This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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 be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (4) the law shall provide for penal & civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to & rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families. Rights under investigation: (1) (2) The right to remain silent The right to competent & independent counsel preferably of his own choice
Supreme Court more friendly to police operations limited its scope several times, although failing to reverse its central holding, and in 2000 the Rehnquist court, in an opinion authored by the chief justice, reaffirmed the original decision as a constitutional rule that may not be overturned by an act of Congress. Civil liberties groups have continued to protest that police routinely omit Miranda warnings The ff constitutional requirements must be observed in custodial investigations: (1) The person in custody must be informed at the outset in clear & unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent After being so informed, he must be told that anything he says can and will be used against him in court He must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during the interrogation. He does not have to ask for a lawyer. The investigators should tell him that he has the right to counsel at that point. He should be warned that not only has he the right to consult with a lawyer but also that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Even if the person consents to answer questions without the assistance of counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point in the investigation, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. If the foregoing protections and warnings are not demonstrated during the trial to have been observed by the prosecution, no evidence obtained as a result of the interrogation can be used against him.
(5) (3) The right to be informed of such rights
Reason making the rule applicable to investigation: According to Miranda vs Arizona, it is but a recognition of the fact that the psychological if not physical atmosphere of custodial investigations, in the absence of proper safeguards, is inherently coercive. Miranda v Arizona (immediate jurisprudential antecedent ) Of all cases to make its way to the Supreme Court, Miranda v Arizona may well be the most popular to date. Virtually everyone has heard of the "Miranda Rights" which are read to suspects. While many people may be familiar with the terminology from television shows, not nearly as many understand the true origins of the Miranda rights. The actual case of Miranda v Illinois may be the case the "Miranda Rights" are named after, but several other Supreme Court decisions all came together to form the ruling, including Escabedo v Illinois. However, since Miranda was the final case to be decided at the time covering this issue, it is considered the father of the "Right to remain silent." On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at Arizona his home. The police took him into custody, and transported him to a Phoenix police station. The witness whom had filed the complaint identified him. Miranda was then lead to the interrogation room. Then, the police officers proceeded to question him. Miranda had never been informed of his rights prior to the questioning. He was never told he had the right to an attorney to be present during the questioning. After two hours, the officers had succeeded in getting a written confession signed by Miranda. Located on the top of the confession was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was voluntary, without any promises of immunity or threats. The statement also said that Miranda signed the confession "with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." When Miranda's case went to trial, the prosecution used the written confession as evidence against him. The defense objected, asking for the evidence to be suppressed. However, the judge allowed the confession to be admitted. Miranda was convicted of all counts, which consisted of kidnapping and rape. On each count he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years, with the sentences running concurrently. On Miranda's first appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that his rights had not been violated by the admission of the confession, and therefore affirmed the conviction. The basis for the decision was connected to the fact that Miranda never specifically requested council. Identified in a police lineup, Miranda had been questioned, had confessed, and had signed a written statement without being told that he had a right to a lawyer; his confession was used at trial. In overturning Miranda's conviction, Chief Justice Earl Warren held that the prosecution may not use statements made by a person in police custody unless certain minimum procedural safeguards were in place. Before questioning, a person must be given what is now known as a “Miranda warning”: that you have the right to remain silent; that anything you say may be used as evidence against you; that you may request the presence of an attorney, either retained by you or appointed by the court; and that you have the right, even after beginning to answer questions, to stop answering or request an attorney. The Miranda decision was one of the most controversial of the Warren Court. Under Chief Justices Warren Burger and William Rehnquist (who as a legal spokesman for the Nixon administration had proposed that Miranda be overturned), a (6)
** The entirety of the Miranda Rule is now part of Philippine Law Pp vs DE LA CRUZ, alias RODOLFO DOMINGO or "OMPONG Rodolfo de la Cruz, aliasRodolfo Domingo or "Ompong” impugns his conviction for multiple murder in Antipolo, Rizal. He anchors his entreaty for the reversal thereof mainly on the ground that he was not fully and appropriately apprised of or allowed to exercise his constitutional rights prior to and while undergoing custodial investigation. The 3 Laroya’s were all bloodied consequent to numerous stab wounds, and each of them had a knife still embedded in and protruding from their bodies when found by neighbors in Cainta, Rizal. Karen Verona also bore external signs of sexual assault. None of their neighbors, however, witnessed the gruesome murders. Two of them later testified in court, namely, Harold Jim F. Balocating and Anita F. Pangan. The former merely recounted how, while playing table tennis in front of the Laroya residence, he and his friends stumbled upon the dead bodies of the victims. Anita Pangan, on the other hand, recalled that at around 9:00 P.M. of June 23, 1992, appellant, who was a brother-in-law of Teodorico Laroya, Jr., purchased some candies at her store which is located inside the village. 4 Both Balocating and Pangan had previously executed sworn statements just three days after the incident, the assertions in which were of the same import as their respective testimonies in court. 5On June 27, 1992, the police authorities apprehended appellant at the house of his brother in Fort Bonifacio. SPO1 Carlos R. Atanacio, Jr., a member of the Cainta Police Station in Cainta, Rizal interrogated appellant regarding the crimes on the same day that he was arrested. This police officer declared in the trial court that before he questioned appellant as to his participation in said crimes, all steps were undertaken to completely inform the latter of his rights and this he did in the presence of appellant's supposed counsel, one Atty. Lorenza Bernardino-Villanueva. Appellant then signed, likewise in the presence of said counsel, an extrajudicial confession wherein he narrated in detail how he allegedly snuffed out the lives of the victims. When presented as the lone witness for himself, appellant was observed by the trial court to be afflicted with a problem in expressing himself and an impediment in his speech (ngo-ngo). By appellant's own account, he only reached the fourth grade of elementary schooling and, although conversant with Tagalog, he is unable to read and write, although he can sign his name. He bluntly repudiated the version of SPO1 Atanacio, Jr. and insisted that he was never assisted by any counsel of his choice, much less met said Atty. Lorenza Bernardino-Villanueva, when he was interrogated at the police
On the night of the crime (December 27. Erma was awakened by the presence of a man. After taking the money. After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins. exist only in "custodial interrogations. Lorenza BernardinoVillanueva. In sum. PEOPLE v ESCORDIAL Facts Petitioners were all living in the ground floor of a boarding house. Michelle said that although she was blindfolded and could not see. the presumption of innocence enjoyed by appellant has remained intact and impervious to the prosecution's assault thereon. of Article III of the Constitution requires that "[a]ny 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 independent counsel preferably of his own choice. and not that he did so voluntarily. he nonetheless failed to tell appellant that if the latter could not afford the services of counsel. not only does the fundamental law impose. his answers to the questions appearing therein are in surprisingly fluent. as a requisite function of the investigating officer. Parenthetically. as it is by non-compliance with the procedural and substantive safeguards to which an accused is entitled . Jurisprudence along these lines have all been too consistent — an accused under custodial interrogation must continuously have a counsel assisting him from the very start thereof. custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner.headquarters in Cainta. he flatly denied having killed them as he left the trio well and alive that same night when he proceeded to his brother's place in Fort Bonifacio. Where he lacks a counsel of his choice because of indigence or other incapacitating cause. . Jr. perforated. Again. Erma claimed she was able to see through her blindfold and that she saw the man’s face. resulting in selfincriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights. which could not have been done by him because of his defect in speech and articulation. the rule begins to operate at once as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory question which tend to elicit incriminating statements. While the three were sleeping. in the language or dialect that he knows. they were told to blindfold one another. The detainee is brought to an army camp or police headquarters and there questioned and "cross-examined" not only by one but as many investigators as may be necessary to break down his morale. she felt that it was also rough (keloid)." Corollary thereto. thus putting into serious doubt her independence and competence in assisting appellant during the investigation as to affect its admissibility. admitted in his the investigation actually commenced at the time when appellant was still without counsel. They employ all the methods and means that experience and study have taught them to extract the truth. he could be provided with one. he considers hostile to him. When he placed her hands on his nape. the duty to explain those rights to the accused but also that there must correspondingly be a meaningful communication to and understanding thereof by the accused. (b) his retrieving of the bones discovered therein (c) his posing before a photographer while executing such acts. he shall be provided with one. An accused person must be informed of the rights set out in said paragraph of Section 12 upon being held as a suspect and made to undergo custodial investigation by the police authorities. The objective is to prohibit "incommunicado" interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere. On the other hand. informed appellant in Tagalog of his right to remain silent. . paragraph 1. to repeat. where what emerges from a perusal of the record is that this counsel was merely picked out and provided by the law enforcers themselves. such as (a) his digging in the place where Virginia Trangia was allegedly buried. out of the detainee. Section 12. the full extent of the same. it assumes commensurate significance and strength where the evidence for the prosecution itself is frail and effete. The investigators are well-trained and seasoned in their work. . Jr. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. And. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. While SPO1 Atanacio. a jeep was parked in front of the boarding house where children (later witnesses) were playing. As explained by this Court in People vs. paragraph 3 thereof declares that any confession or admission obtained in violation of the same shall be inadmissible in evidence against the confessant. a confrontation arises which at best may be termed unequal. that his right thereto would mean simply that he can consult a lawyer if he has one or has the financial capacity to obtain legal services." or "in-custody interrogation of accused persons. While the defense of alibi advanced by appellant is by nature a weak one by itself. The defendant in the dock must be made to understand comprehensively. she could feel that the man had no cover on his face when he was raping her. and nothing more. for being integral parts of the uncouselled admission – or fruits of the poisonous tree – are the photographs of subsequent acts which the accused was made to do in order to obtain proof to support such admission or confession. by custodial interrogation is meant "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." is hereby ACQUITTED. herein appellant cannot be made to suffer the extreme penal consequences of the crimes on account of the shaky and decrepit circumstantial evidence proffered by the prosecution. Furthermore. She then turned to the other petitioners who were already awake by that time and was able to take P3100 from Michelle and none from Teresa because her bag was in the other room.. He finds himself in strange and unfamiliar surroundings." The situation contemplated has also been more precisely described by this Court. A mere perfunctory reading by the constable of such rights to the accused would thus not suffice. alias Rodolfo Domingo or "Ompong. a cursory reading of the confession itself and SPO1 Atanacio's version of the manner in which he conducted the interrogation. . The rights above specified. Rizal and signed his supposed extrajudicial confession. A confession made in an atmosphere characterized by deficiencies in informing the accused of all the rights to which he is entitled would be rendered valueless and inadmissible. that any statement he made could be used for or against him in any court. or what may pass for it. In unambiguous and explicit terms. Jr. SPO1 Atanacio. Without this further safeguard. and every person he meets. She felt that his chest was rough and had some scars. Withal. as this Court has already stated. They were told to go home by a man who would be later identified as the accused. “Equally inadmissible. Marra. Curiously. He asked for her money and was able to get P500 from her.” Evidently. In the present case. He then proceeded to have carnal knowledge with Michelle. accused-appellant Rodolfo de la Cruz. yields no evidence or indication pointing to her having explained to the appellant his rights under the Constitution. And even if they were. about the only matter that bears out the presence of such counsel at that stage of custodial interrogation are the signatures which she affixed on the affidavit. 1997). While he admits having been at the residence of the victims on the night that they were murdered. This man had his head covered with a t-shirt to prevent identification and carried a knife about four inches long. Most detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their constitutional rights. the record is completely bereft of any indication as to how appellant was able to engage the services of Atty. flawless and expressive Tagalog. Section 20 of the Bill of Rights seeks to remedy this imbalance. He further claims that he was instead tortured by the police authorities into signing the same. the intimidating and coercive presence of the officers of the law in such an atmosphere overwhelms them into silence. The foregoing lapses on the part of the police authorities are all fatal to the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession supposedly executed by appellant before SPO1 Atanacio. he must be provided with one. and that he could have counsel preferably of his own choice. For." And. the prosecution must not rely on the weakness of the evidence of the defense but upon the vigor of its own. needless to state.
Cause of death. to counsel and of his right against self-incrimination before the appellant made the said admission because he was only informally interviewing the accused when he made the admission and that custodial interrogation proper was conducted by the assigned investigator. During custodial investigation. old lacerations at 5:00 and 7:00 o’clock-could easily accept two fingers. 1994 the accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. He was also brought to the Bacolod police station so that the other witnesses could identify him. 1994 a policeman came to his place of work and apprehended him without a warrant of arrest and at the police station he was forced to admit commission of the crime of rape. marked as Exhibit B. and others led to the pinpointing of accused-appellant. the children playing in the jeep in front of the boarding house. However. Santiago City between two concrete fences half naked. he sat down on the bed and talked to the women. the mother of the child. The .cerebral hemorrhage (fracture of skull temporal region. scalp on the left side was detached and skull exposed. again. the foreman at the Spring Garden Resort where the appellant was employed. They picked him out of four in the line-up. shirtless and skirt pulled up. with lewd design and by means of violence and intimidation. -Fracture of the skull with left temporal On January 15. On cross-examination Mico admitted that he did not inform the appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent. The testimony of the Municipal Health Officer who conducted the autopsy was dispensed with by the prosecution as the handwritten Autopsy Report made by the Municipal Health Officer of Santiago. her panty stuffed in her mouth. Mico further narrated in court that at the police station the appellant admitted he was with the girl and he carried her on his shoulder but he was so drunk that night that he does not remember what he did to her. PO3 Tancinco was one of those who responded to the crime.After he finished raping Michelle. having become the focus of attention by the police after he had been pointed to by a certain Ramie as the possible perpetrator of the crime) Issue: WON. Upon seeing Bravo. he found his mother very sick and so he decided to stay home all night. was admitted by both parties.shows fresh laceration at 2:30 o’clock. for three years prior to this proceedings Juanito Bravo. a fracture on the skull. Evelyn San Mateo an eight year old second grader from Rosario. easy pulling of the skin and plenty of small worms coming out from the ears.m. Accused was playing in basketball when the police “invited” him to the Pontevedra police station for questioning. At the station Michelle saw him and she identified him as his alleged robber and rapist. 1994 the decomposing body of nine year old girl named Juanita “Len-len” Antolin was found in a vacant lot along the road leading Rosario. Santiago City and asked him to come with him for questioning. eyes and mouth (without panty). The scalp on the left side of her head was detached exposing a fracture on the left temporal lobe of her skull.” As it was not derived or drawn from the illegal arrest of accused-appellant or as a consequence PEOPLE vs BENITO BRAVO and balut. The Chief of the Intelligence Section of the Santiago Police Department. trial court Wherefore. Evelyn positively identified the appellant as the person last seen with Len-len before she was found dead. Isabela. He then raped Michelle for the second time. Len-Len asked her to go with them but she did not want to because she was watching television. after the start of the custodial investigation is inadmissible as evidence against him. Both the accused-appellant and the appellee invoke the constitutionally guarded presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the latter’s right to remain silent and to counsel. Alexander Mico interviewed Evelyn who pointed to the appellant as the man last seen with the deceased. On September 26. OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION: This should have been inadmissible because identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up (where the suspect is identified by a witness from a group of persons gathered for that purpose). Ernesto Pastor. only Evelyn was left watching television. 1994 to take care of their sick mother who died a few days thereafter. The appellant denied the accusation and stated that the deceased was his godchild and that he has known Fely Handoc. 1994 an Information for rape with homicide was filed against BENITO BRAVO that he willfully. the accused was already under custodial investigation. extremities has no pertinent findings except easy pulling of skin and all are edematous Vaginal examination. Santiago City. The owner of the house where Len-len and Evelyn watched television. necessitating the presence of counsel for the accused. Len-Len went alone with the accused. The following morning Len-Len’s mother told Evelyn and her mother that Len-Len was missing. or in a show-up (where the accused is brought face to face with witness for identification) for that matter. Subsequent searches. The appellant agreed. Negros Occidental at the time of the incident as testified by three other witnesses for the defense. Mico found the appellant at his place of work at the Spring Garden Resort at Sinsayon. On January 15. threatening her so she’d concede that it would be much worse if he’d call others (companions) from outside to rape her. left). nose. Pastor corroborated the appellant’s testimony that police investigator Mico came to the Spring Garden Resort and arrested Bravo without a warrant. Appellant admitted in court that he passed by the house of Gracia Monahan but stated that he did not see the two girls watching television along the road. finding the accused BENITO BRAVO “GUILTY” beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE WITH HOMICIDE This case is before us on automatic review in view of the penalty imposed by the trial court. any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up or in a show-up after the start of custodial investigation is inadmissible in evidence against him. have carnal knowledge with Len-len & inflicting upon her. and prepared to go to work. Gracia Monahan. the brother of the appellant testified that the appellant stayed home on the night of January 12. After which (about 12:30am) he left. Was investigated under the mango tree where the crime was committed and left side of the face is covered by sand (done by anay) with rigor mortis and with putrification. coming out of small worms on both eyes and ears and mouth. After complete washing. IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION: inadmissibility of these out-of-court identifications does not render the in-court identification of accusedappellant inadmissible for being the “fruits of the poisonous tree. through the descriptions of the petitioners. The cause of death was cerebral hemorrhage On May 25. Both counsels for the accused-appellant and the appellee plead for the acquittal of the accused. Monahan testified that she is familiar with the appellant and the two children because they are neighbors. In court. which directly caused her death. corroborated Evelyn’s testimony that on the evening she saw the appellant talking to Len-len while the two girls were watching television from her open window and that when she looked again towards the end of the program to the direction where the girls were situated. This is because the result of these pre-trial proceedings “might well settle the fate of the accused and reduce the trial to a mere formality” Thus. Mico informed him that he is a suspect in the killing of a girl in Rosario. failure to object when these pieces of evidence were presented constituted a waiver. A report was made in the police station. the accused is already under custodial investigation? HELD SC held that when the out-of-court identification was conducted by the police. She stated that while they stood on the roadside watching “Home Along Da Riles” from an open window of a neighbor’s house the appellant approached them and asked Len-Len to come with him to a birthday party and then he will buy her Coke -Edematous -Abdomen. Accused claims that he went home to Pontevedra. TESTIMONIES OF THE WITNESSES (regarding the identity of the accused): should be regarded as inadmissible under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. unlawfully and feloniously. Vaginal examination showed fresh laceration at 2:30 o’clock and old lacerations at 5:00 and 7:00 o’clock and easily accepts two fingers. testified that he has known the appellant for a long time and that he knows him to be hardworking and of good moral character. these types of identification have been recognized as “critical confrontations of the accused by the prosecution”. the whole body is edematous. He woke up the following morning at around 4:30 a. Santiago City neighbor and cousin of the victim testified that she was with the deceased the night before she disappeared. At home. (Accused.
LORETO VELORIA. ALMA DIAZ . which could have compelled her to testify falsely against him. The admission was allegedly made to the arresting officer during an “informal talk” at the police station after his arrest as a prime suspect. Helen Ramos reported that her daughter. It is settled that at the moment the accused voluntarily surrenders to. or is arrested by. he discovered an 8 cm. he could not thenceforth be asked about his complicity in the offense without the assistance of counsel. The arresting policeman admitted that he did not inform the appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. ROMUALDO RAMOS. (2) Whether or not Juanito’s extrajudicial confession before the was admissible. He thereafter proceeded to the house of the victim together with members of the Crime Investigation Group. On appeal. BALOLOY FACTS: At the waterfalls of Barangay Inasagan. dump the victim in the grassy coconut plantation area. the trial court found Juanito guilty of rape with homicide and sentenced him to death. We resolve to acquit Benito Bravo. Juanito did not offer any evidence of improper or ulterior motive on the part of Ceniza. which resulted in her death due to shock secondary to vulvar laceration EDILBERTO CASTILLO. It is of no moment that Ceniza and Dicon are not police investigators. It is to protect the accused from admitting what he is coerced to admit although untrue. Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution embodies the mandatory protection afforded a person under investigation for the commission of a crime and the correlative duty of the State and its agencies to enforce such mandate. the very evil the rule stands to avoid. Zamboanga del Sur. 1994 but the latter was too drunk to remember what happened should have been held inadmissible by the trial court in view of the policeman’s own admission. In the instant case. Alma Diaz also gave him a black T-shirt which she found. While these rights may be waived. The exclusionary rule applies. confession. the parents of the victim and SPO2 QUIRINO GALLARDO testified that on September 16. Based on his alleged extrajudicial . It has been held. the approximate time of death of the victim was three (3) days prior to his examination. physical and psychological. he was asked incriminating questions by Judge Dicon who justified his actions saying that Juanito was not yet in custodial investigation. of the suspect to admit responsibility for the crime under investigation. He concludes that his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence. The evidence for the prosecution falls short of the quantum of evidence required by the Rules to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 1996. the accused pointed out where the body of the victim was. the Task Force Chief of Cavinti.testimony of the policeman that the accused admitted he was with the victim on the evening of January 12. Loreto PEOPLE VS. he was handcuffed to the accused VIOLETA CABUHAT . coupled with circumstantial evidence. 1997 at around 7:30 in the a. the custodial investigation is deemed to have started. The alleged admission should be struck down as inadmissible. unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one NAIRUBE J. The exclusionary rule presumes that the alleged admission was coerced. The one who caused its discovery was accused-appellant Juanito Baloloy himself. Any information or admission given by a person while in custody which may appear harmless or innocuous at the time without the competent assistance of an independent counsel should be struck down as inadmissible. the two failed to inform him of his constitutional rights before they took it upon themselves to elicit from him the incriminatory information. So. We note that the alleged admission is incriminating because it places the accused in the company of the victim at the time the crime was probably committed. for as public officials it was incumbent upon them to observe the express mandate of the Constitution. the dead body of an 11-year-old girl Genelyn Camacho was found. In sum. wound penetration in her vagina which was probably caused by the insertion of a penis.m. The appellant Benito Bravo is acquitted. RICARDO VIDA. the police officers. (2) NO. While in the custody of the authorities. did then and there willfully. It was given before he was arrested or placed under custody for investigation in connection with the commission of the offense. PEDRO DELA TORRE. PEOPLE vs. against her will and by reason or on the same occasion and in order to hide the crime he just committed. the prosecution failed to show that he effectively waived his rights through a written waiver executed in the presence of counsel. Courts are not allowed to distinguish between preliminary questioning and custodial investigation proper when applying the exclusionary rule. who claimed that he had caught sight of it while he was catching frogs in a nearby creek. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. 1997. We must however uphold the primacy of the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused when the evidence at hand falls short of the quantum required to support conviction. Judge Dicon's claim that no complaint has yet been filed and that neither was he conducting a preliminary investigation deserves scant consideration. However. **A police line-up is not considered a part of any custodial inquest. HELEN DANILO RAMOS. CLEMENTE JOHN LUGOD Rape with homicide was filed against CLEMENTE JOHN LUGOD in Cavinti. At the time the alleged admission was made the appellant was in custody and had been arrested as the prime suspect in the rape and killing. province of Laguna by means force and intimidation and with lewd designs. was missing. Juanito confessed to the Barangay Captain that he only wanted to frighten the girl but ended up raping and throwing her body in the ravine. The fact remains that at that time Juanito was already under the custody of the police authorities. Helen Ramos gave him a pair of slippers and pointed to him the location where she found the same. While in the wake of Genelyn. an eight-year old girl. because it is conducted before that stage of investigation is reached. not elicited through questioning by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having committed the crime. the PNP and some townspeople to conduct an ocular inspection. freely and voluntarily given in an ordinary manner. Supportive of such presumption is the absence of a written extrajudicial confession to that effect and the appellant’s denial in court of the alleged oral admission. Trial court erred in relying merely the sole circumstantial evidence that the victim was last seen by her cousin in the company of the accused whereas the Rules of Court clearly requires the presence of at least two proven circumstances & cannot serve as basis for any conclusion leading to the guilt of the accused of the crime charged. As to his confession with the Baragay Captain Ceniza. testified that during the course of his examination of the cadaver. ISSUE: (1) Whether or not Juanito’s extrajudicial confession before the barangay captain was admissible. Moreover. that more or less. and that the cause of death of the victim was hypovolenic shock secondary to the laceration. that an admission made to news reporters or to a confidant of the accused is not covered by the exclusionary rule. who had already taken the statement of the witnesses who were then before Judge Dicon for the administration of their oaths on their statements. that the cadaver was in an advanced state of decomposition. it has been held that the constitutional provision on custodial investigation does not apply to a spontaneous statement. Neither can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a suspect in the commission of a crime before he is placed under investigation. there is merit in Juanito’s claim that his constitutional rights during custodial investigation were violated by Judge Dicon when the latter propounded to him incriminating questions without informing him of his constitutional rights. Any measure short of this requirement is considered a denial of such right. The appellant was not invited to the police station as part of a general inquiry for any possible lead to the perpetrators of the crime under investigation. Aurora. Any statement allegedly made by him pertaining to his possible complicity in the crime without prior notification of his constitutional rights is inadmissible in evidence.. According to him. Autopsy reports found that Genelyn was raped before she was drowned. on the evening of August 3. HELD: (1)YES. Law enforcement agencies are required to effectively communicate the rights of a person under investigation and to insure that it is fully understood. This narration was a spontaneous answer. . Juanito voluntarily narrated to Ceniza that he raped GENELYN and thereafter threw her body into the ravine. he did not inform the accused of his constitutional rights before he asked him of his participation in the crime under investigation. both the appellant and the appellee profess that the presumption of innocence of the accused was not successfully overturned by the prosecution. RAMOS. Nairube. the medico-legal officer who examined the cadaver of Nairube on September 19. It states: The mantle of protection under this constitutional provision covers the period from the time a person is taken into custody for investigation of his possible participation in the commission of a crime or from the time he is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime although not yet in custody The exclusionary rule sprang from a recognition that police interrogatory procedures lay fertile grounds for coercion. Juanito maintains that the trial court violated Section 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution when it admitted in evidence his alleged extrajudicial confession to Barangay Captain Ceniza and Judge Dicon. however.
he entered the house of Nairube and slowly went upstairs. is actually put to the witness. criminal. the accused refused to make a statement regarding the same. the PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted. he would be provided with one. That investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline. G. he took a bath in the river. Gallardo together with other members of the PNP. His confession was elicited by SPO2 Gallardo who promised him that he would help him if he told the truth. Moreover. Moreover. Thus. the Crime Watch and the townspeople continued the search but they were still not able to find the body of Nairube. the lower court declared that accused-appellant’s warrantless arrest was valid based on Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. NO. Even if we were to assume that accused-appellant was not yet under interrogation and thus not entitled to his constitutional rights at the time he was brought to the police station.not present in case at bar). When he woke up. 85215. A letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle the amount of P76. Not having the benefit of counsel & not having been informed of his rights." the right can be claimed only when the specific question. he attended the funeral of Nairube. In the course of his conversation with the accused. The rule . corroborated accused-appellant’s assertion that he was maltreated. no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him. Furthermore. Hence this appeal. the accused went to the house of Gemma Lingatong. The findings of the Audit team were given to him. Ramos pleaded not guilty. Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as evidence the admission and statement of accused.” It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry. In fact. the Vice-Mayor of Cavinti. the case is now before this Court on automatic review. He was not informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel.000. the accused slept. even if he did waive these rights. 1997. he brought her to the farm where according to the accused. and he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was prevented from settling said amounts. A motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was denied. Considering the commotion he caused.Veloria informed him that the two items were worn by the accused when he went to the house of Violeta Cabuhat. the records do not support the confession allegedly made by the accused-appellant to the Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Cavinti. and to be informed of such right. we note the contradiction between the testimony of the Vice-Mayor who stated that he was alone when he spoke to the accusedappellant and that of SPO2 Gallardo who claimed that he was present when accused-appellant confessed to the Mayor and Vice-Mayor. SPO2 Gallardo. Although he admitted to having raped and killed Nairube. Clemente John Lugod alias “HONASAN” is ACQUITTED. reiterated People vs. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena. Gallardo claims that the accused told him that after the drinking spree on September 15.. and that if he cannot afford to have counsel of his choice. In court. in any civil. his act of confessing to SPO2 Gallardo that he raped and killed Nairube without the assistance of counsel cannot be used against him for having transgressed accused-appellant’s rights under the Bill of Rights. assigned at its Baguio City station. he saw the lifeless body of Nairube which he wrapped in a blanket and hid in a grassy place. he noticed that the accused-appellant had bruises on his face. the act in pointing out the location of the body of Nairube was also elicited in violation of the accused-appellant’s right to remain silent. accused-appellant submits that the evidence presented by the prosecution fails to establish that he raped and killed Nairube Ramos beyond reasonable doubt. or administrative proceeding. Besides. there is no evidence to indicate that he intended to waive these rights. But unless and until such rights and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial. The Vice-Mayor. It was only when they brought the accused to Villa Anastacia to point out the location of the cadaver that they found the body of Nairube. accusedappellant merely responded to the ambiguous questions that the ViceMayor propounded to him. He then returned to Villa Anastacia and went out through its gate. to which defendants argued that the confession was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. After removing his slippers. (PO2 ANTONIO DECENA agree) FLORO ESGUERRA. who testified that when he visited accused-appellant in the jail cell. After successfully raping Nairube. In addition. threat. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’ written admission and statement. intimidation. This is accorded to every person who gives evidence. This is a basic tenet of our Constitution which cannot be disregarded or ignored no matter how brutal the crime committed may be. Gallardo stated that the accused pointed to the location by using his lips.m. In fact. Upon his arrival at the house of Gemma. De La Cruz. At first. It is a right that a witness knows or should know. Then. He proffered a compromise however this did not ensue. Records show that the Mayor of Cavinti did not testify in the criminal trial. The individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. he raped her three times. violence. He must claim it and could be waived. Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. It was alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. In the same vein. the accused wanted to have sexual intercourse with a woman. In addition. He claims that the alleged confession he made to the vice-mayor was not a confession. The atmosphere from the time accused-appellant was apprehended and taken to the police station up until the time he was alleged to have pointed out the location of the body of the victim was highly intimidating and was not conducive to a spontaneous Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines. Yes. At around 7:00 p. he bumped pots which awakened the occupants of the house. 3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence. the waiver must be made in writing and with the assistance of counsel. the testimony of the Vice-Mayor with respect to the alleged confession made by the accused-appellant is not conclusive. JUDGE AYSON [175 SCRA 216. Amidst such a highly coercive atmosphere. 2) nor force. There is no question that at the time of his apprehension. the neighbor of Helen Ramos. the confession is inadmissible. In view of the imposition of the death penalty. he apprehended the accused on the basis of the pair of slippers and the black Tshirt. Consequently. accused-appellant’s claim that he was beaten up and maltreated by the police officers raises a very serious doubt as to the voluntariness of his alleged confession. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in miranda v. Section 20 of the 1987 constitution provides that the right against self-incrimination (only to witnesses other than accused. The ViceMayor’s testimony reads as follows: As can be seen from the testimony of the Vice-Mayor. Gallardo demonstrated how the accused claimed to have lifted the child by raising two of his hands as if he was lifting something off the ground. He then brought the accused to the police station where he was temporarily incarcerated. Arizona: the rights of the accused include: 1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. the whole police force as well as nearly one hundred (100) of the townspeople of Cavinti escorted him there. at the time of his arrest. After taking Nairube. Article III of the Constitution. 7 JUL 1989] Held:. PEOPLE VS. “custody investigation” which has been defined as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. After the funeral. the apprehending officers did not inform the accusedappellant and in fact acted in a blatant and wanton disregard of his constitutional rights specified in Section 12. Ricardo Vida stated that the townspeople were antagonistic towards accused-appellant and wanted to hurt him. the acts of accused-appellant subsequent to his apprehension cannot be characterized as having been voluntarily made considering the peculiar circumstances surrounding his detention.R. to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed. in order to be valid. Respondent Judge did not admit those stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. After having been informed that the body of Nairube was in the grassy area. Held: No. accused entitled with Miranda rights? response. the Vice-Mayor admitted that the accused-appellant did not tell him that he raped and killed Nairube. He saw that Helen Ramos was sleeping beside her husband so he took Nairube instead. the accused confessed to the commission of the offense RTC rendered a decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide. It cannot be claimed at any other time. In support of his appeal. he visited the accused in his cell. whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena. unless what is asked is relating to a different crime charged. the accused denied that he did anything to Nairube but after he told him what happened to the girl. or to refuse to testify altogether. incriminatory in character. So after the drinking spree. and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. The right is not to "be compelled to be a witness against himself. He did not state in certain and categorical terms that he raped and killed Nairube. thus. accused-appellant was already placed under arrest and was suspected of having something to do with the disappearance of Nairube. he left and went to the house of Nairube Ramos. However. The same was an integral part of the uncounselled confession and is considered a fruit of the poisonous tree. when accused-appellant allegedly pointed out the body of the victim. Issue: WON.
and remittance of collections exceeding P500. Second. contending (1) that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offense and the person of the accused and (2) that since the accused had already been arraigned by the RTC. Moreover. Navallo filed a motion to quash. it was made spontaneously and voluntarily by the accused- HELD (1) YES. The suspects fled after killing Aquino. and the recurrence of this phenomenon in several cases. he could have easily sought succor from the newsmen who. ISSUE (1) (2) Whether the police officers violated the accused's Miranda rights. and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements. The matter was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman which held otherwise. if he had indeed been forced into confessing. The information was then docketed with the Sandiganbayan. The warrant was returned with a certification by the RTC Clerk of Court that the accused had posted a bail bond. Shocked by this revelation. According to the security guard of the factory. January 20. There was no showing that the interview was coerced or against his will. SANDIGANBAYAN appellant. This interview was aired on TV Patrol. the owner of Keyser Plastics and employer of the accused. Surigao del Norte. courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions. The police also did not make an active effort to make sure he was provided with one before they began questioning the accused. An information for malversation of public funds was filed. The interview did not form part of the custodial investigation. the accused-appellant pleaded “not guilty” and disowned his interview with TV Patrol. the attempt to prosecute him before the Sandiganbayan would constitute double jeopardy. openly. He even narrated how he bashed Keyser on the head and dismembered him thereafter. FACTS This is an automatic review of the Antipolo RTC's decision to convict accused Guillermo of the crime of murder. Facts: Accused was the Collecting and Disbursing Officer of the Numancia National Vocational School. the allegation of his having been "pressured" to sign the Examination Report prepared by Dulguime (examined cash. ISSUE WON. with the connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners. Quiñones-Marcos opined that since Navallo had already been arraigned before the case was transferred to the Sandiganbayan. Appellant is not in custodial investigation. He also told David the details of the killing. We should never presume that all media confessions described as voluntary have been freely given. because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a medium for admitting one’s guilt. were charged with the murder of Dennis Aquino who was Endino's rival for the love of Aquino's girlfriend Clara Agagas. He claimed that he was coerced by police officers to admit to the crime. 1606 took effect creating the Sandiganbayan and conferring on it original and exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by public officersembraced in Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. He was to be transferred to Palawan for him to be tried there. Navallo was finally arrested. Besides. Eric Guillermo – GR 147786.00 to the National Treasury. he admitted that it was his nephew Endino who shot Aquino and he was only an accomplice in the crime. He also said that he did not regret his actions. would have been sympathetic with him. he made his confession without the assistance of counsel. which school is also located at del Carmen. However. On their way to the airport. through the combined efforts of the Antipolo and Palawan police forces. the RTC transferred the case and transmitted its records to the Sandiganbayan. the Court still left a word of caution against presumptions that confessions to the media are always voluntary and permissible as evidence in court. the guard ran to the police station and reported the matter to the authorities. Thus the protection is not available to a person undergoing audit because an audit examiner is not a law enforcement officer. Presidential Decree No. Both interviews were broadcast nationwide. The constitutional safeguards for the rights of the accused should never be disregarded. Edward Endino and Gerry Galgarin FACTS: Edward Endino. the police. 2004 Issue: Whether or Not the constitutional right against custodial investigations in favor of the accused violated? Held: No. First. with the aid of his uncle Gerry Galgarin. Special Prosecutor Luz L. but subsequently changed it to “not guilty”. the accused-appellant's videotaped confession is admissible as evidence in court? HELD YES. For in all probability. An audit examiner himself can hardly be deemed to be the law enforcement officer contemplated in the above rule. However. On 15 November 1984. ** SC ruled that the admission of the videotaped confession is proper. People vs. The accused initially entered a plea of guilty. the RTC should continue taking cognizance of the case. A warrant of arrest was issued. Galgarin was arrested and taken into custody in the Antipolo Police Station. His defense consisted of outright denial and he alleged that he was just “framed-up”. because of the inherent danger in the use of the television as a medium for admitting one’s guilt. The interview was recorded on video and it showed accused unburdening his guilt willingly. it is prudent that the trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions. as ordered by Espino. preparation of vouchers for salaries of teachers and employees. People vs. the accused calmly surrendered and admitted that he killed Keyser. However this was denied and trial ensued and he was found guilty. they stopped at the ABS CBN TV station where Galgarin had an interview with the media. When the police officers arrived at the scene. However. and publicly in the presence of newsmen. in all likelihood. His duties included the collection of tuition fees. In the interview. However. Therefore. The accused was interviewed by news reporters Gus Abelgas of ABS CBN and Karen David of GMA. people must ascertain whether such confessions are made under duress or with the influence of police officers. it was found that the accused was only made to read a list of rights . during the trial. but accused-petitioner could not be found.begins to operate at once as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime. **Such investigation does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. He was released on provisional liberty upon the approval of his property bail bond Upon motion of the prosecution. the provincial auditor) appears to be belied by his own testimony. Nevertheless. In any case. Such confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to solicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. A new order for Navallo's arrest was issued by the Sandiganbayan. A person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial investigation. The rights enumerated are not available before police investigators become involved. on 10 December 1978. Whether the accused's confession to the media is admissible as evidence against him. may attempt to legitimize coerced extrajudicial confessions and place them beyong the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an offense on television. thereby sentencing him to death. although the police contended that the accused was informed of his rights. the accused asked him to dispose of Keyser's corpse. NAVALLO VS. The accused allegedly murdered Victor Keyser. There was no evidence that he was indeed coerced or threatened by the police to do the interview.
858. This strongly contrasts with and overcomes his outright denial in court.00. unlawfully and feloniously take. respondent Judge Augusto Sumilang is hereby found guilty of gross negligence . 1992) and reassumed her position on December 16. expressly. would demand the delivery of the money upon the termination of the case.”] The investigation is defined as an “investigation conducted by police authorities which will include investigation conducted by the Municipal Police. ABELARDO SALONGA Abelardo Salonga. and P81.000. a second complaint was lodged against Malla for removing judicial records outside the court premises. loyalty. P. Rebecca Avanzado assumed the position of officer in charge.00 was. It appears from the evidence that court interpreter Malla who was the officer-in-charge from July 1. never presented Villarica as her witness to bolster her claim which. the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence. with grave abuse of confidence. 858. According to the Court. He has the duty to supervise his court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch of business in his court. Mercado. but given in an ordinary manner where the appellant verbally admits to having committed the offense. vs. explained that she deposited it at the Sta Cruz. She spentP32. that an on-thespot audit examination was conducted by the Fiscal Audit Division of the Office of Court Administrator. in the Municipality of Makati. Upon learning that they were being implicated in the anomalous transaction. 1992. gross negligence and ordered him to pay a fine of P3. 1994.” WHEREFORE. accused. Villarica entrusted said check to her. when she tried to deposit it with the Municipal Treasurer. and (4) it must be made in writing. for misappropriating funds deposited by the plaintiff in Civil Case No. conspiring and confederating with one another and mutually helping and aiding one another. intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof. It was at this juncture that she used the money for personal purposes. on August 7. The ignorance of respondent Judge as to the irregularities occurring in his own backyard constitutes serious breach of judicial ethics Judge Sumilang’s excuse. serve them with outmost responsibility. 1994.00 to steno-reporter Lagmay. Lagmay executed an affidavit stating that the amount of P55. Mrs. On the other hand. Laguna (hereinafter referred to as the lower court). there is a disputable presumption that evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced during trial. **Spontaneous statements or those not elicited through questioning by law enforcement officers. the Court is convinced that respondents did commit acts prejudicial to the service for which they should be held accountable. we ruled that the aforementioned constitutional provision may be invoked only during “custodial investigation” or as in “custody investigation” which has been defined as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. even if the police alleged that the accused waived his right to counsel. This case arose as an aftermath of an on-the-spot audit examination of the official cashbook and other documents of the lower court. the confession that the police obtained from him was inadmissible as evidence against the accused because it did not conform to the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary.000.000. Sumilang. denied any involvement in any of the transactions.00 and P40. It clearly demonstrates a lack of control expected of a judge exercising proper office management. however. Edelita Lagmay and Nieva Mercado.00 to Mrs. (2) it must be express. he averred that his wife did not borrow any money from Malla and that he had no knowledge of the irregularities involving members of his own staff. 858. There was no evidence that he actually understood those rights. steal and carry away the total amount of P36.000.480.00 amount deposited before the court and such loan has already been paid. Felicidad Malla. Malla.000. this Court found him guilty of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE. **Because the court administrator is not a law enforcement officer.000. A court interpreter should not receive payments made by litigants in relation to their cases in his personal charge. The evidence against Judge Sumilang adequately proves his gross negligence in this matter.00 for the hospitalization of her husband and the remaining balance for personal purposes.00 to steno-reporter Mercado. 1992 during the tenure of Malla entrusted the amount of P240.30 by forging the . In People v.000. 1993. Upon further questioning by the examining team. however. That on or before the 23rd day of October. and as such had access to the preparation of checks in the said Metrobank and Trust Company.00 was borrowed only two weeks before the audit took place.” Thus. took a maternity leave for one (1) month (November 16. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. he is responsible for the conduct and management thereof.000. 1992 to December 15. and lead modest lives. Later on.000. Sumilang. It was during her tenure on August 8. this Court emphasizes the Constitutional tenet that “(p)ublic office is a public trust. In his proffered explanation. is specious and unconvincing. Loveria. In Arviso v.000. instead of directing him to deposit said amount with the Municipal Treasurer. Thus.000. In her defense. One involved a manager’s check deposited in the name of Teodorico Dizon in connection with Civil Case No. The evidence against Malla is equally incriminating. Worth stressing is the well-entrenched principle that in administrative proceedings.Respondent Felicidad Malla is found guilty of misappropriating funds . for her part.000. At any rate. the Office of the Court Administrator can hardly be deemed to be the law enforcement authority contemplated in the constitutional provision. she executed an affidavit stating that only Lagmay and Mercado borrowed P55. however. several anomalous transactions were discovered. It bears emphasizing that this is not the first time that respondent judge has been charged with an administrative case. Dizon. 1992. Last. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. In resolving this case. entitled “Spouses Entero Villarica and Felicidad Domingo v. she concludes that the affidavit is inadmissible in evidence. when Malla was no longer employed with the court. are admissible. court employees of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pila. act with patriotism and justice. has no evidentiary value for being selfserving. Flaviano Pangilinan. Consequently. until her resignation on August 31. an investigation conducted by him does not constitute custodial investigation within the contemplation of the constitutional guarantee. Teodorico Dizon. because it was voluntary and spontaneous. Sumilang. Malla admitted during her testimony that she received the said check from Villarica covering the amount of P240.000.00 was from the personal account of Malla and not from the P240.C. 1992 to November 15.00 for her personal needs. It has been clearly established. His admission that he had no knowledge regarding the anomalies going on in his court underscores his inefficiency and incompetence. that she misappropriated for her own use the amount of P240. did then and there willfully. (2) YES. Amiel Garcia and Ricardo Licup were charged with the crime of Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document. After carefully studying the records of this case. Malla testified that her uncle Entero Villarica allowed her to use the money on the condition that she should be ready to produce it when necessary. Article III of the Constitution were violated when she was “pressured” to sign an affidavit before the Office of the Court Administrator. wife of Judge Sumilang. he even narrated how and why he killed the victim.” (administrative complaint ) In addition. In the course of the examination. that upon learning of the irregularities being committed by his court personnel. the authorities must also make sure that the accused understood his rights. he immediately acted with haste and instructed Malla to turn over the money. in the presence of counsel and in writing. On September 1. and this is not denied by Malla. 1986. (now PNP) and the NBI and such other police agencies in our government. and efficiency. where she admitted her misdeed. there was no showing that he actually did so voluntarily. A judge must always remember that as the administrator of his court. Third. wherein Entero Villarica. claims that the amount of P40. Laguna branch of the Philippine National Bank but she and Judge Sumilang later withdrew it allegedly under the belief that the defendant. Malla admitted that she lent the amount of P87. such as the instant case.000. However. Malla further claims that her constitutional rights under Section 12. were charged in a memorandum report by the Office of Court Administrator dated August 16. on the other hand.00 for his failure to act on a motion to dismiss in an expeditious manner.P40. Besides. the latter refused because there was no order from Judge Sumilang. integrity. In fact. JUDGE AUGUSTO SUMILANG Respondents Judge Augusto Sumilang. a mere reading of the constitutional rights of the accused is not enough.00 payable to Dizon. respectively. When asked to explain where the P240. the plaintiff in Civil Case No.000. (3) it must be made in the presence of counsel. she used P100.00 to said respondent instead of handling it over to the Clerk of Court pursuant to Supreme Court Circular.00 which she received from Villarica.posted on the wall of the police station. 1993. Malla.therefore. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
he first learned that he was being accused of the present charge after the audit of his department was concluded. By virtue of the alleged anomaly surrounding the issuance of the subject cashiers check. 6. the supposed payee when in truth and in fact there is no such transaction between Firebrake and Metrobank. Both admitted their participation on the irregularity/unauthorized issuance of said cashiers check. In such capacity.480.480. Severino Tabios of Metrobank (Exhibit C prosecution). Flaviano M.30. J-2). Unauthorized Issuance of Cashiers check Test-verification of the daily issuance of cashiers checks by the Loans and Placement Department disclosed the following: 1. Garcia (Exhibits 1. the trial court convicted accused-appellant of the crime charged . he was in charge of managing money market placements and payments of maturing money placement investments. he was employed by Metrobank as an acting assistant cashier. He allegedly affixed his signature involuntarily on the typewritten statement after the investigators threatened him and hit him on the nape.480. it was found out that the corresponding debit and credit balances appearing in the proof sheet of Loans and Placement Department are balanced. L-1. then back to the manager for his signature and to the other officer for his counter-signature. Arthur Christy Mariano. said accused offered to pay the bank the amount of P8. As have been reported. K-1.30 which is equivalent to the amount stated in the subject cashiers check. 1986 under CC No. UNAUTHORIZED ISSUANCE OF CASHIERS CHECK Except _for the unauthorized issuance of Cashiers Check No. 4.00 went to the personal benefit of accused Abelardo Salonga.00 just to finish the case so that he can earn a living and get a new job. He was given an opportunity to read his statement but only for a limited period of time. Salonga as of this writing. 7. 3021-3900-53 maintained at BPI-Ayala Ave. the total amount of accounts payable by said department for October 23. On July 19.R.00 on January 28. 8 both dated October 23. Flaviano Pangilinan. the RTC rendered its decision finding Salonga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document. No.480. attributed to simple negligence the loss of the check which was admittedly in his custody and also repudiated his extra-judicial confession. enabling them to gain for themselves the total sum of P36. Assistant Manager and Acting Assistant Cashier. we found out that the transactions involving Accounts payable account are in order per verification conducted from October to December 1986. Antonia L.30 on October 23. the check is then returned to accused Abelardo Salonga for eventual release to the banks client.30 the xerox copy of which is shown as EXHIBIT A. Accused Abelardo Salonga allegedly waived his constitutional rights and submitted himself to the interview. Abelardo A. accused Abelardo Salonga admitted his negligence in connection with the subject check because of the threats employed by the investigators and that he has never been employed nor has he any interest whatsoever with Firebreak Sales and Services. At the back portion of the Cashiers check. However. respectively). 1987 was addressed by accused Abelardo Salonga to Atty. the supporting accounting ticket debiting Accounts payable was short by P36. 013702 for P36. an interview in a question and answer from was conducted. to the damage and prejudice of Metrobank and Trust Company in the total amount of P36. That out of the amount of the check. respectively. The Cashiers check in question was properly recorded in the register maintained at the FX/Loans Accounting Section. On January 7. Severino Tobias of Metrobank Head Office wherein the former signified his intention to compromise the case (Exhibits C to C-3).631. accused Abelardo Salonga was summoned to appear before Valentino Elevado. is a forgery after comparison thereof with the genuine signature of Antonia Manuel appearing on the cashiers checks also issued by the Loans and Placement Department of Metrobank Arthur Mariano declared that while the amount of accounts payable for October 23. which allegedly shows that the check was issued bereft of any transaction.30 making it appear genuine and authorized. Upon the other hand. Pangilinan made a payment of P17. Amiel Garcia and Ricardo Licup are still at large. Manager of FX/Loans Accounting Section. J-1. 1986 as reflected in the proof sheet of Metrobanks Loans and Placement Department is P97.480. 1986 is P60. the unauthorized issuance/dissimilarity of the signatures could not be readily detected. Acting Asst. Mr. 1986 under Metrobank Debit (Local) Tickets TR No. K-2. Salonga. should be equal. In the letter which accused Abelardo Salonga sent to Atty. All items lodged under said account were properly accounted for. it was traced that the same was deposited to Account No. Pangilinan and Abelardo A. On the day of issuance of the cashiers check. 1987 under O. Asst. the amount of the cashiers check while the credit accounting ticket for the Cashiers and Gift Checks account reflects the correct total of issuances for the day but the signature of the Authorized Signature space is forged 5. His co-accused. During the investigation. There was a cashiers check issued on October 23. he must first be instructed by his manager to do so. the perpetrators on this particular scheme are Messrs.58 + P241. Branch. 1-2) corresponding to the subject check. 013702 payable to a certain Firebreak Sales and Services for P36.30. 1986 which was prepared by accused Amiel S. Manager of Loans and Placement Department.390. through which they succeeded in its encashment. Before accused Abelardo Salonga may prepare and issue a cashiers check. It passed to the usual clearing procedure except for the signature verification of the authorized signatories. 1991. accused-appellant relied on denial as his defense. However. The difference of the two aforesaid amounts totaled P36. 1993. to accused Amiel Garcia as accused who was then encountering financial difficulties. thereby causing the preparation and use of a simulated check described as Check No.112.17 (Exhibits J. Assistant Accountant.30. we were not able to establish the name/owner of the account at BPI. Giving full credence to the evidence of the prosecution. Antonia Manuel and Arthur Christy Mariano both testified that the signature of the former appearing on the subject check and on Metrobank Debit (Local) Ticket TR No. According to Abelardo Salonga. L.29) (Exhibits K. lead examiner of Metrobanks Loans and Placement Department. 2.87 (P60. conducted a spot audit of the Loans and Placement Department of Metrobank. The evidence for the defense was summarized by the trial court as follows: Defense: x x x x Abelardo Salonga testified that from 1973 to 1987.480. The case was already endorsed to the Department of Internal Affairs by the Controller.480. Two persons from the Internal Affairs Department invited him to an investigation. accused Abelardo Salonga admitted having issued the subject cashiers check without any legitimate transaction.500. A letter dated September 15. Salonga. 3.500. L-2. In the course of the interview. 1987.500. Flaviano M. 1-1. On January 20. The investigators never informed him of his right to counsel and neither did they believe this claim of innocence. Salonga was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 8 dated October 23.signature of officers authorized to sign the said check and have the said check deposited in the account of Firebrake Sales and Services. Pangilinan. accused Abelardo Salongas alleged statement was typewritten but he was neither asked any questions nor did the investigators talk to him. Thus. Mr. 65696 while no payment was received from Mr. which two amounts under normal circumstances. Then the prepared check will be back to the Accounting Section for examination. P8. The signatures of the authorized signatories appearing on the subject cashiers check have an apparent dissimilarity with their genuine signature particularly that of Mrs. Manuel. 1986. Cashier and Custodian of the unissued cashiers check at the Loans & Placement Department and Mr. accused Abelardo Salonga sought the assistance of a lawyer and wrote a letter to the Personnel Head of Metrobank. In the said letter. The matter was brought to the attention of the Division Heads concerned who immediately confronted the responsible officers. 013702 in the amount of P36. Upon learning that a criminal complaint was filed against him. After allegedly appraising Abelardo Salonga of his constitutional right to remain silent and to counsel. Department of Internal Affairs of Metrobank.
Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. the court a quo. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. At seven o'clock in the evening of the same day. **Where. vs. Gaudencio Quebuyen and defense witness Leonardo Quiambao and the cross-examination of Pat. a "trial-buy" operation was conducted by the law enforcement operatives. positively and convincingly established. Clearly. Jr. Salonga contends that his confession is inadmissible as evidence as it violated his constitutional right to counsel. however. with accessory penalties of the law and to pay a fine of P25. as amended by P. Philippines. Pat. in main.Issue：WON， THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE ALLEGED EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION/ADMISSION (EXH. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer. after an audit. did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell and deliver for monetary consideration seven (7) teat-bag size plastic containing marijuana flowering tops at P5. The trial of the case was originally presided over by Hon. Additional documentary evidence was likewise admitted. as further amended by P. which is a prohibited drug. to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail of Manila. in whole or in part. for the crime of violation of Section 4 Article II in relation to Section 2 (e) (i) of Republic Act 6425. petitioner. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. however. P8.000. Upon motion of the accused's counsel. if any. he promptly ordered the Court Stenographic Reporters to submit their transcripts of stenographic notes.any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. by any person on his behalf. and that any statement he might make could be used against him.00. on the evidence for the prosecution. He was not under custodial investigation during his interview.00. Article II in relation to section 2 (i) Article I of Republic Act No. Indeed. HELD: The confession was admissible. in the course of the interview. To his dismay. the transcriptions submitted by one Mercedes Velasquez were incomprehensible. Romeo J. An information filed on 05 September 1983 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Pat. and) (b) Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt has not been adequately.30). HELD: admissibility of accused-appellants extra-judicial confession/admission we reject accused-appellants argument that his so-called extra-judicial confession/admission is inadmissible in evidence on the ground that the waiver of his right to counsel was made without the assistance of counsel in violation of Section 20. thus — WHEREFORE. this time conducted by police officers Sgt. Each bag sold for P5. Rolando Anza. It is well-settled that the legal formalities required by the fundamental law of the land apply only to those extrajudicial confessions obtained during custodial investigation.500. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that that this is accomplished. In the course of the interview. a "buy-bust" operation. deliver. in the City of Manila. In this appeal. His right to counsel only existed when he is under custodial investigation. the written confession was held admissible in evidence in as much as the interview did not constitute custodial investigation. vs. guilty beyond reasonable doubt. a relative. Eriberto . the Court in Morales. On 02 September 1983. it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest. 44. His admissions were reduced into writing and offered as Exhibit B by the prosecution. the accused claims that — THE LOWER COURT (HAS) GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOLLOWING: (a) Inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the accused's rights under the Constitution (. When Hon. respondent. He also admitted that out of the amount of the check.D. committed as follows: That on or about September 2. Accused-appellants extra-judicial confession was properly admitted and considered by the trial court considering that when accused-appellant gave his statement he was not under custodial investigation. judgment is hereby rendered finding the Accused Augusto Manzano y Reyes. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution which mandates-.or by letter or messenger. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. relied. as principal. Department of Internal Affairs of Metrobank for questioning. not being authorized by law to sell. Pat. The marijuana subject matter of this case is hereby declared forfeited in favor of the government. Paterno Banawel. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. shall be inadmissible in evidence.00 per tea bag.00 went to his personal benefit. In this case. The trial court. the accused was summoned to appear before the Assistant Accountant of MetroBank and. finding the accused guilty of the crime charged and sentencing him. or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means by telephone if possible . It bears stressing that Elevado is not a police officer or law enforcer but a private person who was a bank officer. The Accused shall be credited for the entire period of his detention during the pendency of this case provided that he undertook in writing. He was interviewed by a bank officer. At five o'clock that afternoon. Oscar C. as amended and hereby sentences him to the penalty ofRECLUSION PERPETUA. Assistant Accountant. distribute or transport to another any prohibited drug. a civilian poseurbuyer was able to purchase from the accused dried flowering tops of suspected marijuana with cigarette rolling papers contained in three (3) teabag sized plastic bags. and to pay the costs of the suit. in convicting the accused-appellant. accused-appellant admitted having issued the subject cashiers check without any legitimate transaction. following the formal submission of evidence. Gaudencio Quebuyen. Enrile laid down the guidelines to be observed strictly by law enforcers during custodial investigation: At the time a person is arrested. No arrest was made. accused-appellant was summoned to appear before Valentino Elevado. AUGUSTO MANZANO y REYES. Bernabe Yokingco and Pat.D. Callejo assumed the post of Judge Fernandez. rendered judgment. the said accused. accused admitted having issued the subject cashier’s checks without any legitimate transaction. . On 02 October 1987. and no stenographic notes were apparently taken during the testimony of defense witness Leonardo Quiambao. to his co-accused Amiel Garcia who was then encountering financial difficulties. 6425. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down. the constitutional right to counsel as enunciated in the aforecited case may be invoked only by a person under custodial investigation for an offense. thus — The Drug Enforcement Section of the Western Police District received information that the accused was engaged in the sale of marijuana. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. AUGUSTO MANZANO Y REYES (with) Violation of Section 4. 1983. the incumbent judge ordered the retaking of the testimonies of Pat. charges — . discrepancies were discovered in the transcripts. . Paterno Banawel. Fernandez. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Applying said provision of the 1973 Constitution. 1675. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. `B') OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ABELARDO SALONGA WHICH WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL. not a police officer. when Arthur Christy Mariano of the spot audit group discovered that there was a discrepancy in the proof sheet brought about by the issuance of a cashiers check made payable to Firebrake Sales and Services in the amount of (P36. custodial investigation refers to questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. and to be informed of such right.480.
14 the accused was seen with a companion who. that the use of poseur-buyer is to be employed with solicitude being. however. On the other hand. 16 Yet. The team promptly moved in and arrested the accused. Yet. 6425. Unfortunately. 6 The chemistry report. . has appeared to have been laid out quite haphazardly. The booking sheet is no more than a record of arrest & a statement on how the arrest was made. containing marijuana flowering tops and pieces of white rolling paper." 2 The booking sheet is no more than a record of arrest and a statement on how the arrest is made. . The buy-bust team was supposed to be composed of six members: five members of the police force and a civilian informer. It is simply a police report. **SC held that when an arrested person signs a booking sheet and an arrest report at the police station. it would be imperative to establish the elements of the offense. only one P5. on its part. Article I of Republic Act No. definitely reveal the contents of the plastic bags to be marijuana. The signing by the accused of the booking sheet and the arrest report is not a part of custodial investigation. 17 we also did caution. moments later. assuming that it did not take place in this particular instance. Accused-appellant firstly anchors his assigned error on the fact that he has been "investigated. Not long after. as amended. a person's act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another personally or otherwise. a matter that must likewise be established beyond reasonable doubt. Third. was chased by police officers. the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. and it has no probative value as an extrajudicial statement of the person being detained. in fact. were not explained. 19 and the courts in its evaluation of the merits of the case. 15 Section (2) (f). 4 The appellant's plea of innocence on the basis of reasonable doubt. The accused left.00 marked bills.00-marked bills were not accounted for. the prosecution in its presentation and submission of the evidence. First. has been left to conjecture. defines the term "deliver. It is simply a police report. 18 Considering the severity of the penalty imposed. a civilian informer." 1 The contention is without merit. According. Then. it is readily discernible that the testimony of the poseurbuyer would have been most vital to the prosecution's case. Forthwith. indeed. the poseur-buyer gave the accused four (4) P5. More importantly. it behooves the law enforcement agencies it its investigatorial work. The prosecution witnesses could not agree on the number of marijuana tea bags taken from the accused. conducted by NBI Forensic Chemist Neva Gamosa. and it has no probative value as an extrajudicial statement of the person being detained. every time. A final remark on the buy-bust operation that simply cannot escape one's attention. In the prosecution of an accused for an illegal sale of prohibited drugs "what is (initially) material is . to Patrolman Anza. 8 In any criminal prosecution. either before or after the accused was apprehended. had been known by the accused to contain dangerous drugs. The prosecution sought to prove that the accused left the place of the transaction for a few minutes and entered an alleyway to get the marijuana tea bags from an unknown supplier. while it was asserted by the prosecution that the informer gave the accused four P5. This Court has already emphasized that "(w)hen an arrested person signs a booking sheet and arrest report at a police station. as ". While buy-bust operations have been recognized as a valid means of apprehending peddlers of drugs. The slightest possibility of an innocent man being convicted for an offense he has never committed. appear to yield more questions than answers to a number of concerns that has bewildered the Court. with Rebecca Avila Reyes. 12No effort was made to clarify who this Patrolman Borlongan is.00-marked bills. . Even the information itself has failed to allege this fact. tea-bag size. was set into motion. Too much. . however." Given all the above. however. the informer gave the pre-arranged signal (by scratching her head). he returned and handed over to the poseur-buyer four (4) plastic bags. Second. to exercise no less that the extreme care and professionalism demanded in these cases if we are to attain a good degree of success in our drive to curb the drug menace. must rely on the strength of its own evidence and must not simply depend on the weakness of the defense. Patrolman Quebuyen 13 testified that only the accused was arrested and that defense witness Leonardo Quiambao (who claimed to have likewise been arrested together with the accused) was not present at the place of the incident. the prosecution has missed putting on record any evidence to indicate that the tea bags." the offense that is charged in the information. the prosecution did not even bother t have her take the witness stand. Patrolman Banawel 11 claimed that four marijuana bags were sold by the accused to the informer. he does not admit the commission of an offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance. No attempt was made to find out who this person was. WHEREFORE. the buy-bust operation. The rule is clear : The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 3 The signing by the accused of the booking sheet and arrest report is not a part of the custodial investigation which would otherwise require the presence of counsel to ensure the protection of the accused's constitutional rights. as poseur buyer. deserves serious considerations. and by any means. attested to by the forensic chemist. the decision of the trial court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the accused is hereby ACQUITTED of the offense charged. easily susceptible to mistake. harassment. . viz: (1) That the accused has sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another. 7 The other question is whether or not the prosecution has been able to prove the fact of sale and delivery of the prohibited drug by the accused." 5 The laboratory tests and the chemical microscopic examination. 9 A tedious and conscientious effort has been made to evaluate the evidence presented by the prosecution. The team was so positioned as to have a clear view of the transaction that was to take place near an electric post. Instead of taking that cue for it to excel on its own. has undoubtly established the corpus delicti of the crime. extortion and abuse. interrogated and made to sign an accomplished booking sheet and arrest report without the benefit of counsel. and (2) That he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug. supposedly delivered to the poseurbuyer. The three other P5. however. This conflicting versions given by the prosecution itself. with or without consideration. he does not (thereby) admit the commission of an offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance. would be far more dreadful than letting a guilty person go unpunished for a crime he may have perpetrated. 20 The prosecution. let alone when no less than a capital punishment is imposed.00 marked bill was recovered from the latter when he was arrested. the results.Alameda. as it is. Patrolman Quebuyen 10 testified that three bags were taken from the accused during the buy-bust operation. again. the name of a sixth police officer kept on cropping up — that of Patrolman Borlongan. the prosecution regrettably has likewise exhibited a lukewarm stance.