G.R. No. 116394 June 19, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TEODORO BONOLA y DELA CRUZ, JOVEN FULGADO (at large), and alias DIDOY (at large), accused, TEODORO BONOLA y DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On November 13, 1979, spouses Flaviano Justiniano and Illuminada Brigino were found dead with multiple stab and hack wounds inside their house in Guiguinto, Bulacan. Their bedroom was ransacked, and cash and jewelry valued at P63,500.00 were missing. Appellant Teodoro Bonola, together with Joven Fulgado and alias Didoy (both at large), was charged with Robbery with Homicide. The prosecution presented the following evidence: (1) Jose Berania, a farm worker, testified that on November 12, 1979, at about 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., he saw appellant and two other men near the victims’ house. (2) Pacifico Manalansang testified that at about 7:00 p.m. on November 12, he saw three men drinking beer outside the victims’ store. (3) Appellant was arrested on November 21, 1979. He gave an extrajudicial confession on November 22, 1979, detailing his and his cohorts’ participation in the crime and revealing that stolen jewelry was given to spouses Nenita and Rodolfo Munoz. The confession was sworn to before a municipal judge. (4) Nenita Munoz confirmed that her nephew, Joven Fulgado, left wrapped items with her, which were later identified as part of the stolen jewelry. (5) Jose Berania positively identified appellant in a police line-up as one of the men he saw near the victims’ house. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was in Marikina the whole day of November 12, 1979, and that he did not know his co-accused or the victims. He alleged his extrajudicial confession was extracted through torture and that he was not informed of his constitutional rights. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant and sentenced him to death.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of appellant Teodoro Bonola for Robbery with Homicide is valid based on his extrajudicial confession and the circumstantial evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED appellant Teodoro Bonola. The extrajudicial confession was inadmissible as it was obtained in violation of appellant’s constitutional rights during custodial investigation. The confession was uncounselled; the police investigator admitted he did not ask appellant if he wanted counsel, and there was no written waiver of rights in the presence of counsel as required. The confession was the product of a custodial investigation that began upon appellant’s arrest in Marikina, where he was interrogated and verbally admitted participation, and it continued in Guiguinto where the written statement was taken. The confession was therefore inadmissible. Without the confession, the remaining circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence only showed that appellant was seen near the victims’ house hours before the crime and was identified in a line-up. There was no evidence directly linking him to the robbery or the killing. The recovery of stolen items from Nenita Munoz, based on appellant’s uncounselled confession, could not be used against him. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion that appellant was the perpetrator.