GR 40352; (November, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-40352 November 29, 1976
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELICISIMO FRANCISCO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On July 20, 1971, Esteban de la Cruz was shot and killed by an unknown assailant in Isabela, Basilan City. No eyewitnesses were presented by the prosecution. The case remained unsolved until December 1972, when appellant Felicisimo Francisco was arrested and investigated by the NBI in Zamboanga City. During this investigation, he allegedly executed an extra-judicial confession admitting to the murder. Based solely on this confession, he was charged and convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Basilan City and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
During the pendency of his appeal, the appellant escaped from confinement. Ordinarily, this would be grounds for dismissal of the appeal. However, the Solicitor General, representing the People, filed a manifestation recommending the appellant’s acquittal, arguing that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court opted to decide the case on its merits to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
ISSUE
The determinative issue is whether the extra-judicial confession was executed freely and voluntarily, thereby making it admissible as evidence against the appellant.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the voluntariness of the confession beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant had repudiated the confession during trial, testifying in detail that he was tortured and maltreated by NBI agents—including being boxed, kicked, having bullets placed between his fingers, and being deprived of sleep—until he was forced to thumbmark a prepared statement. The burden then shifted to the prosecution to impeach this repudiation, which it failed to do.
The trial court had relied heavily on the testimony of the Clerk of Court before whom the confession was sworn, who stated he saw no signs of violence on the appellant and that the confession was executed voluntarily. However, the Supreme Court found this insufficient. The Clerk of Court’s interview with the appellant was brief and conducted in the presence of NBI agents, which could have instilled fear. Furthermore, the confession itself contained glaring inconsistencies with other evidence, such as the type of firearm used and the location of the wound on the victim, casting serious doubt on its reliability. Without any corroborating evidence, a confession obtained under dubious circumstances cannot sustain a conviction. The Court emphasized the need for the most painstaking scrutiny of confessions and acquitted the appellant due to the prosecution’s failure to meet the required quantum of proof.