CRIMPRO RULE 115

Title G.R. Nos. 121039-45.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANCHEZ October 18, 2001]
MELO, J.:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, MAYOR ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, GEORGE MEDIALDEA, ZOILO
AMA, BALDWIN BRION, LUIS CORCOLON, ROGELIO
CORCOLON, and PEPITO KAWIT, accused-appellants.
In his motion for reconsideration, Mayor Antonio Sanchez avers that he is a victim of trial and conviction by publicity and that
the principal witnesses Aurelio Centeno and Vicencio Malabanan presented by the prosecution are lacking in credibility. He
likewise contends that the testimony of his 13-year old daughter vis--vis his whereabouts on the night of the felony should
have been given full faith and credit as against the testimony of Centeno and Malabanan. Lastly, Mayor Sanchez seeks the
reconsideration of the amount of the gargantuan damages awarded on the ground that the same have no factual and legal
bases.
FACTS

SUPER SHORT FACTS: Mayor Sanchez, Mayor of Calauan Laguna was accused of the rape of Eileen Sarmenta and her
boyfriend Allan Gomez. Eileen was said to be with her boyfriend, both Agriculture students of UP Los Banos when she was
abducted to be gifted to the Mayor who has been her eyeing her beauty. The trial invited a lot of attention from press and
has been nationwide news, to which the accused invoked to have been violative of his constitutional rights to due process, it
being a trial by publicity.
(Resolution lang kasi ito nasa separate case yung facts pero ito yung digest nun in case you still want to read this.)
On 28 June 1993, Luis and Rogelio "Boy" Corcolon approached Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez, forcibly took the two
and loaded them at the back of the latter's van, which was parked in front of Café Amalia, Agrix Complex, Los Banos, Laguna.
George Medialdea, Zoilo Ama, Baldwin Brion and Pepito Kawit also boarded the van while Aurelio Centeno and Vicencio
Malabanan, who were also with the group, stayed in the ambulance. Both vehicles then headed for Erais Farm situated in
Barangay Curba, which was owned by Mayor Antonio Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna. The two youngsters were then brought
inside the resthouse where Eileen was taken to the Mayor’s room. Allan was badly beaten up by Luis, Boy, Ama and
Medialdea and thereafter thrown out of the resthouse. At around 1:00 a.m. of the next day, a crying Eileen was dragged out
of the resthouse by Luis and Medialdea – her hair disheveled, mouth covered by a handkerchief, hands still tied and stripped
of her shorts. Eileen and Allan were then loaded in the Tamaraw van by Medialdea, et. al. and headed for Calauan, followed
closely by the ambulance. En route to Calauan, gunfire was heard from the van. The van pulled over whereupon Kawit
dragged Allan, whose head was already drenched in blood, out of the vehicle onto the road and finished him off with a single
gunshot from his armalite. The ambulance and van then sped away. Upon reaching a sugarcane field in Sitio Paputok,
Kilometro 74 of Barangay Mabacan, Eileen was gang-raped by Luis Corcolon, Medialdea, Rogelio Corcolon, Ama, Brion and
Kawit. After Kawit’s turn, Luis Corcolon shot Eileen with his baby armalite. Moments later, all 8 men boarded the ambulance
and proceeded to Calauan, leaving the Tamaraw van with Eileen’s remains behind. Initially, the crime was attributed to one
Kit Alqueza, a son of a feared general (Dictador Alqueza). Luis and Rogelio Corcolon were also implicated therein. However,
further investigation, and forensic findings, pointed to the group of Mayor Sanchez. Centeno and Malabanan bolstered the
prosecution's theory. On 11 March 1995, Judge Harriet O. Demetriou of the Regional Trial Court (Pasig City, Branch 70) found
Mayor Sanchez, Medialdea, Ama, Brion, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon and Kawit guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape with homicide, ordering them to pay Eileen Sarmenta the amount of P50,000 and additionally, the amount of
P700,000.00 to the heirs of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez as additional indemnity. On 25 January 1999, the Supreme
Court, through Justice Martinez, affirmed in toto the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Antonio Sanchez,
Zoilo Ama, Baldwin Brion and Pepito Kawit seasonably filed their respective motions for reconsideration. The Office of the
Solicitor General filed its Comment on 6 December 1999. Sanchez avers that he is a victim of trial and conviction by publicity,
besides claims that principal witness Centeno and Malabanan lack credibility, that the testimony of his 13- year old daughter
should have been given full faith and credit, and that the gargantuan damages awarded have no factual and legal bases. Ama,
Brion and Kawit maintain that Centeno and Malabanan were sufficiently impeached by their inconsistent statements pertain
to material and crucial points of the events at issue, besides that independent and disinterested witnesses have destroyed
the prosecution’s version of events. On 2 February 1999, Justice Martinez retired in accordance with AM 99-8-09. The
motions for reconsideration was assigned to Justice Melo for study and preparation of the appropriate action on 18
September 2001.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not the accused Mayor Sanchez was deprived of his constitutional rights and was subjected to trial by publicity?
RATIO
We cannot sustain appellants claim that he was denied the right to impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. It is true that
the print and broadcast media gave the case at bar pervasive publicity, just like all high profile and high stake criminal
trials. Then and now, we rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. To be sure,
responsible reporting enhances an accused right to a fair trial for, as well pointed out, a responsible press has always been
regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field The press does not simply
publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and
judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.

Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was
given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge
and impaired his impartiality Our judges are learned in the law and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-camera
performances of parties to a litigation. Their mere exposure to publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect
their impartiality.

At best, appellant can only conjure possibility of prejudice on the part of the trial judge due to the barrage of publicity that
characterized the investigation and trial of the case.The records do not show that the trial judge developed actual bias
against appellant as a consequence of the extensive media coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his case. The totality of
circumstances of the case does not prove that the trial judge acquired a fixed position as a result of prejudicial publicity
which is incapable of change even by evidence presented during the trial. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual bias
and he has not discharged the burden.
RULING

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the conviction of accused-appellants for seven counts of rape with
homicide and the sentence of reclusion perpetua imposed upon them for each of said counts, with MODIFICATION that the
accused be ordered to pay the heirs of the victims.
2S 2016-17 (VARGAS)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/oct2001/121039_45.htm