People v. Olvis

Deosdedit Bagon went missing on September 7, 1975, in Polanco, Zamboanga del Norte. Police picked up Dominador Sorela, who had last been seen with him. While taking police to the ricefield where he said he got his scratches, Sorela broke down and admitted taking part in the killing. Romulo Villarojo and Leonardo Cademas were then arrested. All three were in custody when they were made to re-enact the crime, and Villarojo led the police to a shallow grave. Between September 9 and 25, the three executed five sets of written confessions. Most of them named municipal mayor Anacleto Olvis as the mastermind who had promised them P3,000 each, but in the confessions sworn before the NBI they denied his involvement. All four were charged with murder. The trial court acquitted Olvis and sentenced the three to death, and the case came to the Supreme Court on review. After the 1987 Constitution abolished the death penalty, the appellants chose to continue their appeal. At trial they had repudiated the confessions, alleging threats by the investigators. Villarojo claimed he killed Bagon in self-defense.

1. 1Whether the appellants' extrajudicial confessions are admissible
2. 2Whether a re-enactment of the crime performed by suspects in police custody violates the right against self-incrimination
3. 3Whether any appellant may still be convicted, and of what crime

The confessions were inadmissible. Under Decierdo and Duero, a person in custody must be warned before any questioning of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. In the September 9, 14 and 21 statements the appellants waived counsel without the assistance of counsel, which makes the statements involuntary in contemplation of law. At the September 18 NBI statements, the CLAO lawyer was summoned by the NBI and was not shown to be the appellants' counsel of choice (People v. Galit). The September 25 statements failed for the same reason. Forced re-enactments come within the ban against self-incrimination (1973 Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 20). The ban extends to evidence "communicative in nature" obtained under duress. It does not cover mechanical acts that only reveal physical attributes, such as extracting a substance from the body, a pregnancy test, footprinting, or some police lineups. In a re-enactment, the accused is made to admit criminal responsibility against his will: "It is a police procedure just as condemnable as an uncounselled confession." Sorela's admission was made in custody and was likewise covered. Villarojo, however, admitted in his counter-affidavit that he hacked the victim, claiming self-defense. That admission binds him, and the number and severity of the wounds showed an intent to kill rather than self-defense. Superior strength and nighttime rested only on the rejected confessions, so the crime was homicide. Cademas and Sorela were acquitted on reasonable doubt. Villarojo was convicted of homicide, sentenced to eight years and one day of prision mayor to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, and ordered to pay P30,000 indemnity.