218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Gallardo

*
G.R. No. 113684. January 25, 2000.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ARMANDO GALLARDO y GANDER, ALFREDO
COLUMNA**
y CORREA, and JESSIE MICATE y
ORTEZA, accused-appellants.

Constitutional Law; Confession; Right to Counsel; A lawyer

provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused
where he never raised any objection against the former’s
appointment during the course of the investigation and the
accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before
the swearing officer.—We have held that “while the initial choice
of the lawyer in cases where a person under custodial
investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer is naturally
lodged in the police investigators, the accused really has the final
choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for
another one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed
engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection
against the former’s appointment during the course of the
investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity
of his statement before the swearing officer.”
Same; Same; Same; There is no requirement in the
Constitution that the lawyer of an accused during custodial
investigation be previously known to them.—In the case at bar,
although Atty. Velasco was provided by the State and not by the
accused themselves, the accused were given an opportunity
whether to accept or not to accept him as their lawyer. They were
asked and they immediately agreed

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

** Acquitted.

219

VOL. 323, JANUARY 25, 2000 219

People vs. Gallardo

to have Atty. Velasco as their counsel during the investigation.
There is no requirement in the Constitution that the lawyer of an
accused during custodial investigation be previously known to
them. The Constitution provides that the counsel be a competent
and independent counsel, who will represent the accused and
protect their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Same; Same; Same; The counsel should never prevent an
accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.—We have
held that “to be an effective counsel, a lawyer need not challenge
all the questions being propounded to his client. The presence of a
lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything
which might incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our
Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the
accused to admit something false. The counsel, however, should
never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the
truth.”
Same; Same; Same; Accused-appellants were properly
apprised of their rights and there was no violation of their
Constitutional rights.—Aside from Atty. Velasco, Judge Vilma
Pauig also testified that when she administered the oath to the
accused-appellants, she asked them whether they understood the
contents of their statements and whether they were forced by the
police investigators to make such statements. Accused-appellants
answered in the negative. From the foregoing, it can therefore be
established that accused-appellants were properly apprised of
their rights and there was no violation of their Constitutional
rights.
Same; Same; Fundamental requirements before a confession
be admissible.—Under rules laid by the Constitution, existing
laws and jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible must satisfy
all four fundamental requirements, namely: (1) the confession
must be voluntary; (2) the confession must be made with the
assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) the
confession must be express; and (4) the confession must be in
writing.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Tuguegarao, Cagayan, Br. 1.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
220

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Gallardo

     Orlando B. Consigna for accused-appellants.

PARDO, J.:
The Constitution enumerates the basic rights of a person
under investigation.

“Sec. 12(1). Any person under investigation for the commission of

an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be1
waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.”
xxx

The case before the Court 2

is an appeal by accused-
appellants from the decision of the trial court finding them
guilty of murder for the treacherous killing of Edmundo
Orizal and sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua
and to pay in solidum the heirs of Edmundo Orizal in the
sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity for death and P150,000.00
as moral damages.
On November 7, 1991, on the basis of the sworn
confessions of the accused, the Provincial Prosecutor of
Cagayan filed with the Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao,
Cagayan an information charging the accused with
murder, committed as follows:

“That on or about July 28, 1991, in the municipality of

Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused, Armando Gallardo y
Gander, Alfredo Columna y Correa and Jessie Micate, armed with
guns, confederating and conspiring together and helping one
another with intent to

_______________

1 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 12(1), (3).

2 In Criminal Case No. 1961, Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Tuguegarao,
Cagayan, Decision, dated November 29, 1993, Judge Hilarion L. Aquino, now
Associate Justice, Court of Appeals, Original Record, pp. 366-396.

221

VOL. 323, JANUARY 25, 2000 221

People vs. Gallardo

kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
shoot one Edmundo Orizal, inflicting upon him several gunshot
wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his death.
“Contrary to law.”
“Tuguegarao, Cagayan, November 7, 1991.
“(Sgd.) ALEJANDRO A. PULIDO, NPS 3III
“Provincial Prosecutor”      
On December4
2, 1991, all three accused entered a plea of
not guilty. Trial ensued.
The prosecution’s evidence established the following
facts:
On July 28, 1991, the lifeless body of Edmundo Orizal
was found in the rest house of Ronnie Balao in Balzain,
Tuguegarao, Cagayan. In an autopsy performed by Dr.
Edmundo Borja, Tuguegarao Municipal Health Officer, the
victim was found to have sustained seven (7) gunshot
wounds in the chest, abdomen, back, left and right thighs,
5
and two (2) grazing wounds on the left arm and back.
Investigation by the Tuguegarao police station identified
the suspects in the murder of Edmundo Orizal as Armando
Gallardo y Gander, Alfredo Columna y Correa, and Jessie
Micate y Orteza. The police received information that the
suspects were detained at the Camalaniugan Police Station
because of other criminal charges. So elements of the
Tuguegarao police went to the Camalaniugan Police
Station in August 1991 to fetch the suspects. Only
Armando Gallardo and Alfredo Columna alias Fermin were
in the custody of the Camalaniugan Police Station.
The two suspects Armando Gallardo and Alfredo
Columna were brought to the Tuguegarao Police
Department. On August 18, 1991, they were investigated
by Police Investigator SPO4 Isidro Marcos, and they gave
statements admitting

_______________

3 Rollo, p. 4.
4 Original Record, Order, p. 83.
5 Exh. “C,”—Original Record, pp. 2-3.

222

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Gallardo

that they, together with Jessie Micate, killed Edmundo

Orizal.
During the investigation, the dialect used was Ilocano,
the native tongue of the accused, and during the taking of
the statements, Atty. Rolando Velasco assisted them.
Judge Vilma Pauig was present. She administered the oath
on the jurat of the statements. Accused-appellants signed
their statements admitting the killing of Edmundo Orizal.
According to accused-appellants, they planned and
executed the killing of Edmundo Orizal, as follows:
At about 10:00 in the morning of July 26, 1991, Pat.
Dennis Molina, accused-appellants Armando Gallardo and
Alfredo Columna, together with Jessie Micate and Asoy
(Nelson) Hidalgo, met at the house of Alfredo Columna in
Ziminilla (Camalaniugan, Cagayan). Pat. Molina conveyed
to the group the desire of Congressman Domingo Tuzon
that Edmundo Orizal be killed because the latter was
planning to ambush him and grab his land. Edmundo
Orizal was a strong campaigner and a bodyguard of retired
Gen. Prospero Olivas, who was running for mayor of
Camalaniugan (against the congressman’s re-electionist
wife). Pat. Molina told the group that if they accepted the
job and succeeded in their mission, Congressman Tuzon
would work for their acquittal in all their criminal cases,
and would give cash rewards.
The accused-appellants accepted the job and the
following day, on July 27, 1991, they, together with Jessie
Micate, Asoy Hidalgo and Pat. Molina, set out to
accomplish their mission. Pat. Molina accompanied them to
Dugo, Camalaniugan at Where Else Beauty Salon where
Pat. Molina showed them their weapons: a .38 cal. and .45
cal. handguns and a folded carbine, placed inside a box.
At around 2:00 in the afternoon of the same day, in the
house of Dadoy Micate, Pat. Molina gave the .38 cal.
revolver to Armando Gallardo, the .45 cal. pistol to Alfredo
Columna, and the folded carbine to Jessie Micate. Then,
Pat. Molina instructed the three accused to look for
Edmundo Orizal and kill him.
223

VOL. 323, JANUARY 25, 2000 223

People vs. Gallardo

The three boarded a tricycle and proceeded to Edmundo

Orizals’ boarding house at Caritan, Tuguegarao, Cagayan.
Edmundo was not there. He was at that time in the house
of Aping in Lecaros Street, Centro, Tuguegarao. The three
went to that place. At the place of Aping, accused Gallardo
engaged Edmundo in a conversation while all of them
drank San Miguel beer. In the course of their conversation,
and probably to get the trust of Edmundo Orizal, accused
Gallardo told him that he had already killed Inyong
Orteza, whom Edmundo Orizal wanted dead.
At around 5:00 p.m., the group moved over to the rest
house of Ronnie Balao in Balzain, Tuguegarao. Edmundo
ordered Armando Gallardo to get his M-14 armalite rifle
from Ronnie Balao. However, Ronnie Balao did not give the
firearm, but went with Armando to the rest house to talk to
Edmundo. After talking to Edmundo and Armando, Ronnie
Balao went home.
Meanwhile, Edmundo Orizal, the two accused-
appellants and Jessie Micate were conversing. Edmundo
was convincing accused-appellants and Jessie Micate to
join him as bodyguards of Gen. Olivas during the election
campaign. At this point, Jessie Micate leveled his carbine
at Edmundo and successively fired at him. Alfredo
Columna drew his .45 cal. pistol and shot Edmundo Orizal
five times. This was followed by Armando Gallardo who
shot Edmundo once with his .38 cal. revolver. The three
accused fled, and went to the house of Dadoy Micate in
Caggay (Tuguegarao, Cagayan), where Pat. Molina was
waiting for them. They informed Pat. Molina that the
mission was accomplished.
Early the next morning, July 28, 1991, the three accused
and Pat. Molina boarded a Manny Trans bus and proceeded
to Camalaniugan. They stopped at Dugo, Camalaniugan
and proceeded to the house of Congressman Tuzon to
report the killing.
Congressman Tuzon was out of his house attending the
town fiesta of Buguey (Cagayan). When he arrived, Pat.
Molina informed him that Edmundo Orizal is dead.
Congressman Tuzon was very happy and promised them
that he would
224

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Gallardo

work for their acquittal in their pending cases and after

confirming the6
death of Orizal he would give them their
cash rewards.
Nelson Hidalgo, a friend of Manuel Columna, Jr.,
testified that on July 26, 1991 at around 4:30 in the
afternoon at the house of Manuel Columna, Jr., he was
asked by the accused to join them in their mission to kill
Edmundo Orizal.
In that meeting, Nelson Hidalgo resolved to join the
group, but while on his way home from the meeting, he met
his bosom friend Reynald Micate. He told the latter about
their plan to kill Edmundo Orizal. Reynald Micate advised
him not to participate in the killing for it would just add to
his other criminal cases. Nelson Hidalgo heeded the advice
of his bosom friend. Consequently, realizing that because of
his knowledge of the plan to kill Edmundo Orizal, he would
be a target for elimination so that the plan would not be
revealed to anyone, he left Camalaniugan, and went to
Buguey, then Aparri and finally, to Manila. It was only
after three months that he returned to Camalaniugan and
learned that Edmundo Orizal was killed.
On August 18, 1993, accused on their part filed with the
trial court a demurrer to evidence, arguing that the
prosecution failed to establish that the signed statements
of the accused were procured in violation of Article III,
Section 12 (1) of the Constitution. On September 10, 1993,
the trial court denied the demurrer and stated that the
court would want to know controverting evidence that the
defense may give to intelligently decide the issues of the
case.
Accused Armando Gallardo and Alfredo Columna
testified in their defense. They gave a common version. In
the words of the trial court, here is what they alleged:
“On August 18, 1991, elements of the Tuguegarao Police
Station went to Camalaniugan to fetch accused Armando
Gallardo and Alfredo Columna who were detained at the
Camalaniugan Municipal Jail in connection with other
crimi-

_______________

6 Original Record, Exhs. A-10 and B-ll, pp. 350-362.

225

VOL. 323, JANUARY 25, 2000 225

People vs. Gallardo

nal cases. These two accused were brought to the

Tuguegarao Police Station to be questioned on the killing of
Edmundo Orizal.
“Arriving in Tuguegarao the same day, Investigator
Isidro Marco investigated said accused and took their
statements at the Tuguegarao Police Station. The
investigator, however, did not inform them of their
constitutional rights.
“After the respective statements had been typewritten,
investigator Marcos neither read to nor allowed them to
read the contents of their alleged statements. The
investigator just told them to sign their so-called
statements. Accused Gallardo signed the confessional
statement because he was harmed by Marcos while accused
Alfredo Columna said that he signed said 7
document
because he was afraid he might be harmed.”
On November 29, 1993, the trial court rendered decision
finding accused Armando Gallardo y Gander and Alfredo
Columna y Correa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder qualified by evident premeditation and aggravated
by treachery and sentencing each of them to reclusion
perpetua and to pay in solidum the heirs of Edmundo
Orizal P50,000.00 as the mandatory indemnity for death
and P150,000.00 as moral damages. The court acquitted
8
accused Jessie Micate y Ortega for lack of evidence.
Hence, this appeal.
Accused-appellants Armando Gallardo y Gander and
Alfredo Columna y Correa impute the following errors to
the trial court:

1. In admitting their extra-judicial confessions in

evidence against them; and
 2. In finding that 9their guilt was proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

_______________

7 RTC Decision, Original Record, pp. 382-383.

8 RTC Decision, Rollo, pp. 13-42.
9 Brief for the accused-appellants, Rollo, p. 61.

226

226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Gallardo

The appeal has no merit. The extra-judicial confessions of

the accused were given after they were completely and
clearly apprised of their Constitutional rights. A lawyer
assisted them and a judge administered their oath. In his
testimony, Atty. Rolando Velasco stated:

“Q. After you were introduced to the two suspects what

happened?
“A. I interrogated first Gallardo and I told him whether he
can understand tagalog and he said he can understand
and I told him if he is willing to voluntarily give his
statement to the police and he said “yes,”—and I said
he has the right to give his statement and if he is going
to give his statement his statement can be used
against him in court and if he wants to get the services
of a lawy er of his own choice or if he wants me to
assist him and he readily accepted.

The same was done with accused Alfredo Columna.

“Q. How did you represent them in the investigation?

“A. I was present and I made sure that there was no force
and intimidation made on the person of these two
suspects by the police and the police who asked
questions in Ilokano and the answer was in Ilocano by
the suspects.
“Q. In so representing them in that investigation were you
requested to sign the document?
10
“A. I voluntarily signed, sir.

Judge Aquino of the Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao,

Cagayan, asked Atty. Velasco several questions
particularly on the point of how the accused-appellants
were informed of their Constitutional rights. He stated:

“Q. When you conferred with the accused before taking of

their sworn statement you stated that you asked them
 whether they were forced or intimidated in making the
statement?
“A. Yes, sir.

_______________

10 TSN, June 14, 1993, pp. 5-7.

227

VOL. 323, JANUARY 25, 2000 227

People vs. Gallardo

“Q. Did you happen to know the status of the accused at

the time their statements were taken whether they are
detention prisoners or not?
“A. There was no warrant of arrest issued they were just
apprehended as suspects.
“Q. Please tell the court, did they complain to you about
any harassment of any kind by the police at the time of
their investigation?
“A. None, your honor.
“Q. You said you accompanied them, you were present
when the oath was administered by Judge Pauig?
“A. Yes, the following day I was also called by the police to
be present when the accused took their oath before
Judge Pauig.
“Q. You said you advised the accused before taking their
sworn statement of their constitutional rights in
Tagalog, why do you say that they understand
Tagalog?
“A. Because they were answering in Tagalog, also, sir.
“Q. How was their Tagalog?
“A. Good Tagalog, sir.
“Q. Will you please tell in Tagalog the information the
constitutional right of the accused?
“A. I told them ‘May karapatan kayong hindi magbigay ng
salaysay sa pulis, may karapatan kayong magkaroon
ng abogado na sarili ninyo kung magbigay kayo.’”

We have held that “while the initial choice of the lawyer in

cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot
afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the
police investigators, the accused really has the final choice
as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for
another one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is
deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any
objection against the former’s appointment during the
course of the investigation and the accused thereafter
subscribes to the 11
veracity of his statement before the
swearing officer.”

_______________

11 People vs. Suarez, 267 SCRA 136 (1997), citing People vs. Parojinog,
203 SCRA 673 (1991).

228

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Gallardo

In the case at bar, although Atty. Velasco was provided by

the State and not by the accused themselves, the accused
were given an opportunity whether to accept or not to
accept him as their lawyer. They were asked and they
immediately agreed to have Atty. Velasco as their counsel
during the investigation. There is no requirement in the
Constitution that the lawyer of an accused during custodial
investigation be previously known to them. The
Constitution provides that the counsel be a competent and
independent counsel, who will represent the accused and
protect their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Also, we have held that “to be an effective counsel, a
lawyer need not challenge all the questions being
propounded to his client. The presence of a lawyer is not
intended to stop an accused from saying anything which
might incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our
Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would
lead the accused to admit something false. The counsel,
however, should never prevent 12
an accused from freely and
voluntarily telling the truth.”
We are, therefore, convinced that Atty. Velasco acted
properly in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution
and informed the accused of their Constitutional rights.
Atty. Velasco assisted the accused and made sure that the
statements given by the accused were voluntary on their
part, and that no force or intimidation was used by the
investigating officers to extract a confession from them.
Aside from Atty. Velasco, Judge Vilma Pauig also
testified that when she administered the oath to the
accused-appellants, she asked them whether they
understood the contents of their statements and whether
they were forced by the police investigators to make such
statements. Accused-appellants answered in the negative.
From the foregoing, it can therefore be established that
accused-appellants were properly apprised of their rights 13
and there was no violation of their Constitutional rights.
_______________

12 Ibid., p. 137, citing People vs. Layuso, 175 SCRA 47 (1989).

13 TSN, July 5, 1993, pp. 13-16.

229

VOL. 323, JANUARY 25, 2000 229

People vs. Gallardo

Under rules laid by the Constitution, existing laws and

jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible must satisfy
all four fundamental requirements, namely: (1) the
confession must be voluntary; (2) the confession must be
made with the assistance of competent and independent
counsel; (3) the confession must14 be express; and (4) the
confession must be in writing. All these requirements
were complied with.
It would have been different if the accused were merely
asked if they were waiving their Constitutional rights
without any explanation from the assisting counsel. In this
case, Atty. Velasco asked the accused if they were aware of
their rights and the lawyer informed them of their rights
and asked them if they were giving their statements
willingly after being informed of their rights. This is in
compliance with the constitutional guarantee of the rights
of an accused during custodial investigation.
There is no merit to the contention that the prosecution
failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The testimony of prosecution witness
Nelson Hidalgo remains uncontroverted. The defense was
unable to produce any evidence to prove that Nelson
Hidalgo was biased and not credible.
Well-entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that “the
Court will not interfere with the trial court’s assessment of
the credibility of witnesses absent any indication or
showing that the trial court overlooked
15
some material facts
or gravely abused its discretion.”
Consequently, the trial court correctly found accused-
appellants Alfredo Columna y Gander and Armando
Gallardo y Correa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
treacherous murder of Edmundo Orizal.
We are however concerned with the statements of the
accused that it was Congressman Tuzon who
masterminded the

_______________

14 People vs. Deniega, 251 SCRA 628, 637 (1995).

15 People vs. Pelen, G.R. No. 131827, September 3, 1999, 313 SCRA
683, citing People vs. Sabalones, 294 SCRA 751, 781 (1988).
 230

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Gallardo

killing of Edmundo Orizal. The order of inquest Judge

Dominador L. Garcia dropping Congressman Tuzon and
Pat. Molina from the criminal complaint for the reason that
the confessions of the accused Gallardo and Columna were
inadmissible against them under the res inter alios acta
rule do not persuade us that former Congressman Tuzon
and Pat. Molina were not liable as co-principals in the
crime committed.
Concededly, the extra-judicial confessions of the accused
Gallardo and Columna are not admissible against
Congress-man Tuzon and Pat. Molina. However, the
interlocking confessions of the accused are confirmatory
evidence of the possible involvement of 16 former
Congressman Tuzon and Pat. Molina in the crime.
Consequently, we refer the case to the Department of
Justice for investigation of the involvement of former
Congressman Tuzon and Pat. Molina in the killing of
Edmundo Orizal.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto. However, the award of moral damages
is reduced to P50,000.00.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Honorable,
the Secretary of Justice, Department of Justice, Manila, for
inquiry into the involvement of other persons in the crime.
With costs.
SO ORDERED.

     Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and

Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed in toto.

_______________

16 Cf. People vs. Argana, 119 Phil. 573 (1964); People vs. Barlis, 231
SCRA 426 (1994); People vs. Encipido, 146 SCRA 478 (1986); People vs.
Suarez, 267 SCRA 119 (1997); People vs. Lising, 285 SCRA 595 (1998).

231

VOL. 323, JANUARY 25, 2000 231

Bayne Adjusters and Surveyors, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Note.—Verbal admission should also be made with the

assistance of counsel. (People vs. Januario, 267 SCRA 608
[1997])
 ——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.