G.R. Nos. 133228-31 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. GODOFREDO TIZON, JR. Y LADRILLO, RANDY UBAG Y DELA ROSA, ARNOLD LADRILLO Y GARCIA AND NESTOR CRISOSTOMO Y LAGO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding accused Godofredo Tizon, Jr. y Ladrillo, Randy Ubag y de la Rosa, Arnold Ladrillo y Garcia and Nestor Crisostomo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Rape under Section 11, Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-18381, 97-18554,97-18555, 97-18556, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered condemning each of them to suffer RECLUSION PERPETUA in each of these four (4) cases, as well as the accessory penalty provided by law. All of them are also ordered to pay the family of AAA P50,000.00 per case, or a total of P200,000.00, as indemnity for the crimes, and another P25,000.00 per case, or an aggregate of P100,000.00, as moral damages, to be apportioned among them in equal shares. Costs against the accused. Said accused being detained by reason of the instant cases, the period of their preventive imprisonment shall be credited in their favor and to be deducted from the service of their sentence even if meted out with reclusion perpetua (People vs. Corpus, 231 SCRA 480) in each of these four (4) cases, provided they have agreed in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. [43] The RTC found insufficient evidence to hold the accused liable for the killing of AAA. The medico-legal findings showed that the cause of the victims death is Cardio-respiratory arrest, asphyxia, suffocation due to strangulation but none of the accused admitted strangling the victim. The four accused seasonably filed their appeal, questioning their conviction, which was based in large part on the extra-judicial declarations extracted from them allegedly in violation of their constitutional rights. This sole issue requires a close scrutiny of the testimonies of the police officers who took down appellants extra-judicial confessions and that of lawyer Serafin Guinalons who allegedly assisted appellants during the custodial investigation. The right to be informed of one's constitutional rights during custodial investigation refers to an effective communication between the investigating officer and the suspected individual, with the purpose of making the latter understand these rights. Understanding would mean that information transmitted was effectively received and comprehended. Hence, the Constitution does not merely require the investigating officers to "inform" the person under investigation; rather, it requires that the latter be informed. [44] Records reveal that the police officers who took the extra-judicial statements of each accused categorically declared that before the statements were taken appellants were informed of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel of their own choice. The police made sure that they understood that the statements that they would give could be used against them. The police investigators informed the appellants of their constitutional rights in Ilonggo. Appellants replie