[ G.R. No. L-31653. May 18, 1984 ] 214 Phil. 217
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. L-31653. May 18, 1984 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RENATO ORTILLA Y PANGANIBAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
RELOVA, J.:
About 11:00 in the evening of July 22, 1969, a tragic occurrence took place at Magsaysay Boulevard, Sta. Mesa, Manila, when a loud explosion rocked the facade of the building housing the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Library. It was caused by a hand grenade which bored a small crater on the pavement. As the smoke cleared, Rodolfo Carlos y Salazar laid prostrate on the ground, dead. Cause of death was “shock and hemorrhage due to multiple sharpnel wounds on the right arm, chest and lower extremities with laceration on the lungs and muscles.” (Exhibits B, B-1 & D).
Thereafter, Manila Police Department operatives picked up accused Renato Ortilla y Panganiban at his residence at 3181 Mariano Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila, for questioning. He was brought to the MPD headquarters at Isaac Peral Street (now United Nations Avenue) where during the investigation, he denied any participation in the “grenade throwing” incident. Because he had then a blackeye on his right eye, he explained that he was mauled on July 20, 1969 by Ladislao Garcia, Rolando Reyes and one Bentot.
Detective Wenceslao Sunga, a neighbor of accused Ortilla, arrived, vouched for the latter and promised to produce him anytime when needed. Ortilla was released until July 26, 1969 when he was again picked up by the police who believed that he was really involved in the “grenade throwing” incident. Upon interrogation, he admitted in his own handwriting, consisting of two pages, to have thrown the grenade at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Library (Exhibit G), with two (2) annexes, also in his own handwriting one, a sketch showing how he committed the crime (Exhibit G-1) and the other, a drawing of the form of the grenade he used (Exhibit G-2). He also executed another statement (Exhibit H) in question and answer form. All these statements were subscribed and sworn to before Manila Assistant City Fiscal Ricardo Conjares and witnessed by one Atty. Noiles and Miss Ester Magbag, stenographer of Fiscal Conjares.
From these statements executed by accused Renato Ortilla, it appears that on July 20, 1969, the latter was mauled by Ladislao Garcia, Rolando Reyes and Bentot. On July 22, 1969, at about 11:00 in the evening, accused Ortilla saw Ladislao Garcia in front of the Jefferson Memorial Library. He went home, got the hand grenade and returned to the library. He hid behind the wall of a building near the Kentucky restaurant and from there he threw the hand grenade at the direction of Ladislao Garcia. He ran away and heard the explosion while in flight. The person found dead after the grenade throwing was not Ladislao Garcia but his friend Rodolfo Carlos.
An information for murder (Criminal Case No. CCC-V-1345) was filed against Renato Ortilla y Panganiban, as follows:
“That on or about the 22nd day of July, 1969, at nighttime, purposely sought to better accomplish his criminal design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation, treachery, and by means of explosion, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of Rodolfo Carlos y Salazar, by then and there suddenly and treacherously throwing at the latter a handgrenade causing the same to explode, thereby inflicting upon the said Rodolfo Carlos y Salazar mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.” (page 1, Records).
After trial, the then Circuit Criminal Court of Manila rendered judgment finding accused Renato Ortilla y Panganiban guilty beyond reasonable doubt “as principal of the crime of murder qualified by the use of explosive and there being proven the aggravating circumstance of treachery without any mitigating circumstance to consider, sentence him to DEATH, to indemnify the heirs of the victim herein Rodolfo Carlos y Salazar the sum of P12,000.00; P10,000.00 by way of moral damages suffered and another P10,000.00 by way of exemplary damages and to pay the costs.”
The plea of accused-appellant Renato Ortilla for the reversal of his conviction is based on insufficiency of evidence as the confessions attributed to him were involuntary and there was no testimonial evidence to justify the finding that he was guilty of the crime charged. Appellant claims that he was not at the scene of the crime before, during and after the fatal explosion. Appellant and his witnesses declared that between 9:00 and 10:00 in the evening of July 22, 1969 he was in the house of Detective Sunga at Peling Street, asking advice from the latter regarding the mauling incident which he suffered in the hands of Ladislao Garcia and his companions. After an hour or so he went to a wake and stayed there for about twenty minutes. He then went in front of the house of Aling Teresa and conversed with her and Mang Kulas. They were conversing when they heard a loud explosion. They inquired from each other where the explosion came from. Mang Kulas and he (appellant) went to the direction where they heard the sound until they reached the Jefferson Library. There they saw the victim, Rodolfo Carlos y Salazar, his boyhood friend, prostrate on the ground. After staying for about half an hour, Ortilla returned in front of Aling Teresa’s house and they talked about the incident. Some neighbors then invited him for a cup of coffee and thereafter, he went home.
Further, appellant claims that when the police took him from his house again on July 26, 1969 he was tortured or maltreated and intimidated into signing Exhibits G, G-1, G-2 & H. While he was being investigated, he was blindfolded and hit several times in the different parts of his body, at one time made to lie down and then water poured on his face. Regarding the maltreatment he suffered at the hands of the police investigators, he testified, as follows:
“Q You said that you were brought to a place which you did not know and then you were stamped and kicked, what happened next?
A I was told to sit down, sir. And my arms were tied.
Q Was there anything which happened to you after you were stamped and kicked?
A They pushed me on my chest and also on my lips and they also boxed me on my private parts.
Q How many times was it done to you?
A Three times, sir.
Q What did you feel?
A It was painfull, sir.
Q You also said that you were blindfolded with a towel with the policemen pouring water into your nostrils, can you demonstrate to the court how you were blindfolded with a towel?
Interpreter:
Witness demonstrating how his face was covered with a towel.
Q While you were thus covered with a towel and they were pouring water into your nostrils – I withdraw that question. What else happened to you?
A They were shocking my mouth, sir.
Q What else happened to you while in that position?
A Somebody was riding on my stomach, sir.
(TSN. August 25, 1969 hearing, page 11.)
His declaration received confirmation from a competent and neutral source, Dr. Mariano Lara, then Chief of the Medico-Legal Division of the Manila Police Department, who examined appellant on July 30, 1969. Dr. Lara submitted a report (Exhibit 2) of his examination on appellant, to wit:
“(5) Also externally are found the following marks and/or complaints:
(a) A brownish linear mark about 4 cm. x 0.2 cm. faintly visible transversely across the anterior lower right arm.
(b) A similar brownish linear, two (2) parallel marks or impression as of a band, about 5 cm. long x 1.5 cm. apart, located in the anterior lower left arm.
(c) Spotty brownish mark’s, multiple two (2) in the anterior left wrist and two (2) in the dorse-medial right wrist, averred by him to be prior impression made by handcuff applied around his wrist.
(d) Subject complains of pain in the anterior right chest, anterior aspect of the neck, and in the postero-lateral neck, but there are no swelling or color changes.”
(page 62, Records)
That the above injuries were four (4) days old at the time of the examination jibe with the statement of appellant that the police inflicted those injuries upon him on July 26, 1969. Hereunder is the cross examination on Dr. Lara by the Prosecuting Fiscal.
“Q So this subject you examined at about 6:00 P.M. on July 30, 1969, came from the City Jail, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And from the nature of the description of the injuries which are contained in Exh. 2, do you agree with me, Doctor, that they are old injuries?
A I have stated that they are several days old in my report.
Q And it could possibly be, as you stated, to your estimate 4 days old?
A About.
Q Could it be more than 4 but it could not be more than 10?
A The extent of 10 days is beyond consideration. If it is 10 days old the lineal mark will disappear. As it is brownish in color, I put the period more or less about 4 days because it can still be seen.
COURT:
Q So letter (a) under par. 5, how many days, can this be assumed as 10 days old when you examined the accused on August 30?
A I don’t think so, your Honor.
Q How about letter (b)?
A The same, it is not 10 days.
Q How about (c)?
A Also not 10 days.
Q So (a), (b) and (c) can not be 10 days old?
A No, your Honor.
(TSN, August 21, 1969 hearing, pp. 14-15).
The fact is, the prosecution did not present an eyewitness regarding the identity of appellant that he was the one who threw the hand grenade. The conviction of appellant was predicated solely on the confessions which are being attacked because of their involuntary character. As stated in People vs. Bagasala, 39 SCRA 236, 241, where the confession is involuntary, due to maltreatment or induced by fear or intimidation, there is a violation of the constitutional provision that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. “Any form of coercion whether physical, mental or emotional thus stamps it with inadmissibility. What is essential for its validity is that it proceeds from the free will of the person confessing.” Involuntary confessions are rejected by all the courts because they are not legal evidence. If the accused satisfactorily shows that it was made involuntarily, the confession stands discredited in the eyes of the law and is a thing which never existed. (U.S. v. Santos, 24 Phil. 329; People vs. Panopio, 75 Phil. 767).
In the absence of direct evidence linking herein appellant in the commission of the crime charged, what remains only are his extra-judicial supposed confessions. However, appellant vehemently maintained his innocence during the trial and claimed that he was forced to sign the same. The fact that after the maltreatment appellant was prevailed upon to sign the extra-judicial confessions, the same became worthless evidence. The result is, there is no sufficient evidence upon which appellant’s conviction may be sustained.
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is reversed and appellant is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered released forthwith from custody unless he is detained for some other offense. With costs de oficio. SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Gutierrez, Jr., and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., no part.
Makasiar, J., concur in J. Aquino’s dissent.