Hernandez, Tonog, Asian Surety

7/28/2019 Hernandez, Tonog, Asian Surety

1/36

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 117624. December 4, 1997]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, vs. EFREN L. HERNANDEZ, DIONISIO S. JACOB @ Joe, CELSO

MANSUER @ Boy Damo, JIMMY BOLANTE @ Bakulaw, (At Large), Accused, ALFREDO T. TUMANENG @

Fred, JOSE L. LORENZO @ Jomar, MARLON FAMODULAN, accused-appellants.

D E C I S I O N

PUNO,J.:

Fortune Magazine (March 1997 issue) described the country as the "Kidnapping Capital of Asia." The advent

of the 90's saw a sharp increase in the incidence of kidnapping cases in the country. It has replaced bank robbery

as a more lucrative criminal enterprise. The family of the victim, usually from the opulent Chinese community,

readily pays the ransom and is sworn to silence by the threat of death of their loved one.

One of the earlier publicized kidnapping incidents is the abduction of six-year old SHARLEEN TAN, a

preparatory student at the Immaculate Concepcion Academy in Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila. Charged with

Kidnapping for Ransom were seven (7) accused, namely: CELSO MANSUER @ Boy Damo, JIMMY BOLANTE @

Bakulaw, EFREN L. HERNANDEZ, DIONISIO S. JACOB @ Joe, ALFREDO T. TUMANENG @ Fred, JOSE L. LORENZO @

Jomar and MARLON FAMODULAN.

The Information[1]against them reads:

"That on or about January 21, 1992, in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, being then private individuals, conspiring,

confederating, and mutually helping one another, for the purpose of extorting money as ransom from Jacinto and

Shirley Tan and their family, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, kidnap, carry away, detained(sic), and deprived (sic) Sharleen Tan, a minor, of her liberty, without authority of law, with a threat to kill said

Sharleen Tan if the desired amount of money could not be given, and against the will and consent of Sharleen

Tan."

"CONTRARY TO LAW."

Only EFREN HERNANDEZ, DIONISIO JACOB, MARLON FAMODULAN, ALFREDO TUMANENG and JOSE

LORENZO were captured by the operatives of the Central Intelligence Service (CIS). Accused CELSO

MANSUER and JIMMY BOLANTE have evaded arrest and remain at large.

Upon arraignment, the five (5) accused pled "not guilty." During the pendency of the trial, accused

HERNANDEZ and JACOB escaped from detention. They were tried in absentia.

The prosecution evidence consists of the testimonies ofEVA STA. CRUZ, the victim's nanny, JACINTO

TAN, the victim's father, and the CIS investigators who picked up the suspects and before whom they executed

their extrajudicial confessions. The participation of each of the accused was established mainly from

their extrajudicial confessions which were adduced in evidence.

The record shows that SHARLEEN TAN is the daughter of spouses Jacinto and Shirley Tan and granddaughter

of Ramona Cheng. Sharleen lived with her family at #60 Polk Street, North Greenhills, San Juan, Metro

Manila. She attended preparatory school at the nearby Immaculate Concepcion Academy in West Greenhills, San

Juan.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn1


2/36

EVA STA. CRUZ is the housemaid of Ramona Cheng and also acted as Sharleen's nanny. Eva, together with

the driver, accused JOSE LORENZO, @ Jomar, would bring Sharleen to school in the morning and return in the

afternoon to pick her up.

On January 21, 1992, at about 3:30 p.m., accused Lorenzo drove Eva to the Immaculate Concepcion Academy

to get Sharleen. He parked the car in the school's parking lot and Eva alighted to get Sharleen. Minutes later, Eva,

with Sharleen in tow, returned to the car. Sharleen took the backseat, behind the driver. While Eva was starting

to board beside Sharleen, an unidentified man pushed her into the car and slumped beside her. The man held

down Eva's nape close to the car's floor, and warned her: "Huwag kang sisigaw at kapag sumigaw ka ay babarilin

ka namin."(Don't shout, otherwise, we'll shoot you). Eva heard the front door of the car open and felt another

man take the front seat, beside the driver. Eva also felt the man in the front seat take Sharleen and cuddle her in

his lap. She did not see their features for her nape was held down by the man beside her but she heard their

voices. The car then sped away.

On the way, their driver, accused Lorenzo, asked the two men: "Saan tayo?"(Where are we going?). One

of the men replied: "Sa dati." (The usual place).

After 20 minutes on the road, one of the men instructed the driver, accused Lorenzo, thus: "Bumusina ka ng

tatlo(ng beses)." (Blow the horn thrice). The car slowed down and Eva heard somebody open an iron gate. The

car stopped and allowed Sharleen and the man in the front seat to alight. The car again sped away.

After a couple of minutes, the man still holding Eva's head down assured her release so she could inform her

employer of Sharleen's ransom. Eva was allowed to alight at an unfamiliar place.

Seeing a telephone lineman, she asked where she was and was told she was in Paterno Street, San Juan. She

informed the lineman about the kidnapping and was allowed to use a phone to call her employer. Eva called up

her employer's house, recounted the incident and asked that she be picked up at Paterno Street. Minutes later,

Samson Cheng, Sharleen's uncle, fetched Eva and brought her back to the Tan residence.[2]

The kidnapping threw the parents and relatives of Sharleen in total panic despite the presence of the

police. JACINTO TAN, Sharleen's father, received a call from one of the kidnappers demanding a 10M

ransom. They haggled in the amount and reached no agreement. The police then left Tan's house.[3]

Thereafter, several phone calls were made by the kidnappers to the Tan family. Jacinto haggled for the

payment of a lower ransom. He pleaded he be allowed to pay P409,000.00. After further negotiations, thekidnappers agreed to receive the reduced amount. They instructed Jacinto to leave the money in a garbage can in

front of the Town and Country Lodge in Old Sta. Mesa, Manila. Jacinto complied and then returned to his house to

await the call of the kidnappers on Sharleen's release. None came that night.[4]

A week later, or on January 28, 1992, the kidnappers again called up the Tan residence. They informed

Jacinto that they had released Sharleen and left her at the Perpetual Help Hospital in Espaa, Manila. Jacinto

rushed to the hospital and found Sharleen who was extremely traumatized by the incident. Jacinto himself

suffered from nervous breakdown.[5]

An intensive manhunt was launched to capture the kidnappers of Sharleen. CIS Chief Inspector Major Ruben

Zacarias organized two (2) teams to conduct the hunt. The team composed of SPO3 Gregorio Cuachon and SPO1

Danilo T. Salas and headed by Inspector Warlito Platon was directed to verify the information that Sharleen was

hidden by accused Alfredo Tumaneng in a house at #15 Kennedy Street, Road 20, Project 8, Quezon City. OfficersCuachon and Salas conducted a discreet surveillance of the area and were able to verify the information. They also

found out that accused Tumaneng had left the safehouse and has transferred to Mayupis, Malabon, Metro Manila.

Seven (7) suspects were identified by the CIS. Five of them, namely, Hernandez, Tumaneng, Lorenzo, Jacob

and Famodulan, were captured by the CIS operatives. Each executed an extrajudicial confession which became

the basis of the criminal charge against them.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn2


3/36

The first to be apprehended was accused EFREN HERNANDEZ. He was arrested on February 5, 1992 by the

Central Police District (CPD) in connection with another crime. When the CPD learned that Hernandez was a

suspect in the Tan kidnapping case, he was turned over to the CIS for investigation.

In the CIS, Hernandez waived his rights to remain silent and to counsel in the presence of one Atty. Solomon

Villanueva and voluntarily admitted his participation in the crime. In his extrajudicial confession (Exhibit "G-

3"),[6]dated February 6, 1992, Hernandez confirmed that in January 1992, his friend, accused Lorenzo, asked him

to join his group to kidnap Sharleen Tan. He revealed their individual participation. He stated that accused

Bolante and Jacob were the ones who abducted Sharleen. Accused Mansuer drove the taxi carrying Bolante,

Jacob and Sharleen. They dropped off Sharleen at a house in John Kennedy Street, Project 8, Quezon City. It was

Jacob who got in touch with Sharleen's family to demand for ransom. Mansuer and Jacob were the ones who

picked up the ransom. After three (3) days, Jacob gave Hernandez 15,000.00 as his share of the ransom money at

Isetann, Manila. The confession of Hernandez led to the apprehension of the other accused.[7]

The next to fall was accused ALFREDO TUMANENG. SPO3 GREGORIO CUACHON of the CIS Special

Investigation Branch was part of the team which checked the information given by suspect Hernandez that

Sharleen was brought to a house at #15 Kennedy Street, Quezon City. SPO3 CUACHON and SPO1 DANILO

SALAS conducted a discreet surveillance of the area. They learned from the neighbors that Tumaneng used to live

in said house but has transferred residence in Mayupis, Malabon, Metro Manila. They reported their findings to

Major Zacarias, Chief Inspector of the CISC, who instructed them to verify if the suspect was still in

Malabon. Cuachon and Salas traced Tumaneng in a rented apartment. They invited Tumaneng to their office to

shed light on the kidnapping case.[8]

At the CIS office, Tumaneng was investigated by SGT. ROMEO CUDIA.[9]Informed of his constitutional rights,

Tumaneng opted to waive his right to counsel. Even then, Sgt. Cudia called up Atty. Solomon Villanueva, a retired

member of the Judge Advocate's Office (JAGO) and has since been engaged in private practice, to assist Tumaneng

in waiving his right to counsel. Tumaneng accepted Atty. Villanueva as his counsel. He then executed his

extrajudicial confession in the presence of Atty. Villanueva.[10]

In his confession (Exhibit "A"),[11]dated February 6, 1992, Tumaneng revealed that he had known

accused Hernandez for about a year prior to the kidnapping. He divulged that on January 21, 1992, Sharleen was

brought to his house at #15 Kennedy Street, Road 20, Project 8, Quezon City, by accused Hernandez and Bolante,

aboard the latter's taxi. He fed Sharleen and attended to her needs for five (5) days. On January 26, 1992, at

about 8:00 a.m., Hernandez phoned him and promised to pick up Sharleen that day. Tumaneng waitedbut Hernandez did not show up. He waited until the next day, January 27, 1992 but there was no word from

Hernandez.

In the morning of January 28, 1992, Bolante dropped by Tumaneng's house. Tumaneng informed Bolante

about his plan to release Sharleen and leave her at the Perpetual Hospital where she would be safe. Bolante

agreed. At about 8:00 p.m. that night, they took Sharleen and left her at the third floor of the Perpetual

Hospital. Tumaneng proceeded to Sta. Mesa where he instructed Sharleen's parents to pick her up at the

Perpetual Hospital.

In his confession, Tumaneng revealed that at the beginning of their plan, he did not know the other men

involved in the plan to abduct Sharleen Tan. Later on, however, accused Hernandez identified to him the other

conspirators as Bolante, Mansuer, Lorenzo and Jacob. Tumaneng came to know them by face. He denied

receiving any part of the ransom money.

The next to fall in the hands of the CIS was accused driver JOSE "Jomar" LORENZO. The CIS received

information that accused Lorenzo accompanied the wife of accused Hernandez to Crame to visit Hernandez who

was then already detained at the CIS office. However, Lorenzo was found by Major Ruben Zacarias waiting in front

of the Crame gate.

Lorenzo disclosed to Major Zacarias that he was contemplating on surrendering himself. He was invited to

the CIS office where he gave a statement. Atty. Solomon Villanueva was called at the CIS office to assist Lorenzo
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn6


4/36

during the investigation. Like the previous suspects, Lorenzo waived his right to counsel and agreed to execute

an extrajudicial confession in the presence of Atty. Villanueva (Exhibit "F").[12]

In his extrajudicial confession (Exhibit "F"),[13]dated February 7, 1992, Lorenzo admitted his participation in

the abduction of Sharleen but claimed he was not privy to the place where Sharleen was hidden. He stayed with

accused Mansuer at the latter's house in San Andres Bukid, Manila, after the abduction. He then lost contact with

his co-conspirators. He got scared when he read in the newspapers about the capture of accused Hernandez. He

decided to surrender to the authorities. He stated that he did not know that ransom money was demanded from

Sharleen's parents. Lorenzo also denied receiving any share of the ransom money. In his statement, he declared

his intention to cooperate with the CIS so that all his co-conspirators would be captured, especially the ones who

escaped with the ransom money.[14]

On February 8, 1992, accused DIONISIO JACOB @ Joe was captured by the CIS operatives. SPO1 HERMES

MONTILLA recounted[15]that on said date, he was directed by Major Zacarias to join the team of Senior

Inspector Platon and SPO1 Danilo Salas in going to San Pablo City to apprehend accused Jacob. They were

accompanied by accused Hernandez.

The CIS team asked the help of the 266th PNP Company in locating Jacob in San Pablo City. They proceeded

to the Office of Senior Inspector Esguerra, Station Commander of San Pablo City. From the description given by

Hernandez, Inspector Esguerra was able to trace Jacob's residence in barangay San Cristobal, San Pablo City. Upon

inquiry, the police were informed by a relative of Jacob that he was not around. Some of the CIS operatives,however, noticed a man's figure moving inside a nearby hut. They approached the hut, saw a man hiding under a

wooden bed who attempted to flee but failed. Accused Hernandez identified the man as accused Jacob.

The police interrogated Jacob about his share of the ransom money. Jacob confirmed Hernandez' revelation

that he had a share in the ransom. However, only P8,000.00 was left for he had already bought a colored

television and a karaoke system. Jacob and his common-law wife, Margarita Albiso, were invited to Manila by the

CIS for further investigation. At the CIS office, Jacob executed an extrajudicial confession and waived his right to

counsel in the presence of Atty. Solomon Villanueva and his common-law wife Margarita Albiso.[16]

In his confession (Exhibit "D"),[17]dated February 8, 1992, Jacob admitted his involvement in the

kidnapping of Sharleen. He named Mansuer, Hernandez, Bolante and Tumaneng as his accomplices. He clarified

that he did not participate in the actual abduction. Bolante informed him that they had kidnapped a child. Bolante

requested him to negotiate with Sharleen's parents for the payment of the ransom. Jacob acceded and, using thecodename "Papa Charlie," called up Sharleen's parents to demand payment of the ransom. They initially

demanded a P2M ransom but Sharleen's father pled that it be reduced to P409,000.00. Jacob made several phone

calls to the Tan family during the negotiation for payment of the ransom. After haggling, accused Mansuer and

Hernandez acceded to the reduced ransom. Sharleen's family paid and left it in Sta. Mesa. They requested a boy

to pick up the money. Jacob's share of the ransom was 50,000.00. He confirmed that Sharleen was in their

custody for more than a week.

Finally, on February 8, 1992, at about 11:00 p.m., the last suspect, accused MARLON FAMODULAN, was

invited by the CIS operatives to shed light on the kidnapping of Sharleen Tan. He executed a sworn statement

(Exhibit "E") where he waived his rights to remain silent and to counsel in the presence of Atty. Solomon

Villanueva.

In his extrajudicial confession (Exhibit "E"),[18]dated February 10, 1992, Famodulan declared that he did

not know Sharleen Tan and her parents. He came to know accused Hernandez in 1985 through his brother Romeo

Famodulan. In January 1992, Hernandez asked him to pick up some money in a trash can, near a Meralco post in

front of the Town and Country Lodge. He asked why the money was in that site. He was told just to get the

money. He was promised a reward if he did the errand. He did as he was told and turned over the money to

accused Hernandez, Mansuer and Jacob. Hernandez then handed him his reward. Famodulan insisted he was not

aware about the kidnapping incident. He stated that he did not know that the money he took in the trash can

represented the ransom paid by the family of Sharleen.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn12


5/36

For their defense, appellants simply denied complicity in the kidnapping of Sharleen. Appellants LORENZO

and TUMANENG claimed that their extrajudicial confessions were elicited under duress. Appellant FAMODULAN

maintained that he merely picked up the money as directed by accused Hernandez.

On the stand, appellant LORENZO admitted that he was employed as collector and driver in the business of

the Tan family. On January 21, 1992, at about 3:30 p.m., he was asked by Shirley Tan to pick up her daughter

Sharleen in school. He and Sharleen's nanny, Eva Sta. Cruz, proceeded to the Immaculate Concepcion Academy to

fetch Sharleen. He waited for Eva and Sharleen at the school's parking lot. The two arrived and boarded the

backseat of the car. When he started the ignition, a man suddenly got into the backseat and poked a gun at his

face. Another man took the front seat beside him and also poked a gun at him. Thus, Lorenzo claimed he did not

see the features of the kidnappers who ordered him to drive. He obeyed, worried about the safety of Sharleen

and the maid. Then, the man beside him asked his companion: "Saan tayo?"("Where to?"). The man at the

backseat replied: "Sa dati." ("The usual place"). One of the men gave directions on where to go. When they

reached Guevarra Street, they stopped at a place where three (3) vehicles were parked. The man beside him took

Sharleen and alighted from the car. The other man was left at the backseat and ordered him to drive on.

When they reached Paterno Street in San Juan, the kidnapper at the backseat ordered him to stop. Eva,

the nanny, was made to alight. Lorenzo was then directed to proceed to N. Domingo Street, also in San Juan,

where he was left by the kidnapper. He was warned not to report the incident to the police, otherwise, Sharleen

would be killed. The man also threatened to harm Lorenzo's family. The kidnapper then took the car and drove

away.

From N. Domingo Street, Lorenzo proceeded to the house of his friend William Sierra in Mandaluyong for

advise. William told him to lie low for a while. He followed William's advice and did not report the matter to the

police. Neither did he contact his employer. Even his own family was not aware of his whereabouts. He did not

return to his house and stayed only with friends after the incident. Lorenzo's testimony was corroborated by his

friend William Sierra.

Appellant Lorenzo also denied that on February 7, 1992, at about 7:00 p.m., he accompanied accused

Hernandez' wife to visit Hernandez at the CIS detention cell. Lorenzo claimed he just happened to be in front of

the Crame gate that night when he was arrested by the CIS operatives. He was on his way to 8th Avenue, Cubao,

Quezon City.

Lorenzo alleged he was maltreated by the CIS operatives. Then, he was asked to sign a document but wasnot allowed to read it. The document turned out to be an extrajudicial confession (Exhibit "F"). After two (2) days,

he was introduced to Atty. Villanueva who told him he would handle his defense if he could pay P20,000.00

acceptance fee and P2,000.00 for appearance fee. Lorenzo refused as he did not have that much money. He

denied to Atty. Villanueva his complicity in the kidnapping. Nonetheless, Atty. Villanueva affixed his signature on

his extrajudicial confession. During the inquest before Fiscal Lugtu, Lorenzo kept mum about the

maltreatment. He was afraid of the CIS operatives who accompanied him at the inquest.[19]

Accused TUMANENG also disowned his extrajudicial confession (Exhibit "A"). He charged that he was

coerced by the CIS agents to confess. He was forcibly taken from his aunt's house in Maysilo, Malabon, and

brought to the CIS detention cell where he was tortured. Then, he was ordered to sign an extrajudicial confession

without the assistance of a lawyer. When he was presented to Fiscal Lugtu for inquest, he confirmed his

confession for he was afraid of the CIS agents who were present.[20]

Finally, 24-year old appellant FAMODULAN maintained his innocence about the kidnapping incident. At the

trial, he confirmed that he knew accused Hernandez since 1985 for they were neighbors. A week before his arrest

on February 8, 1992, he and his friends, Allan and Toto, were jogging along V. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila, at

about 4:30 a.m. When they reached the Town and Country Lodge, accused Hernandez and another man who were

on board a taxi called him. As he approached the taxi, he told his friends to continue jogging. When he reached

the taxi, Hernandez placed his arm around his shoulder, poked a knife at him and ordered him to pick up a package

in the trash can in front of the Lodge. He obeyed and handed the package to Hernandez who in turn gave him
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn19


6/36

200.00 for his effort. The taxi then left. Famodulan caught up with his jogging companions and they proceeded to

Luneta.[21]

Sixteen (16) years old ALVIN "Allan" LASO, one of the jogging companions of accused Famodulan,

corroborated Famodulan's testimony. Laso declared that while they were jogging in front of the Town and Country

Lodge, they saw two men across the street, on board a taxi. One of them called Famodulan. Famodulan broke

away from their group, crossed the street and approached the man. Laso and his other companion continued

jogging but slowed down their pace so Famodulan could catch up with them later. While they were jogging, Laso

saw Famodulan pick up a plastic bag and hand it over to the unidentified man who then gave Famodulan some

money. Thereafter, Famodulan continued jogging and caught up with his companions. They continued jogging up

to Luneta Park where they took their breakfast.[22]

On February 8, 1992, at about 11:00 p.m., Famodulan was picked up by the police at his house. He was

brought to Camp Crame where he was investigated without the assistance of a lawyer. After his interrogation, his

statement was reduced into writing (Exhibit "E").[23]The investigating officer then told him he has a right to

engage the services of his own counsel. As he was unable to get his own lawyer, he was introduced to Atty.

Solomon Villanueva by the investigator. The investigator then ordered him to sign his statement. Atty. Villanueva

did not assist or advise him during the custodial investigation.[24]

On August 27, 1993, the five (5) accused were convicted of the crime charged.[25]The dispositive portion of

the decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, and in the light of all the foregoing discussions, the Court renders judgment finding the accused

EFREN HERNANDEZ, DIONISIO S. JACOB, ALFREDO T. TUMANENG, JOSE L. LORENZO and MARLON T.

FAMOUDULAN (sic) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and imposes upon the aforenamed

accused the penalty ofRECLUSION PERPETUA. The said accused are likewise ordered to indemnify the

complainant in the amount of P409,000.00 which represents the ransom money the latter parted with. The

television set and karaoke (PANASONIC) confiscated from accused DIONISIO JACOB as a consequence of this case

and which per records were brought out of a part of the ransom money paid by complainant Jacinto Tan are

ordered to be turned over to Jacinto Tan. No other civil indemnification may be made as no other evidence on this

aspect was adduced.

"Insofar as the accused CELSO MANSUER and JIMMY BOLANTE are concerned, let the records of this case be sentto the files there to remain until the said accused are apprehended and brought to court.

"Cost against the accused.

"SO ORDERED."

Hence this recourse by appellants Tumaneng, Lorenzo and Famodulan.[26]

In their Brief,[27]appellants TUMANENG and LORENZO impugn their conviction on the grounds that: (a) their

warrantless arrests were illegal; and, (b) their extrajudicial confessions were obtained without the benefit of a

competent and independent counsel of their own choice.

Upon the other hand, appellant FAMODULAN proffers the following contentions to support his acquittal: (a)

he was not positively identified as one of the conspirators; (b) he was arrested and investigated in violation of his

constitutional rights; (c) his February 10, 1992 affidavit is invalid and insufficient to warrant his conviction, and; (d)

the evidence of his alleged participation in the crime is insufficient to justify his conviction.[28]

The prosecution evidence is anchored mainly on the extrajudicial confessions of appellants and the testimony

of Eva Sta. Cruz. Of the seven (7) accused, only appellant LORENZO, the driver, was positively identified by Sta.

Cruz. Appellants TUMANENG and FAMODULAN were convicted on the basis of their extrajudicial

confessions. The convictions of accused-at-large Hernandez and Jacob, who were tried in absentia, were also
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn21


7/36

based on their confessions. The kidnap victim, Sharleen Tan, was not presented by the prosecution, possibly due

to her tender age and the traumatic impact of the incident on her.

Interestingly, none of the appellants proffered an alibi. Appellant TUMANENG, while denying participation

in the kidnapping, did not reveal his whereabouts at the time of the felony. Appellants LORENZO and

FAMODULAN admitted their presence at the scene of the crime but both claimed they were merely coerced to

participate in the kidnapping. Appellant LORENZO averred he was forced at gunpoint to drive the car used to

kidnap Sharleen. Appellant FAMODULAN alleged he was collared by accused Hernandez while jogging and was

ordered, at knifepoint, to pick up the ransom inside a trash can in front of The Town and Country Lodge.

There is no question that appellants were arrested without the benefit of a warrant and under circumstances

other than those justifying a warrantless arrest.[29]Clearly, their warrantless arrests violated the

Constitution.[30]However, jurisprudence is settled that an accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality

of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the Information against him before his arraignment.[31]In

the case at bar, by entering a plea of not guilty and participating in the trial, appellants waived their right to

challenge the legality of their warrantless arrests.[32]

Appellants then charge that the trial court erred in considering their extrajudicial confessions for two (2)

reasons: First, their execution was involuntary for they were maltreated by the CIS operatives, and second, they

were not provided with a competent and independent counsel of their own choice.

We rule that appellants' extrajudicial confessions are admissible in evidence. It bears emphasis that

extrajudicial confessions are presumed to be voluntary for no sane person would confess to a crime unless he has

committed it. Thus, the burden is on the accused to prove the involuntariness of his confession.[33]In the case at

bar, appellants did not satisfactorily discharge this burden.

We cannot sustain appellants' charge that they were coerced to execute their confessions. Their accusation

lacks proof and is belied by the records. No medical certificate was presented to prove their

maltreatment. Neither did they exhibit any physical marks of violence. The records reveal that appellants did not

file an administrative or criminal complaint against their alleged torturers. During the preliminary investigation,

appellants even subscribed their confession before Fiscal Reynaldo Lugtu who certified that he personally

examined appellants and was fully convinced that they voluntarily executed and understood their extrajudicial

confessions. Hence, the trial court rightly rejected appellants' allegation of maltreatment.[34]

We also note that appellants' confessions are replete with details which could have been known only to

them. The events narrated in the extrajudicial confessions, from the start of the abduction of Sharleen until her

release, are so detailed that they could not have been concocted by persons who were innocent of the crime at

bar.

Appellants further insist that Atty. Solomon Villanueva who was provided by the CIS operatives to assist

them in the waiver of their rights to silence and to counsel is neither an independent nor a competent

lawyer. They pound on the fact that Atty. Villanueva was once a member of the Judge Advocate's Office and his

sympathies are suspect. They also assail the competence of Atty. Villanueva to assist them during the custodial

investigation. Allegedly, at no instance did Atty. Villanueva prevent appellants from incriminating themselves.

We are unpersuaded that in the case at bar, the constitutional requirement on assistance of a competent and

independent counsel was violated. The fact that Atty. Villanueva is a retired member of the Judge Advocate's

Office should not cast doubt on his impartiality in assisting appellants during their custodial investigation. There isno concrete evidence of bias on the part of Atty. Villanueva. Appellants' charge is specious and speculative. In

People v. Aquino,[35]we disabused the mind of the public regarding the prevalent misconception that the role of

a lawyer in criminal investigation under the right to counsel provision of the Constitution is to prevent an accused

from incriminating himself. We explained in explicit terms that the right to counsel is designed to preclude the

slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something which is false. It ought to follow that a lawyer

should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth whether in an extrajudicial

statement or testimony in open court. While our litigation is adversarial in nature, its purpose is always to

ascertain the truth for justice is not justice unless predicated on truth. The accused under investigation is
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn29


8/36

assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from

them.

In the case at bar, appellants waived their rights to remain silent and to counsel in the presence and with the

assistance of Atty. Villanueva. Atty. Villanueva cannot be faulted when he did not prevent appellants

from truthfully answering the questions propounded by the investigators. For allowing the free flow of truth, Atty.

Villanueva cannot be deemed as an incompetent counsel. A lawyer's oath binds him to prevent falsehood and not

to suppress truth.

With the proper admission of their extrajudicial confessions, we find that the guilt of appellants TUMANENG

and LORENZO was proved beyond reasonable doubt. It again bears stressing that appellant LORENZO was

convicted not only on the basis of his extrajudicial confession, but also on the positive identification by

prosecution witness EVA STA. CRUZ, the victim's nanny. She unequivocally declared that when Sharleen was

abducted, she heard appellant Lorenzo ask the unidentified men where they were going. The latter replied they

would go to the "usual place." Appellant Lorenzo fully understood the reply because from then on, no

conversation ensued among the men. They continued their trip in silence. No further directions were given to

Lorenzo as to where they were headed. After a while, Lorenzo stopped the car at an unidentified place where

Sharleen and one of the kidnappers alighted.[36]

Appellant Lorenzo urges that no weight should be given to the testimony of Eva whose head was held down

by one of the kidnappers when she heard this brief exchange of words. Appellant Lorenzo insists that he did nottalk with the kidnappers and it was the two (2) unidentified men who engaged in conversation. Lorenzo claims he

was forced to drive the car at gunpoint. After the abduction, he was made to alight and the kidnapper took the car

from him and sped away. He did not report the incident to the Tan family or the police for fear that Sharleen

would be killed by her abductors. He also insists that throughout the incident, he had no opportunity to see the

features of the malefactors.

We are unpersuaded. The transcripts show that Eva's testimony was categorical and credible. She had

known appellant Lorenzo for about a year prior to the incident for they were both working for the same

employer, the Cheng family. We find it highly improbable that Eva was mistaken when she identified appellant

Lorenzo as the one who asked the kidnappers where they were going at the time of the abduction. She was

familiar with Lorenzo's voice. Equally important is the fact that the defense failed to show that there was any

grudge or ill-feeling between Eva and appellant Lorenzo as would impel her to implicate him in the kidnapping

charge.

In contrast to Eva's credible testimony, appellant Lorenzo's version of the incident is full of

improbabilities. For one, his assertion that he did not get to see the features of the kidnappers who forced their

way into the car is unlikely. His own account of the incident proves that he had several opportunities to see the

features of the abductors. One of the kidnappers was seated beside him in the car. The other was seated at the

back. While driving, it was improbable that Lorenzo did not even get a glimpse of the features of any of these

men, either in the rear view mirror, while making a turn or thru his peripheral vision. Appellant Lorenzo also

testified that after Eva was made to alight, he was left alone in the car with the kidnapper who later ordered him

to stop the car. The kidnapper directed him to leave and took the driver's seat. At this point, Lorenzo could not

have missed the man's features. Lorenzo's own story belies his claim that he had no opportunity to identify the

kidnappers.

Moreover, appellant Lorenzo denies that he accompanied Hernandez' wife at Camp Crame to visit accusedHernandez who has been detained as a suspect in the kidnapping of Tan. Lorenzo maintains that when he was

apprehended outside the Crame gate, he only happened to be standing there as he was waiting for a public

transportation to take him to Cubao, Quezon City. It strains the imagination to believe that at the time of his

arrest, appellant Lorenzo had such bad luck as to be standing in front of Crame while his co-accused were being

investigated therein. The incident could not have been an instance of being at the wrong place at the wrong

time. The prosecution's evidence that Lorenzo accompanied Hernandez' wife to Crame is thus more credible.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn36


9/36

We note too that appellant Lorenzo's demeanor during and after the abduction is inconsistent with his

stance of innocence. Lorenzo declared he was made to alight at N. Domingo Street, in San Juan, just a few blocks

away from Paterno Street where Eva Sta. Cruz was left by the kidnappers. Yet, after he was released, appellant

Lorenzo did not make any effort to return to Paterno Street to locate Eva and confirm her safety. We do not view

this omission as the natural reaction of a man who claims he merely obeyed the commands of the kidnappers due

to his concern for the safety of his co-employee Eva Sta. Cruz and the kidnap victim Sharleen Tan. Another

unsettling fact is that, after the abduction, appellant Lorenzo did not contact his employer nor his own family totell them what happened or his whereabouts. He simply dropped from sight after the kidnapping. We thus find

his behavior unusual for a man who underwent this kind of an ordeal.

In sum, we find appellant Lorenzo's version of the kidnapping incident too preposterous to be worthy of

credit. Appellant Lorenzo's complicity in the crime was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

For his part, appellant FAMODULAN points out that even on the basis of the contents of his extrajudicial

confession, he could not be convicted of the crime charged. He claimed that he was merely requested to pick up

the money in the garbage can. When he asked why the money would be in that site, appellant Hernandez

dismissed his question and told him to just get the money. He was not told how much money was involved as he

was just promised a reward. Since he needed some money at that time, he complied. In his extrajudicial

confession, appellant Famodulan insisted that he was not aware that the money he delivered to appellant

Hernandez was the ransom paid for the release of a kidnap victim.

We agree. After evaluating the totality of the prosecution's evidence, we find that it failed to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that Famodulan was part of the conspiracy of the other accused to kidnap Sharleen Tan. A

conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony and decide to commit

it.[37]In the case at bar, a scrutiny of the records reveals that in both his extrajudicial confession and court

testimony, appellant Famodulan was consistent in claiming he was not aware about the kidnapping activities of

accused Hernandez and the other accused in this case either before, during or immediately after he picked up

the money. Indeed, all that the prosecution was able to establish is that Famodulan was ordered to pick up the

money in the garbage can without knowing that his co-accused had earlier kidnapped Sharleen and that the

money represented the ransom paid by her family. Appellant Famodulan was completely unaware of the

kidnapping scheme plotted by his co-accused. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that in the extrajudicial

confessions executed by his supposed cohorts, not once was appellant Famodulan's name mentioned as a co-

conspirator.[38]Clearly, the records would bear that the plan to abduct Sharleen was hatched by the six (6)accused, with the exception of Famodulan. He only came into the picture after the actual abduction and demand

for payment of ransom when the six (6) accused hesitated in exposing themselves to danger and decided to ask

someone else to pick up the ransom left by the victim's family. No proof was adduced by the prosecution to prove

that Famodulan knew about the kidnapping plot hatched and actually executed by the six (6) accused. Hence, we

find there wasno agreement to commit the felony between appellant Famodulan on the one hand, and his co-

accused on the other, as would warrant a finding that appellant Famodulan was part of the conspiracy to kidnap

Sharleen Tan.

We come now to the penalty. In response to the escalating incidence of heinous crimes in the country,

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code penalizing kidnapping for ransom, was amended by R.A. 7659 on December

31, 1993 which restored the extreme penalty of death in such cases. However, the crime at bar was committed on

January 21, 1992, almost a year before the amendment of Article 267. Hence, the penalty imposable on

appellants Lorenzo and Tumaneng is the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., reclusion perpetua.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appealed Decision of the trial court is MODIFIED. The conviction of appellants

ALFREDO T. TUMANENG and JOSE L. LORENZO for the crime of kidnapping for ransom is AFFIRMED, while

appellant MARLON FAMODULAN is ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.

SO ORDERED.

Regalado (Chairman),and Martinez, JJ., concur.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn37


10/36

Mendoza, J., on official leave.

People v. Hernandez

Facts:

On January 21, 1992, at about 3:30 p.m., accused Lorenzo drove Eva to the Immaculate Concepcion Academy

to get Sharleen. He parked the car in the school's parking lot and Eva alighted to get Sharleen. Minutes later, Eva

and Sharleen returned to the car. Sharleen took the backseat, behind the driver. While Eva was starting to board

beside Sharleen, an unidentified man sit beside her and warned her not to shout. After 20 minutes, the car

slowed down in front of an iron gate and the man in the front seat and Sharleen got out of the car. After a couple

of minutes, the man release the nanny to inform her employer of Sharleen's ransom. Eva called up her employer's

house, recounted the incident and asked that she be picked up at Paterno Street. Minutes later, Samson Cheng,

Sharleen's uncle, fetched Eva and brought her back to the Tan residence.[2]

Sharleen's father, received a call from one of the kidnappers demanding a 10M ransom. They haggled in the

amount and reached no agreement. The police then left Tan's house.[3]

Thereafter, several phone calls were made by the kidnappers to the Tan family. Jacinto asked for a lower

ransom in the amount of 409,000 wherein the kidnappers agreed and instructed Jacinto to leave the money in a

garbage can in front of the Town and Country Lodge in Old Sta. Mesa, Manila. Jacinto complied and then returned

to his house to await the call of the kidnappers on Sharleen's release. A week later,the kidnappers again called up

the Tan residence. They informed Jacinto that they had released Sharleen and left her at the Perpetual Help

Hospital in Espaa, Manila. Jacinto rushed to the hospital and found Sharleen who was extremely traumatized by

the incident. Jacinto himself suffered from nervous breakdown.[5]

An intensive manhunt was launched to capture the kidnappers of Sharleen. CIS Chief Inspector Major Ruben

Zacarias organized two (2) teams to conduct the hunt. The team composed of SPO3 Gregorio Cuachon and SPO1

Danilo T. Salas and headed by Inspector Warlito Platon was directed to verify the information that Sharleen was

hidden by accused Alfredo Tumaneng in a house at #15 Kennedy Street, Road 20, Project 8, Quezon City. Officers

Cuachon and Salas conducted a discreet surveillance of the area and were able to verify the information. They alsofound out that accused Tumaneng had left the safehouse and has transferred to Mayupis, Malabon, Metro Manila.

Seven (7) suspects were identified by the CIS. Five of them, namely, Hernandez, Tumaneng, Lorenzo, Jacob

and Famodulan, were captured by the CIS operatives. Each executed an extrajudicial confession which became the

basis of the criminal charge against them.

Upon arraignment, the five accused pleaded not guilty. During pendency of the trial, accused Hernandez and

Jacob escaped from detention. They were tried in absentia.

Appellant Tumaneng and Lorenzo contends that their warrantless arrest was illegal and their extrajudicial

confession were obtained without the benefit of a competent and independent counsel of their own choice.

On the other hand, appellant Famodulan contends that he was not positively identified as one of the

conspirators and he was arrested and investigated in violation f his constitutional rights.

Issue:

Whether or not the warrantless arrests were illegal

Ruling:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/117624.htm#_edn2


11/36

The Supreme Court held that appellants were arrested without the benefit of a warrant and under circumstances

other than justifying a warrantless arrest. Clearly, their warrantless arrests violated the Constitution but such was

cured by the failure of the appellants to move for the quashing of the information before the arraignment.

In the case at bar, by entering a plea of not guilty and participating in the trial, appellants waived their right to

challenge the legality of their arrest.

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Appellee

-versus-

IGNACIO TONOG, JR., also known as ABDULTONOG, JR.,

ALVIN ROLANDO SOLAMILLO, also known as

ALLAN SOLAMILLO, JOHN DOE, and PETER DOE,

Accused.

ALVIN ROLANDO SOLAMILLO also known as

ALLAN SOLAMILLO,

Appellant

G.R. No. 144497

Present:

PUNO,J.,

Chairman

QUISUMBING,

MARTINEZ,*

CALLEJO, SR., and

TINGA,JJ.

Promulgated:

June 29, 2004

x- - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

CALLEJO, SR.,J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision[1]

of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 34,

Dumaguete City, finding the appellant, Alvin Rolando Solamillo alias Allan Solamillo, guilty of murder in Criminal

Case No. 8123.

The appellant, along with accused Ignacio Tonog, Jr. and two others, was charged in an Amended

Information[2]

which reads, thus:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn1


12/36

The undersigned Fiscals accuses [sic] IGNACIO TONOG, JR. alias ABDUL TONOG, ALVIN

ROLANDO SALAMILLO alyas [sic] ALLAN SALAMILLO, JOHN DOE and PETER DOE of the crime

of MURDER, committed as follows:

That on or about the 24th

day of April, 1988, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines and

within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring and mutually aiding

one another, with the use of a motorvehicle [sic] in which they brought said EFREN FLORES toan uninhabited place, and taking advantage of their superior strength and with intent to kill said

EFREN FLORES, and armed with a deadly weapon, to wit: a Batangas knife, did then and there

willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab and wound therewith said EFREN FLORES during

nighttime, inflicting upon said EFREN FLORES the following injuries to wit:

which injuries directly caused the death of said EFREN FLORES.

That the crime was committed with the qualifying circumstances of use of a motorvehicle

[sic], taking advantage of superior strength, nighttime, uninhabited place and cruelty.

Contrary to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.[3]

The accused Ignacio Tonog, Jr. moved for a separate trial, because his co-accused were still at large.[4]

The

court granted the motion. The case as against the appellant was archived. After trial, the court rendered judgment

convicting Tonog, Jr. of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The dispositive portion of the said

decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the accused Ignacio Tonog, Jr. alias Abdul Tonog is hereby found guilty

beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and the Court hereby imposes on him thepenalty of Reclusion Perpetua.

Accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased victim the sum of

THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) and to pay the costs.

The case filed against his co-accused Allan Solamillo and two other unidentified

individuals are hereby ordered archived, without prejudice to their further prosecution,

considering that until this time they have not yet been apprehended and still remain at large.[5]

The ruling of the trial court was affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 94533[6]

on February 4, 1992, the

dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, except with respect to

the indemnity, which is hereby increased to P50,000.00. Costs against accused-appellant,

Ignacio Tonog, Jr.[7]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn3


13/36

More than six years later, or on April 8, 1998, the appellant was arrested in Cabato Road, Tetuan,

Zamboanga City.[8]

Upon motion[9]

of the Assistant City Prosecutor, Criminal Case No. 8123 was revived. The

appellant, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge against him.[10]

Trial commenced as to

the appellant.

The Case for the Prosecution[11]

Thirty-eight-year-old Liberato Solamillo, Jr., the appellants first cousin, was a fish vendor in Tinago,

Dumaguete City. In the year 1988, he worked as a driver of his fathers motorcab. He was also a part-time driver

of Jun Salabante, and drove the motorcab owned by the latter, bearing sidecar number 0164. The appellant was

its regular driver.

On April 24, 1988, Liberato started plying his route at around 6:00 a.m. and was still driving until about

5:30 p.m. Liberatos uncle and the appellants father, Teodoro Solamillo, arrived from Zamboanga and asked to be

accompanied to look for his son. Liberato and Teodoro searched for the appellant using the motorcab with

sidecar no. 0164, and found the appellant sleeping at the house of his grandmother, Felisa Solamillo. Teodoro

awakened his son and the two of them conversed. Liberato was told to wait, so he stood by the motorcab and

did as he was told. Thereafter, the appellant, Teodoro and Liberato boarded the motorcab and left. Teodoro

alighted at the house of his father, Paulo Solamillo, in Lawisid, SitioBacong. The appellant was then wearing a plain

white shirt and maong pants.[12]

At around 7:00 p.m., Liberato and the appellant then went to Noras Store located at Sitio Bacong. Ignacio

Tonog, Jr. was also at the store. Liberato drank soft drinks, while the appellant and Tonog, Jr. drank beer. At

around 7:30 p.m., the appellant requested Liberato to bring a certain Emil to the cockpit in Dumaguete City.

Liberato did as he was told, and no longer collected the fare because the passenger was a friend of the appellants.

The trip from Bacong to Dumaguete and back took about forty-five minutes.[13]

At around this time, Patrolman Remigio Biyok was watching a movie at the house of Charlie Yee with many

others. The place was about one hundred fifty meters from Noras Store.[14]

At 8:00 pm., Julian Valencia
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn8


14/36

approached Pat. Biyok and informed the latter that the appellant had fired a gun somewhere within the vicinity of

the store. Pat. Biyok went to the police station which was about a hundred meters away from Noras Store, before

proceeding to the place.[15]

His companions, Patrolman Mendoza, Patrolman Tao and Patrolman Tuballa had

already gone ahead to investigate the matter. Pat. Biyok saw the appellant within the vicinity of the N oras Store.

He also saw Tonog, Jr., who asked to be conveyed to Tinago, Dumaguete City, to the house his brother was renting.

Pat. Biyok obliged, since Tonog, Jr. also happened to be the brother of then Chief of Police Lt. Isaias

Tonog.[16]

Tonog, Jr. then left with Pat. Biyok on board the latters Yamaha 80 motorcycle. It was about 9:30

p.m.[17]

When Liberato went back to Sitio Bacong, Dumaguete City, he saw the appellant and Tonog, Jr. standing

outside Noras Store. Divina, the store owners daughter, was also there. Three policemen were within the vicinity.

Liberator heard that one of them, either Tonog, Jr. or the appellant, had caused a commotion by firing a gun.[18]

He

also saw Tonog, Jr. leave with Pat. Biyok.

At about 9:30 p.m., Liberato and the appellant went looking for Tonog, Jr. using the motorcab bearing

sidecar no. 0164. They passed by Pat. Biyoks house in Banilad, Dumaguete City, which was about five kilometers

from Sitio Bacong. Efren Flores, the son of former Philippine National Police Chief Nick Flores, was then at Pat.

Biyoks house, drinking beer with friends.[19]

Pat. Biyok arrived from the trip to Tinago, Dumaguete City, which was

about five to six kilometers away[20]

and saw Efren at his house. Liberato and the appellant arrived and inquired on

the whereabouts of Tonog, Jr. The appellant asked Pat. Biyok where Tonog, Jr. had gone, and Pat. Biyok replied

that he had already brought the latter to Sitio Tinago.[21]

In the meantime, Efren Flores came near Liberato and the appellant, and said, I would like to ride with

you to Dumaguete. The appellant told Liberato to stay at Pat. Biyoks residence as he (the appellant) would be the

one to take Efren Flores to Dumaguete City. Stay here, the appellant told Liberato.[22]

The appellant promised

that he would be back within five minutes.[23]

Pat. Biyok saw Efren Flores on board the motorcab driven by the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn15


15/36

appellant.[24]

The motorcab was about ten to fifteen meters away, and Pat. Biyok saw them as he was sitting on the

porch of his house. The place was lit by a Meralco lamp post, about twenty to twenty-five meters away.[25]

Liberato waited in vain for the appellant to return. He watched an on-going amateur contest and decided

to leave the place about thirty minutes later.[26]

Liberato then waited for a ride and saw his friend, Gorio, pass by in a motorcab. He requested Gorio to

accompany him to look for the appellant in Sitio Tinago. They went around Dumaguete City, but did not find the

appellant. They then decided to go home. Along the way, they passed by the store owned by Liberatos aunt,

Francisca Bueno, which was located along the national highway at Sitio Bacong, Banilad, Dumaguete City. They saw

the motorcab bearing sidecar no. 0164 and approached the vehicle. Liberato saw Tonog, Jr. inside.

Liberato then went into his aunts house. He saw the appellant buying sardines and one family -sized soft

drink. He asked the appellant why he showed up only now, and the latter told him to keep quiet and to let Gorio

go ahead.[27]

Thereafter, he saw the appellant and his other cousin, Elvis Bueno, conversing. They were about one

meter away from each other.[28]

Liberato then overheard the appellant say Nakuha na gyod, Bes(Already taken

Bes).[29]

As the appellant uttered those words, Liberato noticed that the latters fatigue shirt had plenty of red

stains. He then remembered that the appellant was wearing a white shirt while they were still at the store. He did

not ask the appellant about the red stains, because the latter seemed fearful at the time. Nothing was said of the

incident. It was by then past 11:00 p.m.[30]

Later, the group went back to the house of Liberatos grandfather, Paulo Solamillo. Paulo was angry at

Liberato for going home so late. Tonog, Jr. and the appellant ate and conversed, while Liberato slept. Liberato

woke up at 6:00 a.m. and started plying his usual route, using the motorcab owned by Jun Salabante.

At about 6:00 a.m. on April 25, 1988, the Dumaguete Police Station received reports that a lifeless body

had been found at the crossing of Cantil-e, Dumaguete City.[31]

Upon receiving the report, SPO1 Walter R.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn24


16/36

Leguarda immediately went to the place where the body was reported found and conducted an investigation. He

learned that the Flores family, who lived near the place where the body of the victim was found, spotted the

motorcab bearing sidecar number 0164 within the vicinity. After learning that the vehicle belonged to Jun

Salabante, SPO1 Leguarda proceeded to the latters house where he was informed that the drivers of the vehicle

were Liberato Solamillo and the appellant. SPO1 Leguarda then went to Liberatos place to investigate the matter

further. Liberato told him that the appellant borrowed the motorcab that day. Thus, the police operatives went

to Sitio Bacong to arrest Tonog, Jr., but did not find the suspect there.

Afterwards, however, Tonog, Jr. voluntarily went with the police authorities to the police station for

questioning. After the investigation, SPO1 Leguarda saw Tonog, Jr. seated on a bench, and appeared to be crying.

SPO1 Leguarda approached him and asked why his pants had so many blood stains. Tonog, Jr. looked surprised and

asked where the station commander was. He then politely confessed to Police Captain Pedro Centeno that he was

one of the killers of Efren Flores and that he used a Batangas knife, which, however, he gave to the appellant.[32]

SPO1 Leguarda also testified that he saw the appellant talking with Captain Nick Flores, the father of the

victim, near the kampanaryo at the Quezon Park, Dumaguete City, at the corner of Perdices and Colon

Streets. According to Leguarda, he saw the two of them talking early in the morning, after their formation

before reporting to their respective duties, on three or four occasions. He did not think much about it at the

time.[33]

SPO1 Leguarda also recounted that he was able to talk to the late Captain Flores before the latter died. It

was the first week of January, 1995. Captain Flores requested him to appear in court if ever the appellant would be

arrested. He was told that the appellant was an informer or asset, and that in connection with a tire he helped to

recover, the appellant was promised reward money in the amount of P5,000.00. However, Captain Flores was

unable to give the money to the appellant. Captain Flores narrated that the appellant threatened to kill him

because of the incident.[34]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn32


17/36

SPO1 Leguarda also recounted that Tonog, Jr. had a grudge on the victim, and learned of the motive

behind the killing from Tonog, Jr.s girlfriend. Efren Flores and Tonog apparently had an argument while both were

drunk, which led the victim to strangle the latter with his hands.

Liberato found out about the killing from some of his passengers, as he was plying his usual route. He was

then invited for questioning by the police in the afternoon of April 25, 1988. When the police asked him were he

was the night before, he replied that he and the appellant were together.

SPO3 Vilma Beltran testified she was on duty at the Police Station of Dumaguete City. At around 11:00

a.m. of April 25, 1988, Sgt. Patricio brought Tonog, Jr. to the station. The suspect was made to remove his pants,

which Sgt. Patricio handed to her. Tonog, Jr. also turned over a stainless knife. Both items were placed in a

transparent plastic pack and labeled. The bag containing the items was then forwarded to Forensic Chemist Myrna

Areola.[35]

City Health Officer Urbano E. Diga examined the cadaver of the victim and documented the following

findings in his medico-legal report:

1. Wound at the pre-auricular area 2 cm. from the right ear measuring 0.2 cm x 1.5 cm. non-

penetrating;

2. Wound 3 cm. above wound no. 1 measuring 0.2 cm. x 1 cm. non-penetrating;

3. Wound at the angle of the right mandible measuring 1 cm. x 2.8 cm. x 9 c.m.;

4. Wound above wound no. 3 measuring 0.3 cm. x 1 cm. non-penetrating;

5. Wound at the right lateral neck measuring 0.3 cm. x 1 cm. x 6.5 cm.;

6. Wound below wound no. 5 (4 cm. distance) measuring 0.5 cm. x 1 cm. x 6 cm.;

7. Wound 6 cm. below right middle portion of the clavicle measuring 1 cm. x 2 cm. x 13.5 cm.;

8. Wound 4 cm. below medial 3rd

of the right clavicle measuring 1 cm. x 2 cm. x 13.6 cm.;

9. Wound 4 cm. above the right nipple measuring 0.5 cm. x 1.4 cm. non-penetrating;

10. Wound 2 cm. from the level of the right nipple measuring 1 cm. x 1.5 cm. The direction of

the wound is upward measuring 14 cm. deep.

11. Wound at the third medial portion of the left clavicle measuring 1 cm. x 3 cm. x 13.7 cm.12. Wound 1 cm. below wound no. 11 measuring 0.3 cm. x 1 cm.

13. Wound 2 cm. below wound no. 12 measuring 0.3 cm. x 1.5 cm. non-penetrating;

14. Wound 1 cm. below wound no. 13 measuring 0.3 cm. x 7.5 cm.;

15. Wound 7 cm. above the left nipple measuring 1 cm. x 1.5 cm x 14.5 cm.;

16. Wound 1 cm. below wound no. 15 measuring 1 cm. x 1.5 cm. x 14.5 cm.;

17. Wound 1.8 cm. above and to the right of the left nipple measuring 0.5 cm. x 0.2 cm. x 2 cm. x

13.5 cm.

18. Wound just below the left nipple horizontally directed measuring 0.2 cm. x 2 cm. x 13.5 cm.;
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn35


18/36

19. Wound 2 cm. to the right of wound no. 18 measuring 0.6 cm. x 1.5 cm. x 15 cm.;

20. Wound just above the right subcostal region measuring 1.3 cm. x 4 cm. The wound is

directed upward measuring 15 cm. deep;

21. Wound 3 cm. below the right subcostal region among (sic) nipple line measuring 1 cm. x 2

cm. The wound is directed upward measuring 10.5 cm. deep;

22. Wound along right midaxillary line (lumbar region) measuring 1 cm. x 2 cm. x 2 cm.;

23. Wound at the right 11th

posterior rib measuring 0.8 cm. x 7.9 cm. non[-]penetrating directedhorizontally;

24. Wound 1.5 cm. above wound no. 23 directed obliquely 0.8 cm. x 1.5 cm.;

25. Wound right posterior lumbar measuring 0.5 cm. x 2 cm. directed horizontally. The wound is

15 cm. deep;

26. Wound 7 cm. above wound no. 25 measuring 0.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. x 4.5 cm.;

27. Hematoma and swelling of both lips.[36]

The doctor also testified that of the twenty-six (26) wounds inflicted on the victim, fourteen (14) were

fatal,[37]

and that the weapon used by the assailant could have been a long, sharp, bladed instrument .[38]

The

doctor also executed the victims certificate of death.[39]

He testified that the victim was his nephew by affinity, as

his wife was the cousin of the victims father. The victim also happened to be their neighbor in Banilad.[40]

Wilna Portugaleza, the custodian of the medical records at the Holy Child Hospital, testified that the

records of the victim Efren Flores were no longer available as of 1996. The blood type of the victim as indicated in

the certified true copy of the records of the hospital was Type O.[41]

The Case for the Appellant

The appellant, for his part, filed a Manifestation[42]

submitting the attached Demurrer to Evidence,[43]

with a

reservation that in the event an adverse decision would be rendered, such decision would be appealed to this

Court. The appellant, through counsel, prayed that judgment be rendered acquitting him for insufficiency of the

evidence for the prosecution.

The Trial Courts Ruling

The court thereafter rendered judgment convicting the appellant of murder in its decision dated May 17,

2000, thus:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/144497.htm#_ftn36


19/36

WHEREFORE, accused ALVIN ROLANDO SOLAMILLO, alias ALLAN SOLAMILLO, is hereby

found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and the court hereby imposes

upon him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.

Accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased victim the sum of FIFTY

THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00), and to pay the costs.


20/36

There is no more need to pronounce judgment against co-accused Ignacio Tonog, Jr. alias

Abdul, considering the fact that in this case, he was earlier convicted by this Court of the crime

of Murder and meted the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, which conviction was affirmed by the

Supreme Court.

In line with Section 5, Rule 114 of the 1

Documents

Hernandez, Tonog, Asian Surety