not agree. Each culprit behaves differently in externalizing and
manifesting his guilt. Others may escape or flee which circumstance is strongly indicative
of guilt, while others may remain in the same vicinity so as to create a semblance of
normalcy, careful not to arouse suspicion in the community.43
Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of accused-appellants before, during and after the
commission of the crime, which indicate a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of
sentiments.44 Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery,
all those who took part as principals in the conspiracy are also guilty as principals in the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless
there is no proof that they tried to prevent the crime. 45 There is no evidence that any of the accused-

appellants desisted from the malevolent intent of the others to kill the victims during the robbery. As
such, they shall equally bear the responsibility for the resulting crime.
Treachery was not alleged in the information but the suddenness of the assault upon Hegino and
Maria from behind was proven reasonable doubt. As such, treachery may be appreciated as a
generic aggravating circumstance.46 As regards seven-year-old John, even if the manner by which
he was attacked was not shown, treachery may be deemed to have attended his killing. Treachery
exists when an adult person illegally attacks a child of tender years and causes his death. 47
The crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and penalized in
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court correctly considered the crime as robbery with
homicide and not "robbery with triple homicide" as charged in the information. The term "homicide" in
Article 294(1) is used in its generic sense, embracing not only the act which results in death but also
all other acts producing anything short of death.48 Neither is the nature of the offense altered by the
number of killings in connection with the robbery.49 The multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of
the robbery is only appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. This would preclude an anomalous
situation where, from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one killing would be
treated in the same way that robbery with multiple killings would be.50
Under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death. By the presence of two aggravating circumstances, namely, treachery and
multiplicity of slain victims, the proper penalty should be death in view of Article 63 (1) of the same
Code.51 However, considering that when this case happened, the imposition of the death penalty was
proscribed, the proper imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua. The heinousness of the crime they
committed notwithstanding, accused-appellants may not be deprived of such favorable factor in their
case.
The Solicitor General's plea for modification of the penalty in accordance with Republic Act No. 7659
which "has already expressly converted reclusion perpetua into a divisible penalty" and on account
of the decision in People vs.Lucas,52 is untenable. It must be stressed that the Lucas ruling has been
reconsidered and, accordingly, the Court has held:
After deliberating on the motion and re-examining the legislative history of R.A. No. 7659, the
Court concludes that although Section 17 of the R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration
of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was
no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall
then remain as an indivisible penalty.53
The trial court failed to award the heirs of Maria Abendao the amount of twenty three thousand
(P23,000.00) pesos in reimbursement of the stolen cash, ring and wristwatch and the expenses
amounting to twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos for her wake and that of her son, which were duly
proved.54 The heirs are entitled to those amounts as reparation of the damage caused by accusedappellants. They shall also be liable for exemplary damages in view of the presence of two
aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime. 55
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the decision of the trial court. The Court
renders judgment finding accused-appellants Tito Zuela y Morandarte, Maximo Velarde y de los
Reyes, Nelson Garcia y Temporas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide, defined
and penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences each of them
to reclusion perpetua with all its accessory penalties and to pay civil indemnity of one hundred
thousand (P100,000.00) pesos to the heirs of Maria Abendao and John Abendao and fifty
thousand (P50,000.00) pesos to the heirs of Hegino Hernandez, Jr.

In addition, the Court sentences each of the accused-appellants solidarily to pay the additional
amounts of forty three thousand (P43,000.00) pesos as reimbursement of damages to the heirs of
Maria Abendao, and fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as exemplary damages to the heirs of each
of the three (3) victims.
1wphi1.nt

With costs.
SO ORDERED.