FACTS
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee,  of the information and pleaded not guilty. Trial proceeded
vs.
ZOSIMO CRISOLOGO,
alias "AMANG", defendant-
appellant.
Appeal from a decision of the
Court of First Instance of Davao
del Sur in Criminal Case No. 92
(76) convicting the defendant of
robbery with homicide,
sentencing him to the death
penalty, and ordering him to
indemnity the heirs of Martin
Francisco the sums of
P35,000.00 for loss of life,
P25,000.00 for funeral
expenses, P30,000.00 for loss of
earnings and P20,000.00 for
moral damages.
On 5 May 1976, a criminal
complaint was filed by the
Station Commander with the
Municipal Court of Magsaysay,
Davao del Sur against the
accused Zosimo Crisologo alias
"Amang", a deaf-mute, for
robbery and homicide alleged to
have been committed on 1 May
1976 between ten to eleven
o'clock in the evening in
Calamagoy, Poblacion
Magsaysay, Davao del Sur.
ARRAIGNMENT – Dec 12, ‘77
Accused was informed of the
crime charged thru Policeman
Munoz, a childhood
acquaintance. Mr. Munoz
entered plea of guilty but was
disregarded and arraignment
was rescheduled until such time
as the Court could avail of the
services of an expert in the sign
language from the school of the
deaf and dumb.
ARRAIGNMENT – June 2, ‘79
upon insistent plea of defense
counsel for a sign language
expert to assist the accused,
again reset arraignment as no
expert in sign language was
available. The School for the
Deaf and Dumb in Pasay City
was sent a copy of the court
order to enable it to furnish the
court with an expert in sign
language. No such expert was
made available.
Nov. 9, 1982
no sign language expert or
representative ever arrived from
the School of the Deaf and
Dumb in Bago Gallera, Talomo
District, Davao City
CFI
6 April 1983
the accused through a counsel de oficio waived the reading
without any evidence being presented on his part.
Upon being asked who killed the deceased, the accused
allegedly admitted to Pat. Pinto in sign language that it was
he by making gestures which Pat. Pinto interpreted to mean
that the accused had been stoned by the deceased, thus
impelling the accused to stab the latter. This confession,
however, was not included in Pat. Pinto's affidavit as he
allegedly forgot to tell the investigator. He also acknowledge
his failure to notify the accused of his right to counsel before
interrogation and investigation due to difficulty in conveying
the matter by sign language.
DECISION:
10 February 1986
without the services of an expert in sign language ever
being utilized at any stage of the proceedings, the accused
was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with
homicide and sentenced to die by electrocution. Executive
clemency was recommended.
APPEAL:
Counsel for the accused and the Solicitor-General now ask for
the reversal of the judgment of conviction due to the failure
of the trial court to safeguard the accused's right to due
process of law and the insufficiency of the purely
circumstantial evidence presented to overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused.
Circumstantial evidence
-proves the existence of a particular fact without any inferenc
e orpresumption required.  opportunity to defend himself. Not even the
SUPREME COURT
DECISION
the appealed decision is
Hereby reversed. The accused is acquitted, on
the ground that his guilt has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
REASONS:
1) Patrolman Pinto, the interrogator to whom
the accused allegedly confessed the details
which led to a presumption that lie killed the
deceased, expressly admitted that he could
have misinterpreted the gestures made by the
accused as he had only a slight knowledge of
sign language.
The trial court's appreciation of the plea of
guilty earlier entered for the accused by
Special Policeman Alejandro Munoz, which the
first presiding judge earlier discarded, is
regrettable, to say the least, especially when
considered with the admittedly limited
knowledge in sign language on the part of Pat.
Munoz and in relation to the investigator's own
admission that the accused was never
informed of his right to counsel. 
2) The absence of an interpreter in sign
language who could have conveyed to the
accused, a deaf-mute, the full facts of the
offense with which he was charged and who
could also have communicated the accused's
own version of the circumstances which led to
his implication in the crime, deprived the
accused of a full and fair trial and a reasonable
accused's final plea of not guilty can excuse
these inherently unjust circumstances.
3) The absence of a qualified interpreter in
sign language and of any other means,
whether in writing or otherwise, to inform the
accused of the charges against him denied the
accused his fundamental right to due process
of law. The accuracy and fairness of the
factual process by which the guilt or innocence
of the accused was determined was not
safeguarded. The accused could not be said to
have enjoyed the right to be heard by himself
and counsel, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him in the
proceedings where his life and liberty were at
stake.
REFERENCE:
Const. (1973), Art. IV, Sec. 20, "No person
shag be compelled to be a witness against
himself. Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right
to remain silent and to counsel, and to be
informed of such right. No force, violence,
threat, intimidation or any other means which
vitiates the free win shall be used against him.
Any confession obtained in violation of this
section shall be inadmissible in evidence." Cf.
Art. III, Sec. 12 of the 1987 Constitution.