4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 1990 303

People vs. Flores
*

G.R. No. 58170. June 6, 1990.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ERNESTO FLORES, accused-appellant.

Rape; Evidence; Prosecution cannot rely on the vulnerability

of the defense evidence but on the strength of its own proofs.—The
trial court’s attack (circumstance No. three) on the weakness of
the defense is not well-taken. Again, the legal rule is that the
prosecution can not rely on the vulnerability of the defense
evidence but on the strength of its own proofs.

Same; Same; Scratches on the face of the accused at the time

of questioning, not an evidence of guilt.—The fact, finally, that the
accused was seen with scratches on his face at the time he was
picked up for questioning (circumstance No. four) can not by any
means be taken against him as evidence of guilt. The prosecution
has not demonstrated the link with the accused’s injuries and the
offenses charged. It is plain conjecture to say the accused must
have been guilty of rape with homicide because he had scratches
on his face.

Same; Same; Circumstances point to overt acts of the accused

and concludes his guilt of the crime charged.—According to Moran
further, “the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion,” that is,
that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In other
words, the circumstances themselves, or a combination thereof,
should point to overt acts of the accused that would logically point
to the conclusion, and no other, that he is guilty of the crime
charged. In this case, the fact that the accused was seen with the
victim (it can not indeed be said that he was “with” the victim
because he was walking four or five meters ahead of her), and no
more, does not remotely point to this conclusion. It must also be
noted that in criminal cases, the guilt of the accused must be
shown “beyond reasonable doubt.” In the absence of such a
showing, the Constitution presumes him to be innocent. The chain

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

of circumstances above, in our opinion, has not overthrown this

presumption.

Same; Same; Same; Constitutional Law; Confessions

extracted prior to January 17, 1973, not covered by constitutional
rights of the accused to silence and to counsel.—We have held that
the provisions of the 1973 Constitution requiring law enforcers to
apprise the accused

________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

304

304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Flores

of his constitutional rights during custody have only prospective

application. Confessions extracted prior to January 17, 1973, the
date the 1973 Charter was ratified, so we have held, are not
covered by these provisions. The confession at bar having been
taken on October 6, 1972, is beyond the ambit of the Constitution
of 1973.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Suspicious conduct of the military

and/or police reinforces the belief that twin confessions did not
come from the accused.—It is also strange that the accused made
two confessions, when obviously, one would have sufficed. There
was no point in executing the police admission, when evidently,
the accused’s military captors could have turned over his (the
accused’s) army confession to the police when he himself was
bodily surrendered to the station commander. There is no
explanation in the records for what we find to be suspicious
conduct on the part of the military and/or police. It likewise
reinforces our belief that the twin confessions did not come from
the lips of the accused.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., Dissenting:

Rape; Confessions; Presumed voluntary until the contrary is

shown.—A confession is presumed to be voluntary until the
contrary is shown (People vs. Dorado, 30 SCRA 63). The
involuntariness of the accused’s confession in this case has not

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

been adequately proven by the defense. Its rejection now is based

on surmises and not on facts.

Same; Same; Criminal Procedure; Arrest may be made on any

day and at any time of the day or night.—That the accused may
have been picked up at the wee hours of the morning does not
necessarily bespeak haste. An arrest may be made on any day and
at any time of the day or night (Section 6, Rule 113). A known
suspect of a grievous offense must not be allowed to fly the coop. A
lawful arrest may even be made without a warrant provided an
offense has in fact been committed and there is reasonable ground
to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it (People
vs. Francisco, 93 SCRA 351; Section 5, Rule 113, prior to its
amendment in 1985). That the accused was not informed of the
cause of his arrest is only his self-serving statement besides the
fact that it runs counter to human experience as the authorities
lost no time in picking him up the day after the commission of the
offense. Truth to tell, he cannot feign ignorance of that cause.

APPEAL from the decision of the then Court of First

Instance of North Cotabato, Br. 3 (Kidapawan).

305

VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 1990 305

People vs. Flores

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Bellaflor Angara-Castillo for accused-appellant.

SARMIENTO, J.:

This is a prosecution for rape with homicide based on

information reading as follows:

That on or about October 4, 1972, in Sitio Veterans, Barrio Dado,

Municipality of Alamada, Province of Cotabato, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one
Jesusa Maning, a virgin, thirteen years of age, against her will
and without her consent; that on the occasion of the said rape and
for the purpose of enabling him to have carnal knowledge of the
said Jesusa Maning as above mentioned, the herein accused,
taking advantage of his superior strength and with intent to kill,
did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously stuff her
mouth with a (sic) soil to prevent her from shouting and making

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

any outcry and then choke her by the neck, which as a result
thereof (sic) said Jesusa Maning died of asphyxia shortly
thereafter.
Contrary to law particularly Article 335, paragraph 6, as
amended, of the Revised Penal Code, with the further aggravating
circumstance that the crime was committed in an uninhabited
place which 1was especially sought for to facilitate the commission
of the crime.

The accused in this case is Ernesto Flores, born on April

12, 1949, an elementary school graduate, a farmer, and a
resident of Dado, Alamada, North Cotabato. His alleged
victim was Jesusa Maning, thirteen years of age at the
time of her death, and the late daughter of Felicisimo
Maning, also of Dado, Almada, North Cotabato.
The prosecution relied on the testimonies of six
witnesses, and various documentary evidence, among
which was a one-page (alleged) extrajudicial confession of
the accused. (Actually, there were two confessions.)
Felicisimo Maning testified that he went looking for the

_______________

1 Original Record, 19.

306

306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Flores

victim on October 4, 1972 when she failed to arrive home at

five o’clock in the afternoon from Dado Elementary School.
He alleged that he, together with several companions,
among them Arturo Molina and Juanito Estella, inquired
from residents if they had seen Jesusa. He was told that
his daughter was seen earlier on her way home. He related
that he continued his search and chanced upon a certain
Pilo who informed him that he saw his daughter with the
accused near a cornfield. He testified that he searched the
cornfield, and that at about eleven o’clock in the evening,
he (and his companions) found Jesusa’s cadaver.
Another prosecution witness, Juanito Estella, then a
sixth grade student, testified that he saw Jesusa that
fateful day with the accused. The accused was allegedly
four or five meters ahead of Jesusa. He asked where the
accused came from and the accused allegedly answered
that he came from a councilor’s house where a party was
held. He said that in the middle of the cornfield where

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

Jesusa’s dead body was recovered, there laid a trail. The

trail, which was about twenty meters from the body, was
the pathway along which Jesusa and the accused were
purportedly seen walking.
Arturo Molina, another witness for the prosecution,
submitted his sworn statement wherein he stated
2 that on
the day in question, Felicisimo Maning sought his
assistance in locating his missing daughter, and that on
their way, they bumped into Juanito Estella, who allegedly
informed them that he saw her with the accused. He said
that they found Jesusa’s corpse at the cornfield nearby at
about eleven o’clock late in the evening.
The following day, October 5, 1972, Dr. Victor
Castronueva, a physician, examined Jesusa’s corpse and
rendered his medico-legal report and post-mortem findings.
The same are hereinbelow reproduced:

Name : Jesusa Maning

Age : 13 years
Sex : Female
Status : Single
Address : Veterans Area, Alamada, Cotabato

________________

2 Id., 5. Jesusa’s father is referred to therein as “Teodoro Maning”.

307

VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 1990 307

People vs. Flores

Date—Time and Place of Death and alleged commission of rape, October

4, 1972-6:00 P.M., Veterans Area, Alamada, Cotabato.

Alleged Case—Rape with Homicide.

Date, time and place of post mortem examination:

October 5, 1972-3:30 P.M., at the Municipal building, Alamada, Cotabato.

Requesting Officer: Sgt. Marcelo H. Concepcion.

Preliminary Findings:

The deceased is a female appearing at about the stated age with fairly
developed body, black hair, wearing a checkered red and white cotton
dress with jersy (sic) under garment and white cotton panty with blood
stains at the back portion. The mouth is full of dark-brown soil (mud).

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

There is evident marked lividity of the lips, fingers and toe nails and on
the skin. The forearms are flixed (sic) with evident rigor mortis.

Post Mortem Findings:

1. Abrasion—3.5 cm. by 1/2 cm. located at the left face from

the lateral angle of the eyelids extending laterally and
backward;
2. Abrasion—Contused 4.5 cm. by 2 cm. located at the right
antero-lateral aspect subhyoid region of the neck with its
medial tip at the median line extending laterally;
3. Abrasion—1 cm. by 1/4 cm. located at the antero lateral
aspect of the neck left side, 4 cm. from the median line at
the subhyoid region;
4. Contusion—2 cm. by 1 cm. located at the dorso-lateral side
of left elbow joint;
5. Contusion—1 cm. by 1/2 located at mid portion of left arm
lateral side;
6. Contusion—1 cm. in diameter located at the distal portion
of the right forearm medial side;
7. Lacerated wound 5 cm. by 2 cm. located at the right leg on
the region of the calf directed parallel to the leg;
8. Contusion—2 cm. in diameter located at the posterior
thigh, right midway between its distal and proximal ends;
9. Multiple abrasions popliteal area left knee;
10. Multiple abrasions and contusions left gluteal area and
proximal portion posterior aspect left thigh;
11. Genital Findings:

The deceased has no pubic hair. Labia majora and minora are coaptated.
Separation of the labias revealed complete hyminal (sic) lacerations
corresponding to 6 and 3:00 o’clock at the

308

308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Flores

face of the watch. Vagina admits a tube of 2 cm. with moderate

resistance. Its rugosities are almost obliterated. There is a scanty white
clear fluid coming out of the vaginal opening.

Cause of Death:—Asphyxia (Anoxia)

Remark—Recent
3 hymenial (sic) lacerations were noted on the
deceased.

Cause of death was established as asphyxia, brought about,

in the 4opinion of Dr. Castronuevo, by “hands pressed in the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

neck.” He also found the mouth of the victim filled with

mud, a testimony corroborated by Felicisimo Maning,
Juanito Estella, and Arturo Molina. According to 5 him
further, the victim suffered “hyminal [sic] lacerations” and
that her vaginal opening yielded secretions. It was not
however determined whether the secretions were vaginal
or seminal fluids. He also saw blood stains at the back
portion of Jesusa’s torn panties.
The records allege that on the same day the accused was
brought to the station commander of Alamada, North
Cotabato, Ernesto Concepcion, 6 by the barrio captain and
“some of the army officials.” He was allegedly interrogated
there and shortly after which, he allegedly confessed
authorship of the offense. He also allegedly signed a
statement (an extrajudicial confession) admitting the rape
of Jesusa Maning. The statement was later forwarded to
Judge Jesus Reyno of the Municipal Court of Alamada.
The records also show, however, that on the same day,
the accused had been brought to the Philippine army
headquarters at Alamada, and interrogated there by Sgt.
Rogelio Bonifacio, First
7 Lt. Ricardo Referente, and Second
Lt. Ricardo Kierulf.
8 It also appears that he executed a
confession there.
Judge Reyno asserted that the accused was presented to
him on October 6, 1972. He (Judge Reyno) claimed to have
inter-

________________

3 Id., 6-7.
4 Rollo, 28.
5 Id.
6 Id., 31.
7 Record, id., 13-14.
8 Id., 13.

309

VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 1990 309

People vs. Flores

preted his confession in Cebuano, a language allegedly

known to him (the accused), and later translated into
English. He also said that he personally investigated the
accused but did not put his question to writing. According
to him “he was in a hurry because the life of the9 accused
was in danger because of the gravity of the crime.”

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

He alleged that he also subsequently called the accused

to the witness stand where the latter allegedly affirmed his
sworn statement. He allegedly also advised the accused of
his right to counsel
10 but the latter allegedly insisted that
they proceed. He then ordered the forwarding of the case
to the then Court of First Instance for trial. His order reads
as follows:

Above-named accused having voluntarily admitted in open court

and under oath that he raped and choke (sic) the neck of the
victim—Jesusa Maning, resulting in the latter’s death, the Court
is of the opinion that there is a probable cause to believe that the
crime of “Rape with Homicide” has been committed by the
accused.
Case remanded to the Court of First Instance, Cotabato City
for further action.
The Chief of Police, is hereby directed to cause the transfer of
the accused to the Provincial Jail and likewise to cause the
records of the case to be delivered to the Clerk of Court, Court of
First Instance, Branch
11 11, Cotabato City.
SO ORDERED.

The accused denied the charges against him and insisted

that he was forced to sign the confession(s) in question. He
also claimed that he was maltreated by the authorities.
The records show that the reception of the evidence for
the accused was postponed fifteen times. The accused
himself testified on June 2, 1977, but failed, for one reason
or another, to present the supporting testimonies or his
witnesses, Vivencio Munar, Aurora Flores, and Leopoldo
Flores. On the same date, the trial court issued subpoenas
directing the above witnesses to appear under pain of
arrest. However, is spite of the subpoenas, none of them
appeared in court. On November 8, 1977, his

_______________

9 Id., 29.
10 Id.
11 Record, id., 9.

310

310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Flores

case was rested with only his testimony on record.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

In his testimony, he stated that he never knew the

victim, Jesusa Maning. He alleged that at about two in the
morning of October 5, 1972, he was picked up by certain
policemen and armed soldiers of Alamada. He was taken
with his wife to the army headquarters. He was not
allegedly informed why he was12being taken except that he
would be “ask[ed] something”. Upon reaching the army
headquarters, however,
13 he was allegedly “beaten,” “kicked,”
and “maltreated”, while his14 wife watched. He also
declared that he was “burned” 15 on the face and his hand
“buttstroked” against cement. He averred that he was hit
on the head
16 with a bottle and suffered a cut lip because of
punching. He did not 17 allegedly recognize his tormentors

because it was “dark”.

He was later transferred to the municipal jail where he
claimed he was likewise manhandled, kicked, and beaten
on the breast, back, and abdomen. He claimed that he
complained later to the chief of police who allegedly
promised to take him to a doctor. He claimed, however,
that “if I will be out of jail, 18 they [would] shoot me,
according to the chief of police.”
He also said that he signed his confession(s)
19 “because if I
[would] not . . . they [would] kill me.” He alleged that he
did not complain to Judge Reyno because he was allegedly 20

“warned that . . . if I [did], they [would] kill me.” He

insisted that his alleged confession(s) was (were) not his
voluntary statement(s).
It was likewise his contention that on October 4, 1972,
he was harvesting corn with his brother-in-law, Vivencio
Munar, and his (the accused’s) brother, Leopoldo Flores.
They were allegedly through by six o’clock in the afternoon.
He, the accused,

_______________

12 Rollo, id., 44.

13 Id., 45.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id., 46.
19 Id.
20 Id. Subsequently, however, he admitted that Judge Reyno inquired
about his alleged injuries.

311

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 1990 311

People vs. Flores

allegedly arrived home at seven o’clock in the evening. He

declared that he was not informed why he was being held
by the authorities.
21 At the trial, he alleged that his wife

has since left him. He stated, finally, that he did not

furnish the information narrated in his alleged
confession(s).
On February 21, 1978, the trial court rendered
judgment, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds

the accused Ernesto Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the
crime of rape with homicide, as charged, and hereby sentences
him to death. He is further sentenced to indemnify the heirs of
the victim in the sum of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P12,000.00), Philippine Currency, in concept of moral and
exemplary damages, and to pay the costs; without subsidiary
imprisonment in case
22 of insolvency.
SO ORDERED.

It can not be over-emphasized that no eyewitness report

was submitted to the court. The only eyewitness, as it
appears, was the victim herself, the lamented Jesusa
Maning, whose death has muted all possible eyewitness
accounts.
In convicting the accused, the trial court relied on first,
circumstantial evidence, and second, the former’s
extrajudicial confession.
It is the opinion of this Court that in so holding, the trial
court erred and hence, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal.
We do not believe that the fourfold circumstances
invoked by the lower court, as follows:

The circumstances were: (1) he was the last person seen with the
victim alive, by two person—by prosecution witness Juanito
Estella, and by Pilo, the information given by Pilo was testified to
by Felicisimo Maning. As stated above, the testimony of
Felicisimo Maning that Pilo informed him that he saw the
daughter, Jesusa Maning, together with Ernesto Flores in the
afternoon of October 4, 1972, was not objected to even if it is
hearsay; therefore, this information is admitted and considered as
evidence for the prosecution. Furthermore, this information given
by Pilo tallies with the testimony of

_______________

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
21 Id., 59.
22 Id., 69.

312

312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Flores

Juanito Estella. Pilo’s information that he saw Jesusa Maning

following the accused in a cornfield is, therefore, corroborated by
the testimony of Juanito Estella.
This information of Pilo and this testimony of Juanito Estella
contradict the uncorroborated testimony of the accused that in the
whole afternoon of October 4, 1972, he was harvesting corn in
Upper Valley.
(2) The circumstances that the accused was with the victim in
a cornfield as indicated by the information of Pilo and the
testimony of Juanito Estella is further corroborated by the fact
that the dead body of Jesusa Maning was found in the cornfield
pointed by Pilo and Juanito Estella.
(3) The circumstances that Pilo and Juanito Estella saw the
accused on the afternoon of October 4, 1972 with the victim in the
cornfield is not denied directly by the accused. All that accused
said was that he did not know Juanito Estella and that he was
harvesting corn in the afternoon of October 4, 1972, and that he
left the cornfield at 6:00 p.m. and reached his house at 7:00 and
from 7:00 p.m. of October 4, 1972 to 2:00 a.m. October 5, 1972,
when he was picked by military men he had been in his house.
Neither the wife nor the brother-in-law, Vivencio Munar, nor the
brother, Leopoldo Flores, came to Court to corroborate the claims
of accused, Ernesto Flores. As shown by the records and by the
orders copied above, the accused was given all the chances to
present his witnesses. Why even his own brother and his own
wife, not to mention his brother-in-law, did not testify for the
accused has never been explained. The court could have issued
the warrant of arrest for the witnesses of the accused considering
the constitutional right of the accused “to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production
of evidence in his behalf”; but the accused did not avail of this
right and did not ask for the compulsory process in spite of the
offer of the court to do so, the moment it was asked for. At once
[sic] instance, counsel for the accused wanted the Court to have
the witnesses come at government expenses, but counsel did not
submit evidence to show that the witnesses are entitled to that
privilege; and, as may be seen on page 40 of this judgment,
counsel said that while he was aware of the constitutional right of
the accused he would not like to avail thereof, if possible, because
of his past sad experiences.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

As testified by the prosecution witness Arturo Molino, the

accused Ernesto Flores during the investigation in the SEMP
admitted that he raped and killed the victim. (4) As testified by
prosecution witness Arturo Molino, the accused had to admit
because he was seen to have

313

VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 1990 313

People vs. Flores
23

scratches on his face during the investigation at the SEMP.

24

are sufficient under the Rules of Court to justify a

conviction. With regard to the first, that is, that the
accused was the last person seen with the victim alive, our
opinion is that it does not reasonably lead to the conclusion
that ergo, the accused forcibly took the victim, ravished
her, and later killed her. All that “Pilo” and Estella said
that the accused and the victim were together when the
former was last seen alive.
“Pilo’s” and Estella’s accounts, in our view, do not
establish in any rational manner a connection with the
offense of rape with homicide. Moreover, the lower court
itself found that “Ernesto25Flores was about 4 to 5 meters
ahead of Jesusa Maning.” They can not be said therefore
to have been “together”.
Moreover, “Pilo” was never presented in court although
obviously, he was a “star” witness for the prosecution.
Albeit the defense registered no objection to the witness,
Felicisimo Maning’s, version of what “Pilo” told him,
thereby making it admissible in evidence, it is nonetheless
insufficient to prove the accused’s liability. It would have
been different had “Pilo”, assuming he exists, seen the
accused taking the victim to the scene of the crime which
would have brought about the fair inference (though
debatable) that the accused shortly raped and killed her
there, but to see them near there is not enough to give rise
to this inference.
The fact that Jesusa’s dead body was later found in the
cornfield (circumstance No. two) neither satisfies our rule
on the appreciation of circumstantial evidence. In the first
place, it is by itself an inference that since the victim’s body
was found in the cornfield, the accused must have brought
her there simply because the accused, moments before, was
seen near it. The legal theorem, however, is that one can
not draw an inference from another inference. If so, and in

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

Moran’s words “we would be entering upon a sea of

inferences with no rudder or compass

_______________

23 Id., 66-68.
24 RULES OF COURT (Revised Rules on Evidence), Rule 133, Sec. 5.
25 Rollo, id., 36.

314

314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Flores
26

to control the direction.”

The trial court’s attack (circumstance No. three) on the
weakness of the defense is not well-taken. Again, the legal
rule is that the prosecution can not rely on the
vulnerability of27 the defense evidence but on the strength of
its own proofs.
The fact, finally, that the accused was seen with
scratches on his face at the time he was picked up for
questioning (circumstance No. four) can not by any means
be taken against him as evidence of guilt. The prosecution
has not demonstrated the link with the accused’s injuries
and the offenses charged. It is plain conjecture to say the
accused must have been guilty of rape with homicide
because he had scratches in his face.
Under the Rules of Court:

SEC. 5. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.—

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such28 as to
produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to Moran further, “the circumstances proved

should constitute an unbroken 29chain which leads to one
fair and reasonable conclusion,” that is, that the accused
is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the
circumstances themselves, or a combination thereof, should
point to overt acts of the accused that would logically point
to the conclusion, and no other, that he is guilty of the
crime charged. In this case, the fact that the accused was
seen with the victim (it can not indeed be said that he was

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

“with” the victim because he was walking four or five

meters ahead of her), and no more, does not remotely point
to this conclusion.

_______________

26 VI, MORAN, COMMENTS ON THE RULES OF COURT 164 (1980

ed.).
27 People vs. Saavedra, No. L-48738, May 18, 1987, 149 SCRA 610, 636,
and cases cited there.
28 RULES OF COURT, supra, Rule 133, sec. 5.
29 MORAN, id., 165.

315

VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 1990 315

People vs. Flores

It must also be noted that in criminal cases, the guilt

30 of the

accused must be shown “beyond reasonable doubt.” In the

absence of such31 a showing, the Constitution presumes him
to be innocent. The chain of circumstances above, in our
opinion, has not overthrown this presumption.
We come to the accused’s alleged extra-judicial
confession(s). In his statement given to the police, he
supposedly said:

xxx xxx xxx

Q — Will you narrate in brief detail as to how rape and
killed Jesusa Maning?
A — Yesterday sir, at about 4:30 in the afternoon of
October 4, 1972, while I was standing near the
House of Mr. Estela, Jesusa Maning passed by, then
I followed her until we reach the cornfield. While I
was following her I asked her where she would go,
then she answered that she is looking for a
mushrooms. While she was still in the cornfield, I
force her to lie down. While she was lying I ride on
her, but when she shouted I place a soil in the
mouth, then I squeeze her neck. That when that girl
did not shout I already started my purpose on raping
her until I succeed.32
xxx xxx xxx

In his statement given at the army headquarters, however,

he allegedly declared:

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

9. Q —Will you relate to us the unusual incident?

A —Yes sir, at around 5:15 in the afternoon while I was
on my way to my house, it so happened that I
followed Jesusa Maning who came from Dado. I was
following Jesusa Maning and while we were in the
middle of the route, a corn planted area, Jesusa
stopped and waited for me. When I reached the place
where she stopped she told me “Ondang usa ta nang
magpahulay una ta” meaning, “We will stop first
nong, we will rest for a-while”. She added “Ondang
usa ta nong kay mangihe una ko”, meaning “We

_______________

30 RULES OF COURT, supra, Rule 133, sec. 2.

31 CONST. (1987), art. III, sec. 14(2); CONST. (1935), art. IV, sec. 1(17).
32 Record, id., 4.

316

316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Flores

will stopped nong because I am going to urinate”. I

answered “Sige lang kay maghulat ko”, meaning, “Go
ahead and I’ll just wait”. She went to the corn field
right at trail around 15 yards from the way. I waited
for about 5 minutes then I heard her calling for me.
She said “Dali nanong” meaning “come over here,” I
went to her and saw her lying with her panty on her
cover thigh and her shirt raised just below her breast.
Beefe I went to her I lowered my pants and underwear
just above my knees. From there I laid on top of her
and tried to insert my penis on her vagina. I also
fondled and kissed her. When she felt the pain, she
resisted by pushing me but I held both of her hand,
embraced and kissed her. When the head of my penis
entered her vagina, she shouted and cried but I placed
soil into her mouth. She was not able to shout anymore
and when I was through with the sexual interc ourse I
raised her panty and left her in the corn field. She was
unconscious33 when I left her. Then I went directly to
my home.

The lower court ruled that the above confession(s) was

(were) conclusive against him. It also admitted it although
there was no information thereon that he was advised of
his rights to remain silent and to counsel.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

We have held that the provisions of the 1973

Constitution requiring law enforcers to apprise the accused
of his constitutional rights
34 during custody have only
prospective application. Confessions extracted prior to
January 17, 1973, the date the 1973 Charter was ratified,35

so we have held, are not covered by these provisions. The

confession at bar having been taken on October 6, 1972, is
beyond the ambit of the Constitution of 1973.
To be sure, the counsel de oficio, in her well-written brief
for the accused, urges us to reexamine Magtoto, but the
Court sees no need for it. Since its promulgation, Magtoto
36

seems to have firmly settled as correct jurisprudence.

_______________

33 Id., 13.
34 Magtoto v. Manguera, Nos. L-37201-02, 37424, 38929, March 3,
1975, 63 SCRA 4. See CONST. (1973), art. IV, sec. 20.
35 Supra.
36 See People v. Decierdo, No. L-46956, May 7, 1987, 149 SCRA

317

VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 1990 317

People vs. Flores

It does not follow, however, that since the alleged

confession was taken prior to January 17, 1973, it is, hence,
admissible. The right against self-incrimination, by way of
an extrajudicial confession, is nevertheless subject to the
condition sine qua non that the confession had been given
voluntarily and freely. As early as 1913, we have rejected
involuntary confessions
37 and proclaimed them worthless as
a piece of evidence. Thus:

xxx xxx xxx

x x x Involuntary confessions are rejected by all courts—by
some on the ground that a confession so obtained is unrealiable;
and by some on the grounds of humanitarian principles which
abhor all forms of torture or unfairness toward the accused in
criminal proceedings. But either theory arrives at the same goal.
Such a confession is not legal evidence and must be rejected. If
the accused satisfactorily shows that it was made involuntarily,
the confession stands discredited in the eyes of the law and is as a
thing which never existed. It was therefore error to reject the
testimony of the accused in the present case because it was in
conflict with her confession. The admissibility of that confession
should have been first decided. If admissible as evidence, it is

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

unnecessary to further consider the evidence of record, as it is

virtually equivalent to a plea of guilty in open court. But if not
admissible as evidence, the prosecution
38 must rely on other
evidence to sustain a conviction.

In the present case, the Court finds evidence that the

accused has been forced to sign his “confession(s)”. The
following circumstances convince the Court: (1) the accused
was picked up by armed soldiers at two o’clock in the
morning of October 5, 1972; (2) the arrest was supported by
no warrant of arrest; (3) he was later surrendered to the
custody of the police; he was not informed why he was
being taken; (4) on the same day, he supposedly signed his
confessions; and (5) the confessions were taken under
questionable circumstances: (a) the confession at the army
camp was preceded by a questioning in English, translated
in Chavacano, a dialect with which the accused has 496,
502, and cases cited there.

_______________

37 U.S. v. De los Santos, 24 Phil. 34 (1913).

38 Supra, 359. See also People v. Decierdo, supra, and cases cited there;
also U.S. v. Navarro, 3 Phil. 140 (1904).

318

318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Flores

not been shown to be conversant; (b) the confession taken

by the police on the other hand was in plain English, a
language not shown to be known to the accused.
The accused also said that while in army custody, he
was allegedly maltreated and hurt. While we can not
accept this testimony at face value because it is likely a
story, the fact alone that the accused was taken by armed
men (in the small hours of the morning) is to us, a kind of
compulsion that indeed makes men do things they would
not voluntarily do. It does not moreover appear disputed
that the accused was not told why he was being arrested or
being held for questioning. Assuming that he was not
physically abused as he claimed, the circumstances
surrounding his arrest, to our mind, are enough mental
torture that would taint any subsequent confession.
We have ruled that compulsion
39 is not always to be
understood as a violent act. Compulsion may also be

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

mental, in which by mere overpowering of the will one is

made to perform an act not truly his own.
It must be stressed that the accused was arrested with
no warrant. This makes, so we hold, the arrest invalid, and
his subsequent two-day interment, under duress. We can
not likewise discount the fact that martial law had just
been proclaimed, and truth
40 to tell, martial law signified the
power of the gun. We hold that, under such
circumstances, the accused could not have validly made a
voluntary confession.
The haste in which the accused was furthermore made
to “confess” has not eluded the Court. It is noteworthy that
the accused was picked up for interrogation at two o’clock
in the morning. He was investigated there, and though the
time of the investigation is hazy (his army confession
indicates a time of “0550M”), the Court presumes that it
was done in the early hours of October 5, 1972, since at or
about 3:20 P.M., he was at the office of the station
commander. The Court finds it indeed

_______________

39 Chavez v. Court of Appeals, No. L-29169, August 19, 1968, 24 SCRA

663, 679; People v. Olvis, No. 71092, September 30, 1987, 154 SCRA 513.
40 See Javellana v. Executive Secretary, Nos. L-36142, 36164, 36165,
36236, 36283, March 31, 1973, 50 SCRA 30, 132, Concepcion, C.J.

319

VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 1990 319

People vs. Flores

strange that this episode was not recounted in the decision,

and much more, with respect to the army confession which
was not taken up at the trial.
It is also strange that the accused made two confessions,
when obviously, one would have sufficed. There was no
point in executing the police admission, when evidently,
the accused’s military captors could have turned over his
(the accused’s) army confession to the police when he
himself was bodily surrendered to the station commander.
There is no explanation in the records for what we find to
be suspicious conduct on the part of the military and/or
police. It likewise reinforces our belief that the twin
confessions did not come from the lips of the accused.
For the same reason, we equally condemn the
precipitousness of Judge Reyno. He admitted in open court
that he was “in a hurry” to terminate the investigation at
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

first, because “the life of the accused was in danger because

of the gravity of the offense”—whatever that 41meant—but
later, because “the relatives might go to jail.” There was
no basis for this alleged apprehension because the accused
was under military custody. Secondly, it was no reason at
all to terminate the proceedings (although the accused
allegedly insisted that his “confession” be admitted
forthwith); His Honor should have nonetheless satisfied
himself that the accused was not making, as it were, an
improvident plea of “guilty”.
The records also show that aside from the admission,
there 42was no hard evidence against the accused before the
judge. It was therefore incumbent upon Judge Reyno to
content himself that the accused was prima facie guilty by
further investigation.
Under the premises, we can not say that the accused
was given his day in court. We have no choice but to
overturn his conviction.
It is true that in a number of cases, we sustained
confessions based
43 on replete details only the accused could
have known.

_______________

41 T.s.n., Session of August 26, 1975, 50.

42 Id., 53-54.
43 See, e.g., People v. Ribajado, No. L-40294, July 11, 1986, 142 SCRA
637.

320

320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Flores

We can not, however, apply this teaching in this case, first

and last, because at the time the accused signed his alleged
confession(s), the circumstances behind the victim’s death
were already well-known, on the strength of the report of
Dr. Castronuevo and the open disclosures of the corpus
delicti a day before.
It is not necessary to dwell on the other errors assigned
by the defense, notably, the trial court’s failure to compel
the attendance of witnesses on behalf of the accused. We
find that based on the very evidence for the prosecution,
conviction is not warranted.
On April 25, 1989, the Court received a “motion to
withdraw appeal” signed by the accused alleging that “his
appeal efforts [are] fruitless . . . and [that] to pursue [it] . .44.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

is tantamount to delaying the execution of his sentence.”

On June 19, 1989, the Court directed the accused’s counsel
de oficio to verify the genuineness of the accused’s
signature on the motion and the voluntariness of the
withdrawal. On October 23, 1989, the counsel for the
accused filed a manifestation informing the Court that the
accused did sign the motion after “he learned about the
demise of his father and believing that nobody cares for
him anymore, including45 his counsel who seems to have
abandoned his case.”
At this point, the Court genuinely commiserates with
accused for what indeed boils down to delay in the
administration of justice through no fault of his own (or the
Court’s either) but on account simply of the slow wheels of
justice in the country. Let him not be misled, however, that
“nobody cares for him anymore” because if nobody else is
indeed left, he can count on the Supreme Court. If it is any
consolation, let the accused be reminded that if his labors
were an uphill battle, they were not a bad fight, and
perhaps the price we all pay for freedom.
WHEREFORE, the accused is ACQUITTED on
reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

_______________

44 Rollo, id., 212.

45 Id., 223.

321

VOL. 186, JUNE 6, 1990 321

People vs. Flores

Melencio-Herrera (J., Chairman), please see

attached dissent.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., Dissenting:

I am constrained to dissent.
The extrajudicial confession of the accused, obtained on
October 6, 1972, prior to the effectivity of the 1973
Constitution, is admissible in evidence against him
although he may not have been informed of his right to
silence and to counsel (Magtoto vs. Manguera, 63 SCRA 4).
That confession, detailing the manner in which he

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

consummated the dastardly act, including the choking of

the victim on the neck and the stuffing of soil into her
mouth in order to silence her, taken together with the
chain of circumstances analyzed by the Trial Court,
sufficiently establish culpability.
A confession is presumed to be voluntary until the
contrary is shown (People vs. Dorado, 30 SCRA 63). The
involuntariness of the accused’s confession in this case has
not been adequately proven by the defense. Its rejection
now is based on surmises and not on facts.
That the accused may have been picked up at the wee
hours of the morning does not necessarily bespeak haste.
An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the
day or night (Section 6, Rule 113). A known suspect of a
grievous offense must not be allowed to fly the coop. A
lawful arrest may even be made without a warrant
provided an offense has in fact been committed and there is
reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested
has committed it (People vs. Francisco, 93 SCRA 351;
Section 5, Rule 113, prior to its amendment in 1985). That
the accused was not informed of the cause of his arrest is
only his self-serving statement besides the fact that it runs
counter to human experience as the authorities lost no time
in picking him up the day after the commission of the
offense. Truth to tell, he cannot feign ignorance of that
cause.
There is nothing strange about the accused’s second
confession either. It is obvious that he was trying to
exculpate himself by varying the admissions in his first
confession. This even belies involuntariness.
Death may have sealed the victim’s lips. But the offense
322

322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

against her honor and person has been proven. The accused
has expressly acknowledged his culpability. It is not
indispensable that the victim should testify as to the
circumstances attending the commission of the crime
before an accused may be held liable under his own
confession. The affirmance of the trial court’s verdict of
guilt is called for. A hapless victim cries out for justice, too.
Accused acquitted.

Notes.—Persons guilty of rape are mandated to provide

indemnity to the offended party. (People vs. Asturias, 134

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/22
4/20/24, 8:46 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186

SCRA 405).
Concealment by young girls of the rape against them not
uncommon because of threats on their lives. (People vs.
Alcid, 135 SCRA 280).

——o0o——

© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018efb92725ec2ade2ce000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/22