Consti II case digest: PEOPLE VS ENDINO

Confession given to media

G.R. No. 133026.  February 20, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. 

EDWARD ENDINO (at large) and GERRY GALGARIN alias TOTO, accused.

GERRY GALGARIN alias TOTO, accused-appellant.

FACTS: Yielding to man’s brutish instinct for revenge, Edward Endino, with the aid of Gerry Galgarin alias Toto, slew Dennis Aquino in the presence of a lady whose love they once shared.

On a busy street in Puerto Princesa City in the evening of 16 October 1991, GALGARIN, uncle of accused ENDINO, suddenly and without warning stabbed AQUINO repeatedly on the chest.  Aquino’ girlfriend Clara Agagas who was with him, pleaded to Galgarin to stop.  Aquino succeeded momentarily to free himself from his attacker but his escape was foiled when from out of nowhere Endino appeared and fired at him.  The two (2) assailants then fled in the direction of the airport. Meanwhile, Dennis sought refuge inside the Elohim Store where he collapsed on the floor, grasping for breath and near death.  Clara with the help of some onlookers took him to the hospital but he expired even before he could receive medical attention.

On 18 October 1991, an Information for the murder of Dennis Aquino was filed against Endino and accused-appellant Galgarin.  The trial court issued an order putting the case in the archives without prejudice to its reinstatement as both accused remained at large.

On 19 November 1992, Galgarin was arrested at a house in Sitio Sto. Niño, Antipolo, Rizal.  Early in the evening of the following day, he was fetched from the Antipolo Police Station by PO3 Manlavi and PO3 Magbanua of the Palawan police force to be taken to Palawan and be tried accordingly.

On their way to the airport, they stopped at the ABS-CBN television station where accused Galgarin was interviewed by reporters.  Video footages of the interview were taken showing Galgarin admitting his guilt while pointing to his nephew Edward Endino as the gunman.  According to Galgarin, after attacking Aquino, they left for Roxas, Palawan, where his sister Langging (Edward's mother), was waiting.  Langging gave them money for their fare for Manila.  They took the boat for Batangas, where they stayed for a few days, and proceeded to Manila where they separated, with him heading for Antipolo.  Galgarin appealed for Edward to give himself up to the authorities.   His interview was shown over the ABS-CBN evening news program TV Patrol.

The case against accused-appellant Galgarin was established through the testimony of Clara Agagas. Her testimony was corroborated by Anita Leong, neighbor of Aquino, who testified that in the evening of 16 October 1991 Galgarin together with a companion went to her house looking for Aquino.  She instructed them to proceed to the Soundlab Recording Studio which is owned by Dennis Aquino as the latter might still be there.  But a few minutes later she heard a (gunshot?) Instinctively, she instructed her 2 young daughters to duck for cover while she anxiously waited for her seven year old daughter Josephine who was out of the house for an errand for her.   Soon enough Josephine arrived, crying because she said her Kuya Dennis had been shot and stabbed. Josephine confirmed her mother’s testimony and even said that she had seen Galgarin stab her Kuya Dennis and she could remember Gerry very well because of the mole below his nose.

For his part, accused-appellant Galgarin disclaimed having taking part in the slaying of Aquino. Gerry asserted that on 14 October 1991 he was in Antipolo to help his common-law wife Maria Marasigan give birth to their first born.  He stayed with her until the 16th of October when she was discharged from a maternity clinic.

Accused-appellant disowned the confession which he made over TV Patrol and claimed that it was induced by the threats of the arresting police officers.  He asserted that the videotaped confession was constitutionally infirmed and inadmissible under the exclusionary rule provided in Sec.12, Art. III, of the Constitution.

The trial court however admitted the video footages on the strength of the testimony of the police officers that no force or compulsion was exerted on accused-appellant and upon a finding that his confession was made before a group of newsmen that could have dissipated any semblance of hostility towards him.  The court gave credence to the arresting officers’ assertion that it was even accused-appellant who pleaded with them that he be allowed to air his appeal on national television for Edward to surrender.

The alibi of Galgarin was likewise rejected since there was no convincing evidence to support his allegation that he was not at the locus criminis on the evening of 16 October 1991.   Accordingly, accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin was convicted of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and was ordered to indemnify the heirs of Dennis Aquino P50,000.00 as compensatory damages and P72,725.35 as actual damages.   The case against his nephew and co-accused Endino remained in the archives without prejudice to its reinstatement as soon as he could be arrested.

ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in admitting accused-appelant‘s videotaped confession as evidence against him.

RULING: Apropos the court a quo’s admission of accused-appellant’s videotaped confession, we find such admission proper.  The interview was recorded on video and it showed accused-appellant unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of newsmen.  Such confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public.  Besides, if he had indeed been forced into confessing, he could have easily sought succor from the newsmen who, in all likelihood, would have been symphatetic with him.  As the trial court stated in its Decision.-

Furthermore, accused, in his TV interview, freely admitted that he had stabbed Dennis Aquino, and that Edward Endino had shot him (Aquino).  There is no showing that the interview of accused was coerced or against his will.  Hence, there is basis to accept the truth of his statements therein.

We agree.  However, because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a medium for admitting one’s guilt, and the recurrence of this phenomenon in several cases, it is prudent that trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions.   For in all probability, the police, with the connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners, may attempt to legitimize coerced extrajudicial confessions and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an offense on television.  Such a situation would be detrimental to the guaranteed rights of the accused and thus imperil our criminal justice system.

We do not suggest that videotaped confessions given before media men by an accused with the knowledge of and in the presence of police officers are impermissible.  Indeed, the line between proper and invalid police techniques and conduct is a difficult one to draw, particularly in cases such as this where it is essential to make sharp judgments in determining whether a confession was given under coercive physical or psychological atmosphere.

A word of counsel then to lower courts:  we should never presume that all media confessions described as voluntary have been freely given.  This type of confession always remains suspect and therefore should be thoroughly examined and scrutinized.  Detection of coerced confessions is admittedly a difficult and arduous task for the courts to make.  It requires persistence and determination in separating polluted confessions from untainted ones.  We have a sworn duty to be vigilant and protective of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

With all the evidence tightly ringed around accused-appellant, the question that next presents itself is whether the trial court correctly denominated the crime as murder qualified by treachery.   Doubtless,  the crime committed is one of murder considering that the victim was stabbed while he was simply standing on the pavement with his girlfriend waiting for a ride, blissfully oblivious of the accused's criminal design.  The suddenness of the assault on an unsuspecting victim, without the slightest provocation from him who had no opportunity to parry the attack, certainly qualifies the killing to murder

Decision of the lower court is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION  that accused-appellant is further ordered to compensate the decedent’s heirs P50,000.00 as moral damages for their emotional and mental anguish.