Narratives: Constitutional Law II

Narratives
Constitutional Law II
Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola 2005 Shared under Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAli e !"0 #hili$$ines license"
Some %i&hts %eserved"
'able o( Contents
Miranda vs" Ari)ona *!+, -S ,!./ 0! 1une 02..3 4 0 #eo$le vs" Lu&od *G% 0!.25!/ 20 5ebruar6 20003 4 ! #eo$le vs" 7el %osario *G% 028855/ 0, A$ril 02223 4 , #eo$le vs" 9olanos *G% 000+0+/ ! 1ul6 02223 4 5 %hode Island vs" Innis *,,. -S 220/ 02 Ma6 02+03 4 . #eo$le vs" Mahina6 *G% 022,+5/ 0 5ebruar6 02223 4 + #eo$le vs" A6son *G% +5205/ 8 1ul6 02+23 4 2 :((ice o( the Court Administrator vs" Sumilan& *Administrative Matter M'1-2,-2+2/ 0+ A$ril 02283 4 00 Gamboa vs" Cru) *G% L-5.220/ 28 1une 02++3 4 00 -nited States vs" ;ade *!++ -S 20+/ 02 1une 02.83 4 02 #eo$le vs" <scordial *G% 0!+2!,-!5/ 0. 1anuar6 20023 4 0! #eo$le vs" #iedad *G% 0!022!/ 5 7ecember 20023 4 05 Ma&toto vs" Man&uera *G% L-!8200-02/ ! March 02853 4 0. #eo$le vs" #a&e *G% L-!8508/ 8 1une 02883 4 08 #eo$le vs" Ca&uioa *G% L-!+285/ 08 1anuar6 02+03 4 0+ #eo$le vs" 'am$us *G% L-,,.20/ 2+ March 02+03 4 02 #eo$le vs" Galit *G% 50880/ 20 March 02+53 4 20 #eo$le vs" 9andula *G% +222!/ 28 Ma6 022,3 4 20 #eo$le vs" =uidato *G% 008,00/ 0 :ctober 022+3 4 22 #eo$le vs" %ous *G% 00!+0!-0,/ 28 March 02253 4 2, #eo$le vs" 1anuario *G% 2+252/ 8 5ebruar6 02283 4 25 #eo$le vs" Labtan *G% 028,2!/ + 7ecember 02223 4 28 #eo$le vs" Samus *G% 0!5258-5+/ 08 Se$tember 20023 """ 2+ #eo$le vs" Gallardo *G% 00!.+,/ 25 1anuar6 20003 4 22 #eo$le vs" 9arasina *G% 00222!/ 20 1anuar6 022,3 4 !0 #eo$le vs" Morial *G% 022225/ 05 Au&ust 20003 4 !2 #eo$le vs" Castro *G% 00.5+!/ 02 1une 02283 4 !, #eo$le vs" ;on& Chuen Min& *G% 002+00-00/ 02 A$ril 022.3 4 !, Marcelo vs" Sandi&anba6an >5irst 7ivision? *G% 0022,2/ 2. 1anuar6 02223 4 !. #eo$le vs" Andan *G% 00.,!8/ ! March 02283 4 !8 #eo$le vs" <ndino *G% 0!!02./ 20 5ebruar6 20003 4 !2 #eo$le vs" :rdono *G% 0!205,/ 22 1une 20003 4 ,0 #eo$le vs" Guillermo *G% 0,88+./ 20 1anuar6 200,3 4 ,! #eo$le vs" Gome) *G% 000+08/ 2. March 02283 4 ,5 Illinois vs" #er ins *,2. -S 222/ , 1une 02203 4 ,. #eo$le vs" Lu&od *G% 0!.25!/ 20 5ebruar6 20003 4 ,8 #eo$le vs" Luvendino *G% .2280/ ! 1ul6 02223 4 ,2 #eo$le vs" Alicando *G% 008,+8/ 02 7ecember 02253 4 ,2 @arris vs" New Aor *,00 -S 222/ 2, 5ebruar6 02803 4 50 New Aor vs" =uarles *,.8 -S .,2/ 02 1une 02+,3 4 50
This collection contains forty (40) cases summarized in this format by Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a senior law student) during the First emester! school year "00#$"00% in the &olitical 'aw (e)iew class under *ean Mariano Magsalin +r. at the ,rellano -ni)ersity chool of 'aw (,- '). .om/iled as &*F! e/tember "00". 1erne Guerrero entered ,- ' in +une "00" and e)entually graduated from ,- ' in "00%. 2e /assed the &hili//ine bar e3aminations immediately after (,/ril "004).
berne&uerrero"word$ress"com
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
226 Miranda vs. Arizona [384 US 436, 13 June 1966] Warren (J) Facts [No. 759; Miranda vs. Arizona] On 13 March 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a Phoenix police station. He was there identi ied !y the complainin" witness. #he police then took him to $%nterro"ation &oom 'o. ($ o the detecti)e !ureau. #here he was *uestioned !y two police o icers. #he o icers did not ad)ise Miranda that he had a ri"ht to ha)e an attorney present. #wo hours later, the o icers emer"ed rom the interro"ation room with a written con ession si"ned !y Miranda. +t the top o the statement was a typed para"raph statin" that the con ession was made )oluntarily, without threats or promises o immunity and $with ull knowled"e o my le"al ri"hts, understandin" any statement % make may !e used a"ainst me.$ +t his trial !e ore a ,ury, the written con ession was admitted into e)idence o)er the o!,ection o de ense counsel, and the o icers testi ied to the prior oral con ession made !y Miranda durin" the interro"ation. Miranda was ound "uilty o kidnappin" and rape. He was sentenced to (- to 3- years. imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, the /upreme 0ourt o +ri1ona held that Miranda.s constitutional ri"hts were not )iolated in o!tainin" the con ession and a irmed the con)iction. %n reachin" its decision, the court emphasi1ed hea)ily the act that Miranda did not speci ically re*uest counsel. [No. 760, Vignera vs. New or!] Michael 2i"nera, was picked up !y 'ew 3ork police on 14 Octo!er 196-, in connection with the ro!!ery three days earlier o a 5rooklyn dress shop. #hey took him to the 16th 7etecti)e /*uad head*uarters in Manhattan. /ometime therea ter he was taken to the 66th 7etecti)e /*uad. 8hile at the 66th 7etecti)e /*uad, 2i"nera was identi ied !y the store owner and a saleslady as the man who ro!!ed the dress shop. +t a!out 3 p. m. he was ormally arrested. #he police then transported him to still another station, the 6-th Precinct in 5rooklyn, $ or detention.$ +t 11 p. m. 2i"nera was *uestioned !y an assistant district attorney in the presence o a hearin" reporter who transcri!ed the *uestions and 2i"nera.s answers. #his )er!atim account o these proceedin"s contains no statement o any warnin"s "i)en !y the assistant district attorney. +t 2i"nera.s trial on a char"e o irst de"ree ro!!ery, the detecti)e testi ied as to the oral con ession. #he transcription o the statement taken was also introduced in e)idence. 2i"nera was ound "uilty o irst de"ree ro!!ery. He was su!se*uently ad,ud"ed a third9 elony o ender and sentenced to 3- to 6years. imprisonment. #he con)iction was a irmed without opinion !y the +ppellate 7i)ision, /econd 7epartment, and !y the 0ourt o +ppeals, also without opinion, remittitur amended. %n ar"ument to the 0ourt o +ppeals, the /tate contended that 2i"nera had no constitutional ri"ht to !e ad)ised o his ri"ht to counsel or his pri)ile"e a"ainst sel 9incrimination. [No. 76", Wes#over vs. $ni#ed %#a#es] +t approximately 9:4; p. m. on (- March 1963, 0arl 0al)in 8esto)er was arrested !y local police in <ansas 0ity as a suspect in two <ansas 0ity ro!!eries. + report was also recei)ed rom the =5% that he was wanted on a elony char"e in 0ali ornia. #he local authorities took him to a police station and placed him in a line9up on the local char"es, and at a!out 11:4; p. m. he was !ooked. <ansas 0ity police interro"ated 8esto)er on the ni"ht o his arrest. He denied any knowled"e o criminal acti)ities. #he next day local o icers interro"ated him a"ain throu"hout the mornin". /hortly !e ore noon they in ormed the =5% that they were throu"h interro"atin" 8esto)er and that the =5% could proceed to interro"ate him. #here is nothin" in the record to indicate that 8esto)er was e)er "i)en any warnin" as to his ri"hts !y local police. +t noon, three special a"ents o the =5% continued the interro"ation in a pri)ate inter)iew room o the <ansas 0ity Police 7epartment, this time with respect to the ro!!ery o a sa)in"s and loan association and a !ank in /acramento, 0ali ornia. + ter two or two and one9hal hours, 8esto)er si"ned separate con essions to each o these two ro!!eries which had !een prepared !y one o the a"ents durin" the interro"ation. +t trial one o the a"ents testi ied, and a para"raph on each o the statements states, that the a"ents ad)ised 8esto)er that he did not ha)e to make a statement, that any statement he made could !e used a"ainst him, and that he had the ri"ht to see an attorney. 8esto)er was tried !y a ,ury in ederal court and con)icted o the 0ali ornia ro!!eries. His statements were introduced at trial. He was sentenced to 1; years. imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run consecuti)ely. On appeal, the con)iction was a irmed !y
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 1 )
the 0ourt o +ppeals or the 'inth 0ircuit. [No. 5&', (a)i*ornia vs. %#ewar#] %n the course o in)esti"atin" a series o purse9snatch ro!!eries in which one o the )ictims had died o in,uries in licted !y her assailant, &oy +llen /tewart was pointed out to >os +n"eles police as the endorser o di)idend checks taken in one o the ro!!eries. +t a!out 6:1; p. m., 31 ?anuary 1963, police o icers went to /tewart.s house and arrested him. One o the o icers asked /tewart i they could search the house, to which he replied, $@o ahead.$ #he search turned up )arious items taken rom the i)e ro!!ery )ictims. +t the time o /tewart.s arrest, police also arrested /tewart.s wi e and three other persons who were )isitin" him. #hese our were ,ailed alon" with /tewart and were interro"ated. /tewart was taken to the Ani)ersity /tation o the >os +n"eles Police 7epartment where he was placed in a cell. 7urin" the next i)e days, police interro"ated /tewart on nine di erent occasions. Except durin" the irst interro"ation session, when he was con ronted with an accusin" witness, /tewart was isolated with his interro"ators. 7urin" the ninth interro"ation session, /tewart admitted that he had ro!!ed the deceased and stated that he had not meant to hurt her. Police then !rou"ht /tewart !e ore a ma"istrate or the irst time. /ince there was no e)idence to connect them with any crime, the police then released the other our persons arrested with him. 'othin" in the record speci ically indicates whether /tewart was or was not ad)ised o his ri"ht to remain silent or his ri"ht to counsel. %n a num!er o instances, howe)er, the interro"atin" o icers were asked to recount e)erythin" that was said durin" the interro"ations. 'one indicated that /tewart was e)er ad)ised o his ri"hts. /tewart was char"ed with kidnappin" to commit ro!!ery, rape, and murder. +t his trial, transcripts o the irst interro"ation and the con ession at the last interro"ation were introduced in e)idence. #he ,ury ound /tewart "uilty o ro!!ery and irst de"ree murder and ixed the penalty as death. On appeal, the /upreme 0ourt o 0ali ornia re)ersed. !ssue 8hether the written con essions made in uncounselled interro"ation, with the accused not appraised o his ri"ht to consult with an attorney and to ha)e one durin" the inerro"ation, nor his ri"ht not to !e compelled to incriminate himsel , are not admissi!le as e)idence. "e#d %n 'o. 6;9, rom the testimony o the o icers and !y the admission o the /tate o +ri1ona, it is clear that Miranda was not in any way apprised o his ri"ht to consult with an attorney and to ha)e one present durin" the interro"ation, nor was his ri"ht not to !e compelled to incriminate himsel e ecti)ely protected in any other manner. 8ithout these warnin"s the statements were inadmissi!le. #he mere act that he si"ned a statement which contained a typed9in clause statin" that he had $ ull knowled"e$ o his $le"al ri"hts$ does not approach the knowin" and intelli"ent wai)er re*uired to relin*uish constitutional ri"hts. /imilarly in 'o. 66-, 2i"nera was not warned o any o his ri"hts !e ore the *uestionin" !y the detecti)e and !y the assistant district attorney. 'o other steps were taken to protect these ri"hts. #hus he was not e ecti)ely apprised o his =i th +mendment pri)ile"e or o his ri"ht to ha)e counsel present and his statements are inadmissi!le. %n 'o. 661, there is nothin" in the acts that 8esto)er knowin"ly and intelli"ently wai)ed his ri"ht to remain silent and his ri"ht to consult with counsel prior to the time he made the statement. +t the time the =5% a"ents !e"an *uestionin" 8esto)er, he had !een in custody or o)er 14 hours and had !een interro"ated at len"th durin" that period. #he =5% interro"ation !e"an immediately upon the conclusion o the interro"ation !y <ansas 0ity police and was conducted in local police head*uarters. #here is no e)idence o any warnin" "i)en prior to the =5% interro"ation nor is there any e)idence o an articulated wai)er o ri"hts a ter the =5% commenced its interro"ation. #he record simply shows that the de endant did in act con ess a short time a ter !ein" turned o)er to the =5% ollowin" interro"ation !y local police. 7espite the act that the =5% a"ents "a)e warnin"s at the outset o their inter)iew, rom 8esto)er.s point o )iew the warnin"s came at the end o the interro"ation process. %n these circumstances an intelli"ent wai)er o constitutional ri"hts cannot !e assumed. >aw en orcement authorities are not precluded rom *uestionin" any indi)idual who has !een held or a period o time !y other authorities and interro"ated !y them without appropriate warnin"s. + di erent case
would !e presented i an accused were taken into custody !y the second authority, remo)ed !oth in time and place rom his ori"inal surroundin"s, and then ade*uately ad)ised o his ri"hts and "i)en an opportunity to exercise them. >astly in 'o. ;B4, %n dealin" with custodial interro"ation, the 0ourt will not presume that a de endant has !een e ecti)ely apprised o his ri"hts and that his pri)ile"e a"ainst sel 9incrimination has !een ade*uately sa e"uarded on a record that does not show that any warnin"s ha)e !een "i)en or that any e ecti)e alternati)e has !een employed. 'or can a knowin" and intelli"ent wai)er o these ri"hts !e assumed on a silent record. =urthermore, /tewart.s stead ast denial o the alle"ed o enses throu"h ei"ht o the nine interro"ations o)er a period o i)e days is su!,ect to no other construction than that he was compelled !y persistent interro"ation to or"o his =i th +mendment pri)ile"e. 22$ %eo&#e vs. 'u(od [)* 1362+3, 21 Fe,ruar- 2..1] +n ,an-, .onzaga/0e1es (J)2 "' -on-3r Facts On 1; /eptem!er 1996 at around 6:-- p.m., Helen &amos was asleep in her house to"ether with her hus!and C7anilo &amosD and children, 'imrod, 'eres and 'airu!e, the )ictim. 'airu!e slept close to her $on the upper part$ o her !ody. +t around 1(:3- a.m., her hus!and woke her up !ecause he sensed someone "oin" down the stairs o their house. /he noticed that 'airu!e was no lon"er in the place where she was sleepin" !ut she assumed that 'airu!e merely answered the call o nature. 'airu!e.s !lanket was also no lon"er at the place she slept !ut that her slippers were still there. + ter three minutes o waitin" or 'airu!e.s return, she stood up and !e"an callin" out or 'airu!e !ut there was no answer. #herea ter, she went downstairs and saw that the !ackdoor o their house was open. /he went outside throu"h the !ackdoor to see i 'airu!e was there !ut she was not. /he ound a pair o ru!!er slippers on top o a wooden !ench outside o her !ackdoor. #he sole o the slippers was red while the strap was a com!ination o yellow and whiteE said slippers did not !elon" to any mem!er o her amily. #herea ter, she proceeded to the house o +lma 7ia1 to ask her or help. #hen, in the mornin" o 16 /eptem!er 1996, she went to the police station to report the loss o her child. /he also reported the disco)ery o the pair o slippers to /P-( Fuirino @allardo. /he then went home while the police !e"an their search or 'airu!e. +t around 1(:3- p.m., +lma 7ia1 re*uested her to "o with the searchin" team. 7urin" the search, +lma 7ia1 ound a panty which she reco"ni1ed as that o her dau"hter. + ter seein" the panty, she cried. /he was therea ter ordered to "o home while the others continued the search. #herea ter, they continued the search and ound a !lack collared #9shirt with !uttons in ront and pipin" at the end o the slee)e han"in" on a "ua)a twi". +lma 7ia1 "a)e the shirt to /P-( @allardo. >oreto 2eloria in ormed him that the two items were worn !y 0lemente ?ohn >u"od when he went to the house o 2ioleta 0a!uhat. +t around 6:-- p.m., /P-( @allardo apprehended >u"od on the !asis o the pair o slippers and the !lack #9shirt. He then !rou"ht >u"od to the police station where he was temporarily incarcerated. +t irst, the accused denied that he did anythin" to 'airu!e !ut a ter he told him what happened to the "irl. >ater, althou"h he admitted to ha)in" raped and killed 'airu!e, >u"ud re used to make a statement re"ardin" the same. + ter ha)in" !een in ormed that the !ody o 'airu!e was in the "rassy area, @allardo to"ether with other mem!ers o the P'P, the 0rime 8atch and the townspeople continued the search !ut they were still not a!le to ind the !ody o 'airu!e. %t was only when they !rou"ht >u"od to 2illa +nastacia to point out the location o the cada)er, on 1B /eptem!er 1996, that they ound the !ody o 'airu!e. On 1- Octo!er 1996, >u"od was char"ed or rape with homicide. Apon arrai"nment, >u"od with the assistance o counsel entered a plea o not "uilty. #herea ter, trial ensued. On B Octo!er 199B, the &e"ional #rial 0ourt C&#0D o /anta 0ru1, >a"una ound >u"od "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to indemni y the heirs o the )ictim, 'airu!e &amos the sum o P;-,---.-- as ci)il indemnity or her death and P36,(--.-- as actual dama"es. Hence, the automatic re)iew. !ssue 8hether >u"odGs con ession and su!ese*uent act o pointin" the location o the 'airu!eGs !ody may !e used a"ainst him as e)idence.
"e#d &ecords re)eal that >u"od was not in ormed o his ri"ht to remain silent and to counsel, and that i he cannot a ord to ha)e counsel o his choice, he would !e pro)ided with one. Moreo)er, there is no e)idence to indicate that he intended to wai)e these ri"hts. 5esides, e)en i he did wai)e these ri"hts, in order to !e )alid, the wai)er must !e made in writin" and with the assistance o counsel. 0onse*uently, >u"od.s act o con essin" to /PO( @allardo that he raped and killed 'airu!e without the assistance o counsel cannot !e used a"ainst him or ha)in" trans"ressed >u"od.s ri"hts under the 5ill o &i"hts. #his is a !asic tenet o our 0onstitution which cannot !e disre"arded or i"nored no matter how !rutal the crime committed may !e. %n the same )ein, >u"od.s act in pointin" out the location o the !ody o 'airu!e was also elicited in )iolation o the >u"od.s ri"ht to remain silent. #he same was an inte"ral part o the9 uncounselled con ession and is considered a ruit o the poisonous tree. E)en i we were to assume that >u"od was not yet under interro"ation and thus not entitled to his constitutional ri"hts at the time he was !rou"ht to the police station, >u"od.s acts su!se*uent to his apprehension cannot !e characteri1ed as ha)in" !een )oluntarily made considerin" the peculiar circumstances surroundin" his detention. His con ession was elicited !y /PO( @allardo who promised him that he would help him i he told the truth. =urthermore, when u"od alle"edly pointed out the !ody o the )ictim, /PO( @allardo, the whole police orce as well as nearly 1-- o the townspeople o 0a)inti escorted him there. &icardo 2ida stated that the townspeople were anta"onistic towards >u"od and wanted to hurt him. #he atmosphere rom the time >u"od was apprehended and taken to the police station up until the time he was alle"ed to ha)e pointed out the location o the !ody o the )ictim was hi"hly intimidatin" and was not conduci)e to a spontaneous response. +midst such a hi"hly coerci)e atmosphere, >u"od.s claim that he was !eaten up and maltreated !y the police o icers raises a )ery serious dou!t as to the )oluntariness o his alle"ed con ession. #he 2ice9Mayor, who testi ied that when he )isited >u"od in the ,ail cell, he noticed that >u"od had !ruises on his ace, corro!orated >u"od.s assertion that he was maltreated. 0onsiderin" that the con ession o >u"od cannot !e used a"ainst him, the only remainin" e)idence which was esta!lished !y the prosecution is the act that se)eral persons testi ied ha)in" seen >u"od the ni"ht !e ore the murder o 'airu!e and on se)eral other occasions wearin" the ru!!er slippers and !lack #9shirt ound at the house o the )ictim and 2illa +nastacia respecti)ely as well as the testimony o &omualdo &amos, the tricycle dri)er who stated that he saw >u"od in the early mornin" o 16 /eptem!er 1996 lea)in" 2illa +nastacia without a #9shirt and without slippers. #hese pieces o e)idence are circumstantial in nature. #he com!ination o the a!o)e9mentioned circumstances does not lead to the irre uta!ly lo"ical conclusion that >u"od raped and murdered 'airu!e. +t most, these circumstances, taken with the testimonies o the other prosecution witnesses, merely esta!lish >u"od.s wherea!outs on that ate ul e)enin" and places >u"od at the scene o the crime and nothin" more. >u"od was ac*uitted. 228 %eo&#e vs. /e# *osario [)* 12$$++, 14 A&ri# 1999] +n ,an-, ,e))osi))o (J)2 "' -on-3r Facts On 13 May 1996 !etween 6:-- and 6:3- p.m., Paul 2incent +lon1o stopped his tricycle !y the side o 'ita.s 7ru"store, @eneral >una /t., 0a!anatuan 0ity, when three women la""ed him. Parked at a distance o a!out 1H meters in ront o him was a tricycle dri)en !y ?oselito del &osario y Pascual. +t that point, +lon1o saw ( men and a woman C2ir"inia 5ernasD "rapplin" or possession o a !a". + ter takin" hold o the !a" one o the two men CErnesto $?un$ Mar*ue1D armed with a "un started chasin" a man who was tryin" to help the woman, while the other snatcher C$7odon"$ 5isayaD kicked the woman sendin" her to the "round. /oon a ter, the armed man returned and while the woman was still on the "round he shot her on the head. #he !a" taken !y the man was !rou"ht to the tricycle o del &osario where someone inside C2ir"ilio $5oy$ /antosD recei)ed the !a". #he armed man then sat !ehind the dri)er while his companion entered the sidecar. 8hen the tricycle sped away +lon1o "a)e chase and was a!le to "et the plate num!er o the tricycle. He also reco"ni1ed the dri)er, a ter which he went to the nearest police head*uarters and reported the incident. Apon indin" the name o the owner o the tricycle, /P-4 @eronimo de >eon and his team proceeded to 5akod 5ayan in the house o the !aran"ay captain where the owner o the tricycle was summoned and who in turn re)ealed the dri)er.s name and was in)ited or inter)iew. 7el &osario )olunteered to name his passen"ers on 13 May 1996. On the way to the police station, del &osario in ormed them o the !a" and lunch kit.s location and the place
where the hold9uppers may !e ound and they reported these indin"s to their o icers, 0apt. 5ia" and 0apt. 0ru1. + ter lunch, they proceeded to 5r"y. 7icarma composed o 1; armed men where a shoot9out transpired that lasted rom 1:-- to 4:-- p.m. + ter a !rie encounter, they went inside the house where they ound Mar*ue1 dead holdin" a ma"a1ine and a "un. 8hile all o these were happenin", del &osario was at the !ack o the school, handcu ed !y the police !ecause alle"edly they had already "athered enou"h e)idence a"ainst him and they were a raid that he mi"ht attempt to escape. + ter the encounter, they went !ack to the police station. #he in)esti"ator took the statement o del &osario on 14 May 1996, and was only su!scri!ed on (( May 1996. +ll the while, he was detained in the police station as ordered !y the =iscal. His statements were only si"ned on 16 May 1996. He also executed a wai)er o his detention. His /inumpaan" /alaysay was done with the assistance o Ex9?ud"e #ala)era. 7el &osario, on the other hand, claimed that he was hired or P1(-.-- !y $5oy$ /antos to dri)e him to a cockpit at the 5las Edward 0oliseum !ut was directed him to proceed to the market place to etch $?un$ Mar*ue1 and $7odon"$ 5isayaE where the ro!!ery homicide occurred. He claimed that the 3 men ali"hted and warned del &osario not to in orm the police authorities a!out the incident otherwise he and his amily would !e harmed. 7el &osario then went home. 5ecause o the threat, howe)er, he did not report the matter to the owner o the tricycle nor to the !aran"ay captain and the police. 7el &osario, Mar*ue1, /antos, and ?ohn 7oe alias $7odon"$ were char"ed with the special complex crime o &o!!ery with Homicide or ha)in" ro!!ed 2ir"inia 5ernas, a 669year old !usinesswoman, o P(--,---.-- in cash and ,ewelry and on the occasion thereo shot and killed her. 8hile del &osario pleaded not "uilty, /antos and alias $7odon"$ remained at lar"e. #hus, only del &osario was tried. #he trial court ound del &osario "uilty as co9principal in the crime o &o!!ery with Homicide and sentencin" him to death, and to pay the heirs o )ictim 2ir"inia 5ernas P;;-,---.-- as actual dama"es and P1--,---.-- as moral and exemplary dama"es. Hence, the automatic re)iew. !ssue 8hether del &osario was depri)ed o his ri"hts durin" custodial in)esti"ation at the time he was Iin)itedJ or *uestionin" at the house o the !aran"ay captain. "e#d 7el &osario was depri)ed o his ri"hts durin" custodial in)esti"ation. =rom the time he was in)ited$ or *uestionin" at the house o the !aran"ay captain, he was already under e ecti)e custodial in)esti"ation, !ut he was not apprised nor made aware thereo !y the in)esti"atin" o icers. #he police already knew the name o the tricycle dri)er and the latter was already a suspect in the ro!!in" and senseless slayin" o 2ir"inia 5ernas. /ince the prosecution ailed to esta!lish that del &osario had wai)ed his ri"ht to remain silent, his )er!al admissions on his participation in the crime e)en !e ore his actual arrest were inadmissi!le a"ainst him, as the same trans"ressed the sa e"uards pro)ided !y law and the 5ill o &i"hts. Herein, like )ictim 2ir"inia 5ernas, del &osario too was a hapless )ictim who was orci!ly used !y other persons with ne arious desi"ns to perpetrate a dastardly act. 7el &osario.s de ense o $irresisti!le orce$ has !een su!stantiated !y clear and con)incin" e)idence. 7el &osario was threatened with a "un. He could not there ore !e expected to lee nor risk his li e to help a stran"er. + person under the same circumstances would !e more concerned with his personal wel are and security rather than the sa ety o a person whom he only saw or the irst time that day. On the other hand, conspiracy !etween him and his co9accused was not pro)ed !eyond a whimper o a dou!t !y the prosecution, thus clearin" del &osario o any complicity in the crime char"ed. 229 %eo&#e vs. 0o#anos [)* 1.18.8, 3 Ju#- 1992] %e-ond 4ivision, 5aras (J)2 ' -on-3r Facts #he death o the )ictim, Oscar Pa"dalian, was communicated to the Police /tation where Patrolmen &olando +lcantara and =rancisco 7ayao o the %nte"rated 'ational Police C%'PD, 5ala"tas, 5ulacan, are assi"ned. Patrolmen +lcantara and 7ayao proceeded to the scene o the crime o Mar!le /upply, 5ala"tas, 5ulacan and upon arri)al they saw the deceased Pa"dalian lyin" on an impro)ised !ed ull o !lood with sta! wounds. #hey then in*uired a!out the circumstances o the incident and were in ormed that the deceased was with ( companions, on the pre)ious ni"ht, one o whom was &amon 5olanos who had a drinkin" spree with the deceased and another companion C0laudio Ma"ti!ayD till the wee hours o the ollowin" mornin", (3 ?une
199-. 8hen +lcantara and 7ayao apprehended 5olanos, they ound the irearm o the deceased on the chair where 5olanos was alle"edly seated. #hey !oarded &amon 5olanos and 0laudio Ma"ti!ay on the police )ehicle and !rou"ht them to the police station. %n the )ehicle where the suspect was ridin", $&amon 5olanos accordin"ly admitted that he killed the deceased Oscar Pa"dalian !ecause he was a!usi)e,$ a ter he was asked !y the police i he killed the )ictim. 5olanos was char"ed or murder !e ore the &e"ional #rial 0ourt o Malolos, 5ulacan, 5ranch 14, under 0riminal 0ase 1B319M99-. #he trial court, e)en i the alle"ed oral admission o 5olanos was "i)en without the assistance o counsel when it was made while on !oard the police )ehicle on their way to the police station, ound 5olanos "uilty o the crime char"ed and imposed on him the penalty o &eclusion Perpetua Cli e imprisonmentD and to pay the heirs o the )ictim P;-,---.--. #he O ice o the /olicitor @eneral threa ter iled a Mani estation Cin lieu o +ppellee.s 5rie D, claimin" that the lower court erred in admittin" in e)idence the extra9,udicial con ession o 5olanos while on !oard the police patrol ,eep. !ssue 8hether the extra9,udicial con ession o 5olanos while on !oard the police patrol ,eep may !e used to pro)e 5olanosG "uilt. "e#d 5ein" already under custodial in)esti"ation while on !oard the police patrol ,eep on the way to the Police /tation where ormal in)esti"ation may ha)e !een conducted, 5olanos should ha)e !een in ormed o his 0onstitutional ri"hts under +rticle %%%, /ection 1( o the 19B6 0onstitution which explicitly pro)ides: C1D +ny person under in)esti"ation or the commission o an o ense shall ha)e the ri"ht to remain silent and to ha)e competent and independent pre era!ly o his own choice. % the person cannot a ord the ser)ice o counsel, he must !e pro)ided with one. #hese ri"hts cannot !e wai)ed except in writin" and in the presence o counsel. C(D 'o torture, orce, )iolence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which )itiate the ree will shall !e used a"ainst him. /ecret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar orms o detention are prohi!ited. C3D +ny con ession or admission o!tained in )iolation o this or the precedin" section shall !e inadmissi!le in e)idence a"ainst him. C4D #he law shall pro)ide or penal and ci)il sanctions or )iolation o this section as well as compensation and reha!ilitation o )ictims o torture or similar practices and their amilies. 0onsiderin" the clear re*uirements o the 0onstitution with respect to the manner !y which con ession can !e admissi!le in e)idence, and the "larin" act that the alle"ed con ession o!tained while on !oard the police )ehicle was the only reason or the con)iction, !esides 5olanos.s con)iction was not pro)ed !eyond reasona!le dou!t, the 0ourt has no recourse !ut to re)erse the su!,ect ,ud"ment under re)iew. 23. *1ode !s#and vs. !nnis [446 US 291, 12 Ma- 198.] %#ewar# (J) Facts On the ni"ht o 1( ?anuary 196;, ?ohn Mul)aney, a Pro)idence, &hode %sland taxica! dri)er, disappeared a ter !ein" dispatched to pick up a customer. His !ody was disco)ered 4 days later !uried in a shallow "ra)e in 0o)entry, &hode %sland. He had died rom a shot"un !last aimed at the !ack o his head. On 16 ?anuary 196;, shortly a ter midni"ht, the Pro)idence police recei)ed a telephone call rom @erald +u!in, also a taxica! dri)er, who reported that he had ,ust !een ro!!ed !y a man wieldin" a sawed9o shot"un. +u!in urther reported that he had dropped o his assailant near &hode %sland 0olle"e in a section o Pro)idence known as Mount Pleasant. 8hile at the Pro)idence police station waitin" to "i)e a statement, +u!in noticed a picture o his assailant on a !ulletin !oard. +u!in so in ormed one o the police o icers present. #he o icer prepared a photo array, and a"ain +u!in identi ied a picture o the same person. #hat person was %nnis. /hortly therea ter, the Pro)idence police !e"an a search o the Mount Pleasant area. +t approximately 4:3- a.m. on the same date, Patrolman >o)ell, while cruisin" the streets o Mount Pleasant in a patrol car, spotted %nnis standin" in the street acin" him. 8hen Patrolman >o)ell stopped his car, %nnis walked towards it. Patrolman >o)ell then arrested %nnis, who was unarmed, and ad)ised him o his so9called Miranda ri"hts. 8hile the two men waited in the patrol car or other police o icers to arri)e, Patrolman >o)ell did not con)erse with %nnis other than to respond to the latter.s re*uest or a ci"arette. 8ithin minutes, /er"eant /ears arri)ed at the scene o the arrest, and he also "a)e %nnis the Miranda warnin"s. %mmediately
therea ter, 0aptain >eyden and other police o icers arri)ed. 0aptain >eyden ad)ised %nnis o his Miranda ri"hts. %nnis stated that he understood those ri"hts and wanted to speak with a lawyer. 0aptain >eyden then directed that %nnis !e placed in a $ca"ed wa"on,$ a 49door police car with a wire screen mesh !etween the ront and rear seats, and !e dri)en to the central police station. 3 o icers, Patrolmen @leckman, 8illiams, and Mc<enna, were assi"ned to accompany %nnis to the central station. #hey placed %nnis in the )ehicle and shut the doors. 0aptain >eyden then instructed the o icers not to *uestion %nnis or intimidate or coerce him in any way. #he three o icers then entered the )ehicle, and it departed. 8hile en route to the central station, Patrolman @leckman initiated a con)ersation with Patrolman Mc<enna concernin" the missin" shot"un. %nnis then interrupted the con)ersation, statin" that the o icers should turn the car around so he could show them where the "un was located. +t this point, Patrolman Mc<enna radioed !ack to 0aptain >eyden that they were returnin" to the scene o the arrest, and that %nnis would in orm them o the location o the "un. +t the time %nnis indicated that the o icers should turn !ack, they had tra)eled no more than a mile, a trip encompassin" only a ew minutes. #he police )ehicle then returned to the scene o the arrest where a search or the shot"un was in pro"ress. #here, 0aptain >eyden a"ain ad)ised %nnis o his Miranda ri"hts. %nnis replied that he understood those ri"hts !ut that he $wanted to "et the "un out o the way !ecause o the kids in the area in the school.$ %nnis then led the police to a near!y ield, where he pointed out the shot"un under some rocks !y the side o the road. On (- March 196;, a "rand ,ury returned an indictment char"in" %nnis with the kidnapin", ro!!ery, and murder o ?ohn Mul)aney. 5e ore trial, %nnis mo)ed to suppress the shot"un and the statements he had made to the police re"ardin" it. + ter an e)identiary hearin" at which %nnis elected not to testi y, the trial ,ud"e ound that %nnis had !een $repeatedly and completely ad)ised o his Miranda ri"hts.$ He urther ound that it was $entirely understanda!le that Kthe o icers in the police )ehicleL would )oice their concern K or the sa ety o the handicapped childrenL to each other.$ #he ,ud"e then concluded that %nnis.s decision to in orm the police o the location o the shot"un was $a wai)er, clearly, and on the !asis o the e)idence that % ha)e heard, and KsicL intelli"ent wai)er, o his KMirandaL ri"ht to remain silent.$ #hus, without passin" on whether the police o icers had in act $interro"ated$ %nnis, the trial court sustained the admissi!ility o the shot"un and testimony related to its disco)ery. #hat e)idence was later introduced at %nnis.s trial, and the ,ury returned a )erdict o "uilty on all counts. On appeal, the &hode %sland /upreme 0ourt, in a 39( decision, set aside %nnis.s con)iction. 0ontrary to the holdin" o the trial court, the appellate court concluded that the e)idence was insu icient to support a indin" o wai)er. Ha)in" concluded that !oth the shot"un and testimony relatin" to its disco)ery were o!tained in )iolation o the Miranda standards and there ore should not ha)e !een admitted into e)idence, the &hode %sland /upreme 0ourt held that %nnis was entitled to a new trial. !ssue 8hether %nnis was $interro"ated$ !y the police o icers in )iolation o the ormer.s undisputed ri"ht under Miranda to remain silent until he had consulted with a lawyer. "e#d #he special procedural sa e"uards outlined in Miranda are re*uired not where a suspect is simply taken into custody, !ut rather where a suspect in custody is su!,ected to interro"ation. $%nterro"ation,$ as conceptuali1ed in the Miranda opinion, must re lect a measure o compulsion a!o)e and !eyond that inherent in custody itsel . #he Miranda sa e"uards come into play whene)er a person in custody is su!,ected to either express *uestionin" or its unctional e*ui)alent. #hat is to say, the term $interro"ation$ under Miranda re ers not only to express *uestionin", !ut also to any words or actions on the part o the police Cother than those normally attendant to arrest and custodyD that the police should know are reasona!ly likely to elicit an incriminatin" response rom the suspect. #he latter portion o this de inition ocuses primarily upon the perceptions o the suspect, rather than the intent o the police. #his ocus re lects the act that the Miranda sa e"uards were desi"ned to )est a suspect in custody with an added measure o protection a"ainst coerci)e police practices, without re"ard to o!,ecti)e proo o the underlyin" intent o the police. + practice that the police should know is reasona!ly likely to e)oke an incriminatin" response rom a suspect thus amounts to interro"ation. 5ut, since the police surely cannot !e held accounta!le or the un oreseea!le results o their words or actions, the de inition o interro"ation can extend only to words or actions on the part o police o icers that they should ha)e known were reasona!ly likely to elicit an incriminatin" response. Herein, %nnis
was not $interro"ated$ within the meanin" o Miranda. %t is undisputed that the irst pron" o the de inition o $interro"ation$ was not satis ied, or the con)ersation !etween Patrolmen @leckman and Mc<enna included no express *uestionin" o %nnis. &ather, that con)ersation was, at least in orm, nothin" more than a dialo"ue !etween the two o icers to which no response rom %nnis was in)ited. Moreo)er, it cannot !e airly concluded that %nnis was su!,ected to the $ unctional e*ui)alent$ o *uestionin". %t cannot !e said, in short, that Patrolmen @leckman and Mc<enna should ha)e known that their con)ersation was reasona!ly likely to elicit an incriminatin" response rom %nnis. #here is nothin" in the record to su""est that the o icers were aware that %nnis was peculiarly suscepti!le to an appeal to his conscience concernin" the sa ety o handicapped children. 'or is there anythin" in the record to su""est that the police knew that %nnis was unusually disoriented or upset at the time o his arrest. #he &hode %sland /upreme 0ourt erred, thus, in e*uatin" $su!tle compulsion$ with interro"ation. #hat the o icers. comments struck a responsi)e chord is readily apparent. #hus, it may !e said, as the &hode %sland /upreme 0ourt did say, that %nnis was su!,ected to $su!tle compulsion,$ !ut that is not the end o the in*uiry. %t must also !e esta!lished that a suspect.s incriminatin" response was the product o words or actions on the part o the police that they should ha)e known were reasona!ly likely to elicit an incriminatin" response. #his was not esta!lished in the present case. 231 %eo&#e vs. Ma1ina- [)* 12248+, 1 Fe,ruar- 1999] +n ,an-, 5er (3ria62 "5 -on-3r Facts >arry Mahinay y +mparado started workin" as house!oy with Maria %sip on (- 'o)em!er 1993. His task was to take care o %sip.s house which was under construction ad,acent to her old residence situated inside a compound at 'o. 416; 7ian /treet, @en. #. de >eon, 2alen1uela, Metro Manila. mahinay stayed and slept in an apartment also owned !y %sip, located 1- meters away rom the un inished house. #he )ictim, Ma. 2ictoria 0han, 1( years old, was %sip.s nei"h!or in 7ian /treet. /he used to pass !y %sip.s house on her way to school and play inside the compound yard, catchin" maya !irds to"ether with other children. On (; ?une 199;, at B:-- a.m., Mahinay ,oined @re"orio &i)era in a drinkin" spree. +round 1- a.m., Mahinay, who was already drunk, le t @re"orio &i)era and asked permission rom %sip to "o out with his riends. /"t. &o!erto /uni, also a resident o 7ian /treet, went to his in9law.s house !etween 6 to 6 p.m. met Mahinay alon" 7ian /treet. #hat same e)enin", !etween B to 9 p.m., he saw Ma. 2ictoria standin" in ront o the "ate o the un inished house. >ater, at 9 p.m., Mahinay showed up at 'or"ina &i)era.s store to !uy lu"aw. 'or"ina &i)era in ormed Mahinay that there was none le t o it. /he noticed that Mahinay appeared to !e uneasy and in deep thou"ht. /he asked why he looked so worried !ut he did not answer. #hen he le t and walked !ack to the compound. Meanwhile, El)ira 0han noticed that her dau"hter, Ma. 2ictoria, was missin". /he last saw her dau"hter wearin" a pair o white shorts, !rown !elt, a yellow hair ri!!on, printed !lue !louse, dirty white panty, white lady sando and !lue ru!!er slippers. Mahinay ailed to show up or supper that ni"ht. On the ollowin" day, (6 ?une 199;, at ( a.m., Mahinay !oarded a passen"er ,eepney dri)en !y =ernando #rinidad at the talipapa. Mahinay ali"hted at the top o the !rid"e o the 'orth Expressway and had therea ter disappeared. #hat same mornin", around 6:3-, a certain 5oy ound the dead !ody o Ma. 2ictoria inside the septic tank. 5oy immediately reported what he saw to the )ictim.s parents, Eduardo and El)ira 0han. 8ith the help o the 2alen1uela Police, the li eless !ody o Ma. 2ictoria was retrie)ed rom the septic tank. /he was wearin" a printed !louse without underwear. Her ace !ore !ruises. 5ack in the compound, /PO1 +rsenio 'acis and /PO1 +rnold +la!astro were in ormed !y %sip that her house!oy, Mahinay, was missin". +t the second loor o the house under construction, they retrie)ed rom one o the rooms a pair o dirty white short pants, a !rown !elt and a yellow hair ri!!on which was identi ied !y El)ira 0han to !elon" to her dau"hter, Ma. 2ictoria. #hey also ound inside another room a pair o !lue slippers which %sip identi ied as that o Mahinay. +lso ound in the yard, three armslen"th away rom the septic tank were an underwear, a leather wallet, a pair o dirty lon" pants and a pliers positi)ely identi ied !y %sip as Mahinay.s !elon"in"s. #hese items were !rou"ht to the police station. + police report was su!se*uently prepared includin" a re erral slip addressed to the o ice o the 2alen1uela Prosecutor. #he next day, /PO1 2ir"ilio 2illano retrie)ed the )ictim.s underwear rom the septic tank. + ter a series o ollow9up operations, Mahinay was inally arrested in 5aran"ay O!ario Matala, %!aan, 5atan"as. He was !rou"ht to the 2alen1uela Police /tation. On 6 ?uly 199;, with the assistance
o +tty. &estituto 2iernes, Mahinay executed an extra9,udicial con ession wherein he narrated in detail how he raped and killed the )ictim. +lso, when Mahinay came ace to ace with the )ictim.s mother and aunt, he con ided to them that he was not alone in rapin" and killin" the )ictim. He pointed to Maldy and 5oyet as his co9conspirators. #hus, on 1- ?uly 199;, Mahinay was char"ed with rape with homicide, to which he pleaded not "uilty. + ter trial, the lower court rendered a decision con)ictin" Mahinay o the crime char"ed, sentenced him to su er the penalty o death and to pay a total o P63,---.-- to the )ictim.s heirs. Hence, the automatic re)iew. "e#d >arry Mahinay durin" the custodial in)esti"ation and a ter ha)in" !een in ormed o his constitutional ri"hts with the assistance o +tty. &estituto 2iernes o the Pu!lic +ttorney.s O ice )oluntarily "a)e his statement admittin" the commission o the crime. /aid con ession o Mahinay "i)en with the assistance o +tty. &estituto 2iernes is !elie)ed to ha)e !een reely and )oluntarily "i)en. #hat accused did not complain to the proper authorities o any maltreatment on his person. He did not e)en in orm the %n*uest Prosecutor when he was sworn to the truth o his statement on B ?uly 199; that he was orced, coerced or was promised o reward or leniency. #hat his con ession a!ound with details known only to him. #he 0ourt noted that a lawyer rom the Pu!lic +ttorneys O ice +tty. &estituto 2iernes and as testi ied !y said +tty. 2iernes he in ormed and explained to Mahinay his constitutional ri"hts and was present all throu"hout the "i)in" o the testimony. #hat he si"ned the statement "i)en !y Mahinay. + lawyer rom the Pu!lic +ttorneys O ice is expected to !e watch ul and )i"ilant to notice any irre"ularity in the manner o the in)esti"ation and the physical conditions o the accused. #he post mortem indin"s show that the cause o death +sphyxia !y manual stran"ulationE #raumatic Head in,ury 0ontri!utory su!stantiate. 0onsistent with the testimony o Mahinay that he pushed the )ictim and the latter.s head hit the ta!le and the )ictim lost consciousness. #here !ein" no e)idence presented to show that said con ession were o!tained as a result o )iolence, torture, maltreatment, intimidation, threat or promise o reward or leniency nor that the in)esti"atin" o icer could ha)e !een moti)ated to concoct the acts narrated in said a ida)itE the con ession o the accused is held to !e true, correct and reely or )oluntarily "i)en. %n his extra,udicial con ession, Mahinay himsel admitted that he had sexual con"ress with the unconscious child. /uch circumstantial e)idence, !esides B others, esta!lished the elony o rape with homicide de ined and penali1ed under /ection 33; o the &e)ised Penal 0ode, as amended !y /ection 11, &+ 66;9. 232 %eo&#e vs. A-son [)* 8+21+, $ Ju#- 1989] 7irs# 4ivision, Narvasa (J)2 ' -on-3r Facts =elipe &amos was a ticket rei"ht clerk o the Philippine +irlines CP+>D, assi"ned at its 5a"uio 0ity station. %t ha)in" alle"edly come to li"ht that he was in)ol)ed in irre"ularities in the sales o plane tickets, the P+> mana"ement noti ied him o an in)esti"ation to !e conducted into the matter o 9 =e!ruary 19B6. #hat in)esti"ation was scheduled in accordance with P+>.s 0ode o 0onduct and 7iscipline, and the 0ollecti)e 5ar"ainin" +"reement si"ned !y it with the Philippine +irlines Employees. +ssociation CP+>E+D to which &amos pertained. On the day !e ore the in)esti"ation, B =e!ruary 19B6, &amos "a)e to his superiors a handwritten note statin" the at he was willin" to settle irre"ularities alle"edly char"ed a"ainst him in the amount o P66,--- CapproximatelyD su!,ect to conditions as may !e imposed !y P+> on or !e ore 16--N9 =e!ruary 19B6. +t the in)esti"ation o 9 =e!ruary 19B6, conducted !y the P+> 5ranch Mana"er in 5a"uio 0ity, Ed"ardo &. 0ru1, in the presence o /tation +"ent +ntonio Ocampo, #icket =rei"ht 0lerk &odol o Fuitasol, and P+>E+ /hop /teward 0risteta 7omin"o, =elipe &amos was in ormed $o the indin" o the +udit #eam.$ #herea ter, his answers in response to *uestions !y 0ru1, were taken down in writin". &amos. answers were to the e ect inter alia that he had not indeed made disclosure o the tickets mentioned in the +udit #eam.s indin"s, that the proceeds had !een $misused$ !y him, that althou"h he had planned on payin" !ack the money, he had !een pre)ented rom doin" so, $perhaps C!yD shame,$ that he was still willin" to settle his o!li"ation, and pro erred a $compromise to pay on sta""ered !asis, CandD the amount would !e known in the next in)esti"ationE$ that he desired the next in)esti"ation to !e at the same place, $5a"uio 0#O,$ and that he should !e represented therein !y $/hop stewardees %#& 'ie)es 5lancoE$ and that he was willin" to si"n his
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( )
statement Cas he in act a terwards didD. How the in)esti"ation turned out is not dealt with the parties at allE !ut it would seem that no compromise a"reement was reached much less consummated. +!out ( months later, an in ormation was iled a"ainst =elipe &amos char"in" him with the crime o esta a alle"edly committed in 5a"uio 0ity durin" the period rom 1( March 19B6 to (9 ?anuary 19B6. On arrai"nment on this char"e, =elipe &amos entered a plea o $'ot @uilty,$ and trial therea ter ensued. +t the close o the people.s case, the pri)ate prosecutors made a written o er o e)idence dated (1 ?une 19BB, which included the statement o &amos taken on 9 =e!ruary 19B6 at P+> 5a"uio 0ity #icket O ice, as well as his handwritten admission "i)en on B =e!ruary 19B6. &amos. attorneys iled $O!,ectionsN0omments to Plainti s E)idence.$ 5y Order dated 9 +u"ust 19BB, ?ud"e &u!en +yson C5ranch 6, &#0 5a"uio 0ityD admitted all the exhi!its $as part o the testimony o the witnesses who testi ied in connection therewith and or whate)er they are worth,$ except &amos. statement o 9 =e!ruary and his handwritten admission dated B =e!ruary. #he pri)ate prosecutors iled a motion or reconsideration. %t was denied, !y Order dated 14 /eptem!er 19BB. #he pri)ate prosecutors, in the name o the People o the Philippines, iled the petition or certiorari and prohi!ition assailin" the orders o 9 +u"ust 19BB and 14 /eptem!er 19BB. !ssue 8hether the constitutional ri"hts o a person under custodial in)esti"ation comes into play durin" the administrati)e in*uiry. "e#d =elipe &amos was not in any sense under custodial interro"ation, as the term should !e properly understood, prior to and durin" the administrati)e in*uiry into the disco)ered irre"ularities in ticket sales in which he appeared to ha)e had a hand. #he constitutional ri"hts o a person under custodial interro"ation did not there ore come into play, were o no rele)ance to the in*uiry. %t is also clear, too, that &amos had )oluntarily answered *uestions posed to him on the irst day o the administrati)e in)esti"ation, 9 =e!ruary 19B6 and a"reed that the proceedin"s should !e recorded, the record ha)in" therea ter !een marked durin" the trial o the criminal action su!se*uently iled a"ainst him, ,ust as it is o!)ious that the note that he sent to his superiors on B =e!ruary 19B6, the day !e ore the in)esti"ation, o erin" to compromise his lia!ility in the alle"ed irre"ularities, was a ree and e)en spontaneous act on his part. #hey may not !e excluded on the "round that the so9called $Miranda ri"hts$ had not !een accorded to &amos. +s to the dan"er o )iolation o the ri"ht o any person a"ainst sel 9incrimination when the in)esti"ation is conducted !y the complainin" companies or employers, it su ices to draw attention to the speci ic and peremptory re*uirement o the law that disciplinary sanctions may not !e imposed on any employee !y his employer until and unless the employee has !een accorded due process, !y which is meant that the latter must !e in ormed o the o enses ascri!ed to him and a orded ade*uate time and opportunity to explain his side. #he re*uirement entails the makin" o statements, oral or written, !y the employee under such administrati)e in)esti"ation in his de ense, with opportunity to solicit the assistance o counsel, or his collea"ues and riends. #he employee may, o course, re use to su!mit any statement at the in)esti"ation, that is his pri)ile"e. 5ut i he should opt to do so, in his de ense to the accusation a"ainst him, it would !e a!surd to re,ect his statements, whether at the administrati)e in)esti"ation, or at a su!se*uent criminal action !rou"ht a"ainst him, !ecause he had not !een accorded, prior to his makin" and presentin" them, his $Miranda ri"hts$ Cto silence and to counsel and to !e in ormed thereo , etc.D which, to repeat, are rele)ant only in custodial in)esti"ations. %ndeed, it is sel 9e)ident that the employee.s statements, whether called $position paper,$ $answer,$ etc., are su!mitted !y him precisely so that they may !e admitted and duly considered !y the in)esti"atin" o icer or committee, in ne"ation or miti"ation o his lia!ility. 233 233ice o3 t1e 4ourt Ad5inistrator vs. Su5i#an( [Ad5inistrative Matter M6J7947989, 18 A&ri# 199$] %e-ond 4ivision, 0o6ero (J)2 ' -on-3r Facts 0ourt interpreter =elicidad Malla, who was the o icer9in9char"e rom 1 ?uly 199( to 1; 'o)em!er 199(, took a maternity lea)e or 1 month C16 'o)em!er 199( to 1; 7ecem!er 199(D and reassumed her position on 16 7ecem!er 199(, until her resi"nation on 31 +u"ust 1993. On 1 /eptem!er 1993, &e!ecca
+)an1ado assumed the position o o icer in char"e. %t was durin" her tenure on B +u"ust 1994, that an on9 the9spot audit examination was conducted !y the =iscal +udit 7i)ision o the O ice o 0ourt +dministrator. %n the course o the examination, se)eral anomalous transactions were disco)ered. One in)ol)ed a mana"er.s check deposited in the name o #eodorico 7i1on in connection with 0i)il 0ase B;B, wherein Entero 2illarica, on 6 +u"ust 199( durin" the tenure o Malla entrusted the amount o P(4-,---.-- to Malla instead o handlin" it o)er to the 0lerk o 0ourt pursuant to /upreme 0ourt 0ircular 1399(. 8hen asked to explain where the P(4-,---.-- was, Malla, explained that she deposited it at the /ta. 0ru1, >a"una !ranch o the Philippine 'ational 5ank CP'5D !ut she and ?ud"e /umilan" later withdrew it alle"edly under the !elie that 7i1on would demand the deli)ery o the money upon the termination o the case. Apon urther *uestionin" !y the examinin" team, howe)er, Malla admitted that she lent the amount o PB6,---.-- to steno9reporter Edelita >a"may, P4-,---.-- to steno9reporter 'ie)a Mercado, and PB1,---.-- to Mrs. /umilan", wi e o ?ud"e /umilan". /he spent P3(,---.-- or the hospitali1ation o her hus!and and the remainin" !alance or personal purposes. >ater on, she executed an a ida)it statin" that only >a"may and Mercado !orrowed P;;,---.-- and P4-,---.--, respecti)ely. On the other hand, she used P1--,---.-- or her personal needs. Apon learnin" that they were !ein" implicated in the anomalous transaction, >a"may executed an a ida)it statin" that the amount o P;;,---.-- was rom the personal account o Malla and not rom the P(4-,---.-- amount deposited !e ore the court and such loan has already !een paid. Mercado, on the other hand, claims that the amount o P4-,---.-- was !orrowed only two weeks !e ore the audit took place, when Malla was no lon"er employed with the court. Mrs. /umilan", or her part, denied any in)ol)ement in any o the transactions. ?ud"e +u"usto /umilan", =elicidad Malla, Edelita >a"may and 'ie)a Mercado, court employees o the Metropolitan #rial 0ourt o Pila, >a"una were char"ed in a memorandum report !y the O ice o 0ourt +dministrator dated 16 +u"ust 1994, or misappropriatin" unds deposited !y /pouses Entero 2illarica and =elicidad 7omin"o in 0i)il 0ase B;B. On ; Octo!er 1994, the /upreme 0ourt issued a resolution treatin" the memorandum report as an administrati)e complaint C+dministrati)e Matter M#?99499B9D. %n addition, a second complaint was lod"ed a"ainst Malla or remo)in" ,udicial records outside the court premises. #he 0ourt decided to include this matter in the ori"inal complaint earlier docketed as +M M#?99499B9 in a resolution dated 6 March 199;. !ssue 8hether Malla.s constitutional ri"hts were )iolated when she si"ned an a ida)it dated 14 /eptem!er 1994 !e ore the O ice o the 0ourt +dministrator, where she admitted her misdeed. "e#d #he constitutional pro)ision under /ection 1(, +rticle %%% o the 0onstitution may !e in)oked only durin" $custodial in)esti"ation$ or as in $custody in)esti"ation$ which has !een de ined as $*uestionin" initiated !y law en orcement o icers a ter a person has !een taken into custody or otherwise depri)ed o his reedom o action in any si"ni icant way.$ #he in)esti"ation is de ined as an $in)esti"ation conducted !y police authorities which will include in)esti"ation conducted !y the Municipal Police, P.0. Cnow P'PD and the '5% and such other police a"encies in our "o)ernment.$ #hus, the O ice o the 0ourt +dministrator can hardly !e deemed to !e the law en orcement authority contemplated in the constitutional pro)ision. +t any rate, Malla admitted durin" her testimony that she recei)ed the said check rom 2illarica co)erin" the amount o P(4-,---.-- paya!le to 7i1on. Howe)er, when she tried to deposit it with the Municipal #reasurer, the latter re used !ecause there was no order rom ?ud"e /umilan". 0onse*uently, 2illarica entrusted said check to her. %t was at this ,uncture that she used the money or personal purposes. 7urin" the in)esti"ation, Malla repeated what she !asically stated in her a ida)it i.e., that she used a su!stantial amount o the P(4-,---.-or her personal needs. #his e ecti)ely re utes whate)er pressure and coercion she claims was employed a"ainst her. 5y repeatin" her con ession in open court, Malla there!y con)erted it into a ,udicial con ession. 234 )a5,oa vs. 4ruz [)* '7+6291, 2$ June 1988] +n ,an-, 5adi))a (J)2 9 -on-3r, " -on-3rs 8ro 9a- vi-e Facts On 19 ?uly 1969, at a!out 6:-- a.m., 0hristopher @am!oa y @on1ales was arrested or )a"rancy, without a warrant o arrest, !y Patrolman +rturo Palencia. #herea ter, @am!oa was !rou"ht to Precinct (,
Manila, where he was !ooked or )a"rancy and then detained therein to"ether with se)eral others. #he ollowin" day, (- ?uly 1969, durin" the lineup o ; detainees, includin" @am!oa, Erlinda 5. 5ernal pointed to @am!oa and said, $that one is a companion.$ + ter the identi ication, the other detainees were !rou"ht !ack to their cell !ut @am!oa was ordered to stay on. 8hile 5ernal was !ein" interro"ated !y the police in)esti"ator, @am!oa was told to sit down in ront o her. On (3 ?uly 1969, an in ormation or ro!!ery was iled a"ainst @am!oa. On (( +u"ust 1969, @am!oa was arrai"ned. #herea ter, hearin"s were held. On ( +pril 19B-, the prosecution ormally o ered its e)idence and then rested its case. On 14 ?uly 19B-, petitioner, !y counsel, instead o presentin" his de ense, mani ested in open court that he was ilin" a Motion to +c*uit or 7emurrer to E)idence. On 13 +u"ust 19B-, @am!oa iled said Motion predicated on the "round that the conduct o the line9up, without notice to, and in the a!sence o , his counsel )iolated his constitutional ri"hts to counsel and to due process. On (3 Octo!er 19B-, the 0ourt o =irst %nstance o Manila, 5ranch OO%O, in 0riminal 0ase 466(( issued the order denyin" the Motion to +c*uit. @am!oa iled the petition or certiorari and prohi!ition, with prayer or a temporary restrainin" order. !ssue 8hether @am!oa was entitled to a counsel, as part o his ri"ht in custodial in)esti"ation, at the time he was placed in a police lineup. "e#d #he ri"ht to counsel attaches upon the start o an in)esti"ation, i.e. when the in)esti"atin" o icer starts to ask *uestions to elicit in ormation andNor con essions or admissions rom the respondentNaccused. +t such point or sta"e, the person !ein" interro"ated must !e assisted !y counsel to a)oid the pernicious practice o extortin" alse or coerced admissions or con essions rom the lips o the person under"oin" interro"ation, or the commission o an o ense. +ny person under in)esti"ation must, amon" other thin"s, !e assisted !y counsel. /ection (-, +rticle %2 o the 1963 0onstitution Csimilar "uarantees in /ection 1(, +rticle %%% o the 19B6 0onstitutionD are clear. #hey lea)e no room or e*ui)ocation. +ccordin"ly, in se)eral cases, the /upreme 0ourt has consistently held that no custodial in)esti"ation shall !e conducted unless it !e in the presence o counsel, en"a"ed !y the person arrested, or !y any person in his !ehal , or appointed !y the court upon petition either o the detainee himsel or !y anyone in his !ehal , and that, while the ri"ht may !e wai)ed, the wai)er shall not !e )alid unless made in writin" and in the presence o counsel. Howe)er, the police line9up Cat least, in this caseD was not part o the custodial in*uest, hence, @am!oa was not yet entitled, at such sta"e, to counsel. 23+ United States vs. 8ade [388 US 218, 12 June 196$] ,rennan (J) Facts #he ederally insured !ank in Eustace, #exas, was ro!!ed on (1 /eptem!er 1964. + man with a small strip o tape on each side o his ace entered the !ank, pointed a pistol at the emale cashier and the )ice president, the only persons in the !ank at the time, and orced them to ill a pillowcase with the !ank.s money. #he man then dro)e away with an accomplice who had !een waitin" in a stolen car outside the !ank. On (3 March 196;, an indictment was returned a"ainst 8ade, and two others or conspirin" to ro! the !ank, and a"ainst 8ade and the accomplice or the ro!!ery itsel . 8ade was arrested on +pril (, and counsel was appointed to represent him on +pril (6. =i teen days later an =5% a"ent, without notice to 8ade.s lawyer, arran"ed to ha)e the two !ank employees o!ser)e a lineup made up o 8ade and i)e or six other prisoners and conducted in a courtroom o the local county courthouse. Each person in the line wore strips o tape such as alle"edly worn !y the ro!!er and upon direction each said somethin" like $put the money in the !a",$ the words alle"edly uttered !y the ro!!er. 5oth !ank employees identi ied 8ade in the lineup as the !ank ro!!er. +t trial, the two employees, when asked on direct examination i the ro!!er was in the courtroom, pointed to 8ade. #he prior lineup identi ication was then elicited rom !oth employees on cross9examination. +t the close o testimony, 8ade.s counsel mo)ed or a ,ud"ment o ac*uittal or, alternati)ely, to strike the !ank o icials. courtroom identi ications on the "round that conduct o the lineup, without notice to and in the a!sence o his appointed counsel, )iolated his =i th +mendment pri)ile"e a"ainst sel 9incrimination and his /ixth +mendment ri"ht to the assistance o counsel. #he motion was denied, and 8ade was con)icted. #he
0ourt o +ppeals or the =i th 0ircuit re)ersed the con)iction and ordered a new trial at which the in9court identi ication e)idence was to !e excluded, holdin" that, thou"h the lineup did not )iolate 8ade.s =i th +mendment ri"hts, the lineup, held as it was, in the a!sence o counsel, already chosen to represent 8ade, was a )iolation o his /ixth +mendment ri"hts. !ssue 8hether 8ade was compelled to testi y himsel durin" the pretrial lineup, to which the counsel o the accused was not "i)en notice to. "e#d 'either the lineup itsel nor anythin" shown !y this record that 8ade was re*uired to do in the lineup )iolated his pri)ile"e a"ainst sel 9incrimination. #he pri)ile"e $protects an accused only rom !ein" compelled to testi y a"ainst himsel , or otherwise pro)ide the /tate with e)idence o a testimonial or communicati)e nature.$ 0ompellin" the accused merely to exhi!it his person or o!ser)ation !y a prosecution witness prior to trial in)ol)es no compulsion o the accused to "i)e e)idence ha)in" testimonial si"ni icance. %t is compulsion o the accused to exhi!it his physical characteristics, not compulsion to disclose any knowled"e he mi"ht ha)e. %t is no di erent rom compellin" /chmer!er to pro)ide a !lood sample or Holt to wear the !louse, and, as in those instances, is not within the co)er o the pri)ile"e. /imilarly, compellin" 8ade to speak within hearin" distance o the witnesses, e)en to utter words purportedly uttered !y the ro!!er, was not compulsion to utter statements o a $testimonial$ natureE he was re*uired to use his )oice as an identi yin" physical characteristic, not to speak his "uilt. #he 0ourt held in /chmer!er that the distinction to !e drawn under the =i th +mendment pri)ile"e a"ainst sel 9incrimination is one !etween an accused.s $communications$ in whate)er orm, )ocal or physical, and $compulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source o Preal or physical e)idence..$ #he 0ourt reco"ni1ed that $!oth ederal and state courts ha)e usually held that Kthe pri)ile"eL o ers no protection a"ainst compulsion to su!mit to in"erprintin", photo"raphy, or measurements, to write or speak or identi ication, to appear in court, to stand, to assume a stance, to walk, or to make a particular "esture.$ 'one o these acti)ities !ecomes testimonial within the scope o the pri)ile"e !ecause re*uired o the accused in a pretrial lineup. Howe)er, the /ixth +mendment "uarantees an accused the ri"ht to counsel not only at his trial !ut at any critical con rontation !y the prosecution at pretrial proceedin"s where the results mi"ht well determine his ate and where the a!sence o counsel mi"ht dero"ate rom his ri"ht to a air trial. #he post9indictment lineup Cunlike such preparatory steps as analy1in" in"erprints and !lood samplesD was a critical prosecuti)e sta"e at which respondent was entitled to the aid o counsel. #here is a "reat possi!ility o un airness to the accused at that point, C1D !ecause o the manner in which con rontations or identi ication are re*uently conducted, C(D !ecause o dan"ers inherent in eyewitness identi ication and su""esti!ility inherent in the context o the con rontations, and C3D !ecause o the likelihood that the accused will o ten !e precluded rom reconstructin" what occurred and there!y o!tainin" a ull hearin" on the identi ication issue at trial. #his case illustrates the potential or improper in luence on witnesses throu"h the lineup procedure, since the !ank employees were allowed to see respondent in the custody o =5% a"ents !e ore the lineup !e"an. #he presence o counsel at the lineup will si"ni icantly promote airness at the con rontation and a ull hearin" at trial on the issue o identi ication. =urther, in9court identi ication !y a witness to whom the accused was exhi!ited !e ore trial in the a!sence o counsel must !e excluded unless it can !e esta!lished that such e)idence had an independent ori"in or that error in its admission was harmless. /ince it is not clear that the 0ourt o +ppeals applied the prescri!ed rule o exclusion, and since the nature o the in9court identi ications here was not an issue in the trial and cannot !e determined on the record, the case must !e remanded to the 7istrict 0ourt or resolution o these issues. 236 %eo&#e vs. 9scordia# [)* 13893473+, 16 Januar- 2..2] +n ,an-, Mendoza (J)2 "' -on-3r Facts +t around B p.m. o (6 7ecem!er 1996, ?ason ?onie"a, Mark Esmeralda and Mark >ucena were playin" inside a ,eepney parked in ront o a !oardin" house owned !y Pacita +"uillon at 'o. 16 Mar"arita Extension, >i!ertad /t., Purok +melia (, 5aran"ay 4-, 5acolod 0ity. +s one o them hit his head on the rails o the ,eepney, the !oys were told !y a man sittin" inside the ,eepney to "o home lest they would meet an
accident. #he man was later identi ied !y ?onie"a and Esmeralda as +nthony Escordial. >i)in" in a !oardin" house in ront o which the ,eepney was parked were Michelle 7arunday, Erma 5lanca, and Ma. #eresa @ella)er. 8hile the three were asleep, Erma was awakened !y the presence o a man. #he man had his head co)ered with a t9shirt to pre)ent identi ication and carried a kni e a!out our inches lon". Michelle and #eresa were awakened therea ter. #he man was a!le to "et P;--.-- rom Erma and P3,1--.-- rom Michelle. + ter "ettin" their money, the man "a)e a t9shirt to Erma to !lind old #eresa and another to Michelle to !lind old Erma. He !lind olded Michelle himsel and then !e"an touchin" her in di erent parts o her !ody. #he man succeeded in insertin" his penis into Michelle.s )a"ina. +lthou"h Michelle was !lind olded and could not see, she could eel that the man had no co)er on his ace when he was rapin" her. /he elt that his chest was rou"h and had some scars. 8hen he placed her hands on his nape, she elt that it was also rou"h. On the other hand, Erma claimed she was a!le to see throu"h her !lind old and that she saw the man.s ace !ecause o the li"ht comin" rom the lamp post outside the !oardin" house. + ter he had inished rapin" Michelle, the man sat on the !ed and talked to the three women. + ter a while, the man told Michelle he wanted to ha)e sex with her a"ain. Michelle pleaded with him, !ut the man threatened to call his companions and said it would !e worse or her i his companions would !e the ones to rape her. He ordered Michelle to lie on her stomach and then inserted his penis into her anus. 8hen he was throu"h, he "a)e Michelle a !lanket to co)er hersel and returned to her a pair o earrin"s which he had taken rom her. He then le t, !ut not !e ore warnin" the women not to report the matter to anyone or he would kill them. Michelle, Erma, and #eresa were so ri"htened that they were not a!le to ask or help until 3- minutes a ter the man had le t. #hey told their nei"h!or, #iyo +non", that a man had come to the house and ro!!ed them. #hey also called up +llan +"uillon, the son o the owner o the !oardin" house, who in turn reported the incident to the police. 8hen the policemen arri)ed, they asked Michelle to descri!e the attacker, !ut she told them that she could only identi y his )oice and his eyes. +ccompanied !y the police, the three women looked or the man around the >i!ertad area, !ut they did not ind him. Michelle, Erma, and #eresa were taken to the police station at 5ac9Ap or in)esti"ation. 5ut, at Michelle.s re*uest, Erma and #eresa did not tell the others that Michelle had !een raped !y their attacker. Apon returnin" home, Michelle ound her aunt and uncle. /he em!raced her aunt and told her a!out her ordeal. Michelle was a"ain taken to the police head*uarters, where she was re erred to the 8omen.s 7esk to report the rape. #hey were a!le to "o home to the house o Michelle.s aunt at around ; to 6 p.m. #he ollowin" day, P-3 'icolas #ancinco went around Mar"arita Extension and learned a!out the children playin" on the street around the time the intruder entered the !oardin" house. #he description o the suspect itted that o a worker at a ca Q called 0o ee 5reak 0orner, a!out two houses away rom the !oardin" house. On ( ?anuary 1996, #ancinco and some companions proceeded to the 0o ee 5reak 0orner and inter)iewed the security "uard, who told them that a certain =idel Hinolan owned the ca Q. 8hen inter)iewed !y #ancinco and his companions, =idel Hinolan told them that Escordial was his helper and that the latter had "one home on (6 7ecem!er 1996 to 5aran"ay Miranda, Ponte)edra, 'e"ros Occidental. 5ased on the in ormation urnished !y Hinolan, #ancinco and his ellow police o icers, Michelle 7arunday, +llan +"uillon, and Pacita +"uillon went to 5aran"ay Miranda, Ponte)edra, 'e"ros Occidental at around 1- a.m. o 3 ?anuary 1996 and asked the assistance o the police there to locate Escordial. PO( &odol o @emarino asked one o his collea"ues at the Ponte)edra police to accompany #ancinco and his companions. #hey ound Escordial at the !asket!all court and $in)ited$ him to "o to the police station or *uestionin". He was trans erred to the 5acolod police station or urther in)esti"ation. +t the 5acolod police station, Erma 5lanca, Ma. #eresa @ella)er, ?ason ?onie"a, and Mark Esmeralda were asked whether Escordial was the same person they saw on the ni"ht o the incident. #hey were taken one !y one to the ,ail cell and asked to point to the person that they had seen that ni"ht. #hey picked Escordial out o our people who were inside the ,ail cell. Escordial was char"ed with the crime o rape in 0riminal 0ase 9691B116. He was also char"ed with ro!!ery with rape in 0riminal 0ase 9691B11B. 8hen arrai"ned on (; =e!ruary 1996, Escordial pleaded not "uilty to the char"es, whereupon the two cases were ,ointly tried. On (6 =e!ruary 1999, the trial court rendered a decision, indin" Escordial "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t o the crime o &o!!ery with &ape, the commission o which !ein" attended !y three a""ra)atin" circumstances o C1D ni"httimeE C(D that the crime was committed in the dwellin" o the o ended party, and C3D that cra t, raud and dis"uise were employed !y the accused in the commission o the crime under para"raphs 3, 6, and 14 o +rticle 14 o the &e)ised Penal 0ode. #he court sentenced Escordial to the
maximum penalty o death, and condemned him to pay 7arunday the sum o P3,6;-.--, representin" the money taken !y the accusedE P;-,---.-- as moral dama"es, P3-,---.-- as exemplary dama"es, and the costs. Escordial appealed. !ssue 8hether the out9o 9court identi ication in the show up at the police station, made a ter the start o the custodial in)esti"ation, may !e used in court. "e#d 8hile it cannot !e denied that Escordial was depri)ed o his ri"ht to !e in ormed o his ri"hts to remain silent and to ha)e competent and independent counsel, he has not shown that, as a result o his custodial interro"ation, the police o!tained any statement rom him R whether inculpatory or exculpatory 9 which was used in e)idence a"ainst him. 'o uncounseled statement was o!tained rom Escordial which should ha)e !een excluded as e)idence a"ainst him. Howe)er, Escordial was ne)er assisted !y counsel, whether o his own choice or pro)ided !y the police o icers, rom the time o his arrest in Ponte)edra, 'e"ros Occidental to the time o his continued detention at the 5acolod police station. +lthou"h Escordial made no statement durin" this time, this act remains important inso ar as it a ects the admissi!ility o the out9o 9court identi ication o Escordial !y the prosecution witnesses, namely, Michelle 7arunday, Erma 5lanca, Ma. #eresa @ella)er, Mark Esmeralda, and ?ason ?onie"a. +s a rule, an accused is not entitled to the assistance o counsel in a police line9up considerin" that such is usually not a part o the custodial in*uest. Howe)er, the pre)ious cases are di erent inasmuch as Escordial, ha)in" !een the ocus o attention !y the police a ter he had !een pointed to !y a certain &amie as the possi!le perpetrator o the crime, was already under custodial in)esti"ation when these out9o 9court identi ications were conducted !y the police. +n out9o 9court identi ication o an accused can !e made in )arious ways. %n a show9up, the accused alone is !rou"ht ace to ace with the witness or identi ication, while in a police line9up, the suspect is identi ied !y a witness rom a "roup o persons "athered or that purpose. 7urin" custodial in)esti"ation, these types o identi ication ha)e !een reco"ni1ed as $critical con rontations o the accused !y the prosecution$ which necessitate the presence o counsel or the accused. #his is !ecause the results o these pre9trial proceedin"s $mi"ht well settle the accused.s ate and reduce the trial itsel to a mere ormality.$ #he 0ourt thus ruled that any identi ication o an uncounseled accused made in a police line9up, or in a show9up or that matter, a ter the start o the custodial in)esti"ation is inadmissi!le as e)idence a"ainst him. Herein, Escordial was identi ied !y Michelle 7arunda in a show9up on 3 ?anuary 1996 and !y Erma 5lanca, Ma. #eresa @ella)er, ?ason ?onie"a, and Mark Esmeralda in a police line9up on )arious dates a ter his arrest. Ha)in" !een made when Escordial did not ha)e the assistance o counsel, these out9o 9court identi ications are inadmissi!le in e)idence a"ainst him. 0onse*uently, the testimonies o these witnesses re"ardin" these identi ications should ha)e !een held inadmissi!le or !ein" $the direct result o the ille"al lineup .come at !y exploitation o Kthe primaryL ille"ality..$ 23$ %eo&#e vs. %iedad [)* 131923, + /ece5,er 2..2] 7irs# 4ivision, nares/%an#igao (J)2 : -on-3r, " on o**i-ia) )eave Facts On 1- +pril 1996, at around 11 p.m., >u1 >actawan le t her house at 'o. ( /cout 5ayoran, 5aran"ay /outh #rian"le, Fue1on 0ity, to ollow Mateo, her hus!and, who had earlier "one. +s she was walkin" !y the "ate o the company compound where they reside, she heard =idel Pi*uero shoutin" or help !ecause Mateo was !ein" mauled !y a "roup o men. /he rushed out o the compound and saw her hus!and !ein" !eaten up !y 'iel Piedad, &ichard Palma, >ito @arcia and i)e others. /he tried to paci y the a""ressors, !ut was !eaten hersel . >u1 em!raced Mateo in an e ort to protect him. %t was then that 'iel picked up a lar"e stone, measurin" a!out a oot and a hal , and struck MateoGs head with it. #hen, >ito approached MateoGs side and sta!!ed him at the !ack, while &ichard hit Mateo in the ace. Mateo was rushed to the East +)enue Medical 0enter where he later died !ecause o the in,uries he sustained. 'iel Piedad y 0onsolacion, >ito @arcia y =rancisco and &ichard Palma y %der were char"ed with Murder. Apon arrai"nment, all the accused pleaded not "uilty to the char"e. #rial ensued therea ter. #he trial court rendered a decision, indin" Piedad and @arcia "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t o the crime o murder with no modi yin" circumstances present, and
sentenced each o them to su er the penalty o reclusion perpetua pursuant to +rticle (4B o the &e)ised Penal 0ode. Piedad and @arcia were likewise held solidarily lia!le to indemni y the heirs o the )ictim Mateo >actawan in the sum o P;-,---.--. &ichard Palma was ac*uitted on the "round o reasona!le dou!t. Piedad and @arcia appealed. !ssue 8hether the way that Piedad was identi ied !y prosecution witnesses was su""esti)e and atally lawedE that Piedad should ha)e !een put in a police lineup instead o !ein" sho)eled into a Icon rontationJ with the alle"ed witnesses and immediately sin"led out !y the police as suspects. "e#d #he claim !y the de ense that PiedadGs pre9trial identi ication was su""esti)e due to the a!sence o a police lineup is more theoretical than real. %t must !e pointed out that e)en !e ore the incident, >u1 >actawan knew the accused. =idel, on the other hand, knew Piedad !ecause they played !asket!all to"ether. Hence, the witnesses were not identi yin" persons whom they were un amiliar with, where ar"ua!ly, improper su""estion may set in. On the contrary, when the accused were presented !e ore the witnesses, they were simply asked to con irm whether they were the ones responsi!le or the crime perpetrated. #he witnesses did not incriminate the accused simply !ecause they were the only ones presented !y the police, rather, the witnesses were certain they reco"ni1ed the perpetrators o the crime. 5esides, there is no law which re*uires a police lineup !e ore a suspect can !e identi ied as the culprit o a crime. 8hat is important is that the prosecution witnesses positi)ely identi y the persons char"ed as the male actors. %n this re"ard, the 0ourt inds no reason to dou!t the )eracity o >u1Gs and =idelGs testimony. #he records show that >u1 and =idel positi)ely, cate"orically and unhesitatin"ly identi ied Piedad as the one who struck Mateo on the head with a stone, and @arcia as the one who sta!!ed Mateo on the !ack, there!y in lictin" traumatic head in,uries and a sta! wound which e)entually led to MateoGs death. %ndeed, i amily mem!ers who ha)e witnessed the killin" o a lo)ed one usually stri)e to remem!er the aces o the assailants, the 0ourt sees no reason how a wi e, who witnessed the )iolence in licted upon her hus!and and who e)entually died !y reason thereo , could ha)e done any less. %t must !e stressed that >u1 was ri"ht !eside her hus!and when the concrete stone was struck on his head, hence, >u1 could not ha)e mistaken the identity o the person responsi!le or the attack. /he was only a oot away rom Piedad !e ore the latter hit Mateo on the head. @arcia on the other hand was identi ied !y !oth >u1 and =idel as the one who was shirtless at the time o the incident. #here was li"ht rom a !ul! ; meters away rom the scene o the crime. Experience dictates that precisely !ecause o the unusual acts o )iolence committed ri"ht !e ore their eyes, eyewitnesses can remem!er with a hi"h de"ree o relia!ility the identity o the criminals at any "i)en time. Hence, the proximity and attention a orded the witnesses, coupled with the relati)e illumination o the surroundin" area, !olsters the credi!ility o identi ication o Piedad, et. al. 'either is the lack o counsel durin" the pre9trial identi ication process o Piedad, et. al. atal. Piedad, et. al. did not make any extra,udicial con ession or admission with re"ard to the crime char"ed. 8hile Piedad and @arcia may ha)e !een suspects, they were certainly not interro"ated !y the police authorities, much less orced to con ess to the crime imputed a"ainst them. Piedad and @arcia were not under custodial in)esti"ation. %n act, Piedad a)erred durin" cross9examination that the police ne)er allowed them to say anythin" at the police station on the day they )oluntarily presented themsel)es to the authorities. 238 Ma(toto vs. Man(uera [)* '73$2.17.2, 3 Marc1 19$+]: a#so Si5eon vs. ;i##a#uz [)* '73$424] and %eo&#e vs. !snani [)* '738929] +n ,an-, 7ernandez (J)2 6 -on-3r Facts No 8re)i6inar1 *a-#s are avai)a;)e in #9e ;od1 o* #9e -ase. ?ud"e Mi"uel M. Man"uera o the 0ourt o =irst %nstance C5ranch %%D o Occidental Mindoro Cin @& >936(-19-(D and ?ud"e ?ud"e Ono tre +. 2illalu1 o the 0riminal 0ircuit 0ourt o Pasi", &i1al Cin @& >9364(4D declarede admissi!le the con essions o the accused in said cases C0lemente Ma"toto in @& >936(-19-(E and Maximo /imeon, >ouis Mednatt, %nocentes 7e >una, &u!en Miranda, +l onso 5allesteros, &udol o /uare1, Manuel Manalo, +l!erto @a!ion, and &a ael 5rill in @& >9364(4D. 7istrict ?ud"e +saali /. %snani o 0ourt o =irst %nstance C5ranch %%D o Mam!oan"a de /ur Cin @& >93B9(BD, on the other hand, declared inadmissi!le the con essions o the accused in said case
C2icente >on"akit and ?aime 7alionD, althou"h they ha)e not !een in ormed o their ri"ht to remain silent and to counsel !e ore they "a)e the con essions, !ecause they were "i)en !e ore the e ecti)ity o the 1963 0onstitution. Petitions or certiorari were iled with the /upreme 0ourt. !ssue 8hether the ri"ht to counsel and to !e in ormed in such ri"ht, incorporated in /ection (-, +rticle %2 o the 1963 0onstitution, applies prospecti)ely or retroacti)ely. "e#d /ection (-, +rticle %2 o the 1963 0onstitution "ranted, or the irst time, to a person under in)esti"ation or the commission o an o ense, the ri"ht to counsel and to !e in ormed o such ri"ht. +nd the last sentence thereo which, in e ect, means that any con ession o!tained in )iolation o this ri"ht shall !e inadmissi!le in e)idence, can and should !e "i)en e ect only when the ri"ht already existed and had !een )iolated. 0onse*uently, !ecause the con essions o the accused in @&s >936(-19-(, 364(4 and 3B9(9 were taken !e ore the e ecti)ity o the 1963 0onstitution in accordance with the rules then in orce, no ri"ht had !een )iolated as to render them inadmissi!le in e)idence althou"h they were not in ormed o $their ri"ht to remain silent and to counsel,$ $and to !e in ormed o such ri"ht,$ !ecause, no such ri"ht existed at the time. #he ar"ument that the second para"raph o +rticle 1(; o the &e)ised Penal 0ode, which was added !y &epu!lic +ct 1-B3 enacted in 19;4, which reads that $%n e)ery case, the person detained shall !e in ormed o the cause o his detention and shall !e allowed, upon his re*uest, to communicate and con er at anytime with his attorney or counsel,$ impliedly "ranted to a detained person the ri"ht to counsel and to !e in ormed o such ri"ht, is untena!le. #he only ri"ht "ranted !y said para"raph to a detained person was to !e in ormed o the cause o his detention. 5ut he must make a re*uest or him to !e a!le to claim the ri"ht to communicate and con er with counsel at any time. #he historical !ack"round o /ection (-, +rticle %2 o the 1963 0onstitution shows that the new ri"ht "ranted therein to a detained person to counsel and to !e in ormed o such ri"ht under pain o his con ession !ein" declared inadmissi!le in e)idence, has and should !e "i)en a prospecti)e and not a retroacti)e e ect. =urthermore, to "i)e a retroacti)e e ect to this constitutional "uarantee to counsel would ha)e a "reat unsettlin" e ect on the administration o ,ustice in this country. %t may lead to the ac*uittal o "uilty indi)iduals and thus cause in,ustice to the People and the o ended parties in many criminal cases where con essions were o!tained !e ore the e ecti)ity o the 1963 0onstitution and in accordance with the rules then in orce althou"h without assistance o counsel. #he 0onstitutional 0on)ention could not ha)e intended such a disastrous conse*uence in the administration o ,ustice. =or i the cause o ,ustice su ers when an innocent person is con)icted, it e*ually su ers when a "uilty one is ac*uitted. 239 %eo&#e vs. %a(e [)* '73$+.$, $ June 19$$] %e-ond 4ivision, A<3ino (J)2 : -on-3r, " -on-3rs in res3)#, " designa#ed #o si# in %e-ond 4ivision, " on )eave Facts +t around 4:-- p.m. o 13 =e!ruary 196(, 0risanto 0amposano, alias 5oy /an"kay, a resident o 5a"on" %lo", 5aclaran, ParaSa*ue, &i1al, went to the house o 8illiam Pa"e y A!ina located at 143 Pildira /treet, near the Manila %nternational +irport, Pasay 0ity. #hey were riends since !oyhood. Pa"e was an 1B9 year old third year hi"h school student at the +rellano Ani)ersity in Pasay 0ity. =rom Pa"e.s house, the two went to 0amposano.s house, where they met the latter.s ather who was drinkin" with a companion. 0amposano.s ather "a)e Pa"e some li*uor to drink. Pa"e and 0amposano stayed at the latter.s house up to 1-:-- p.m. +t past 1-, Pa"e and 0amposano went to the rotonda or intersection o #a t +)enue and =. 5. Harrison 5oule)ard, where they !oarded a Manila9!ound ,eepney. Pa"e was armed with a !alison" kni e. 0amposano had a re)ol)er. Pa"e seated himsel !eside a male passen"er who was near the dri)er on the ront seat. 0amposano took a seat at the !ack o the ,eepney where two emale passen"ers were seated. C#he male passen"er turned out to !e &andol /cot, a 3-9year old employee o the Hyatt &e"ency Hotel who was on his way to work. #he emale passen"ers were the sisters, 2eronica 2illa)erde95alacapo and 0esarea 2illa)erdeD. 8ith the ,eepney was in ront o the /an +ntonio /a)in"s 5ank on Harrison 5oule)ard, Pa"e and 0amposano told the dri)er to turn le t on &ussel +)enue, "oin" to M. &oxas 5oule)ard, and then to turn le t "oin" to ParaSa*ue. #here, they held up the dri)er and the three passen"ers. #hey "ot the money and pieces o ,ewelry
o the passen"ers and the dri)er. 8hen the ,eepney was in ront o 0asa Marcos and El Presidente Hotel, one o the women C2eronica 5alacapoD ,umped out o the ,eepney. C#he hus!and o one o the women was a waiter at 0asa MarcosD. #he other woman C0esarea 2illa)erdeD shouted. 0amposano kicked her, thus causin" her to all out o the ,eepney. #hen, the two directed the dri)er to proceed to the airport. + ter the Pa"e and 0amposano told the dri)er to stop Cat Pildira /treet, accordin" to Pa"eE or at 5altao /treet near the airport, accordin" to /cotD, the two male actors led to a dark alley. 5alacapo was !rou"ht to the Philippine @eneral Hospital !y a "ood /amaritan, Manolo 7a)al /antos. /he was already dead when she reached the hospital. 2illa)erde was !rou"ht to the Ospital n" Maynila. #he record is not clear as to whether she sur)i)ed. /cot and the dri)er reported the holdup to the police o ParaSa*ue at 11:-- p.m. >ieutenant 0asiano Eu"enio, the precinct commander, showed them a photo"raph o 0amposano. 7illa and /cot identi ied him as one o the two hoodlums. Eu"enio and the two ro!!ery )ictims repaired to the residence o 0amposano at 5a"on" %lo", 5aclaran. #hey saw 0amposano, whom 7illa in"ered, !ut 0amposano ired shots at them and was a!le to elude pursuit due to the darkness o the ni"ht. He was killed !y the Pasay 0ity policemen while he was committin" another crime. #he next day policemen went to Pa"e.s residence near the airport to apprehend him. He was not there. His ather, in the presence o his aunt, promised to surrender him. Pa"e was arrested in the mornin" o (4 =e!ruary 196( at the ?ose +!ad /antos Hi"h /chool o the +rellano Ani)ersity in Pasay 0ity. %n the a ternoon o that day, his statement was taken down !y Patrolman 0. Prepena and sworn to !e ore the municipal ,ud"e. On (; =e!ruary 196(, the chie o police iled a complaint or ro!!ery with murder in the municipal court o ParaSa*ue a"ainst 0amposano and ?ohn 7oe C0riminal 0ase 3--39D. #he complaint was !ased on the in)esti"ation o 7illa and /cot. Pa"e did not present any e)idence at the preliminary in)esti"ation. #he case was remanded to the 0ourt o =irst %nstance where the iscal iled an in ormation or ro!!ery with homicide a"ainst Pa"e and 0amposano. + ter trial and on (1 ?uly 1963, the trial court rendered the ,ud"ment con)ictin" Pa"e o ro!!ery with homicide, sentencin" him to reclusion perpetua, and orderin" him to pay the heirs o 2eronica 2illa)erde95alacapo an indemnity o P1(,--- plus P(-,--- as moral dama"es. Pa"e appealed. !ssue 8hether Pa"eGs con ession, without o!ser)in" the re*uisites in /ection (- o +rticle %2, !e admissi!le as e)idence. "e#d Pa"e admitted that when he was !rou"ht !e ore the municipal ,ud"e or the administration o the oath on his con ession, he could ha)e complained to the latter a!out the alle"ed maltreatment. He did not complain. #he con ession was )oluntary. 0ertain details ound in the con ession are stron" indicia o its authenticity. Pa"e speci ied therein that his residence was at 143 Pildira /treet, an address which ,i!es with the address in his school recordE that his maternal surname is A!iSaE that he met 0amposano at 4:-- p.m. o 13 =e!ruary 196(E that they went to 0amposano.s residence, where Pa"e was "i)en li*uor !y 0amposano.s atherE that he directed the dri)er to ollow a certain routeE that 0amposano was rom /orso"onE that Pa"e was ac*uainted with some hoodlums, and that Pa"e was char"ed with the t. #hese details would not ha)e !een em!odied in the con ession had not Pa"e reely disclosed them to the police. Pa"e.s con ession, ha)in" !een taken !e ore the 1963 0onstitution took e ect, is admissi!le althou"h the re*uisites in section (- o +rticle %2 were not o!ser)ed, in line with the rulin" in Ma"toto )s. Man"uera C@& >936(-19(, 3 March 196;D. 24. %eo&#e vs. 4a(uioa [)* '7389$+, 1$ Januar- 198.] +n ,an-, 7ernando ((J)2 & -on-3r, " -on-3rs in res3)# Facts #he Pro)incial =iscal o 5ulacan iled on 14 /eptem!er 1963, in the 0ourt o =irst %nstance o 5ulacan, an in ormation or murder a"ainst Pa*uito 3upo y @on1ales C0riminal 0ase 14692963D, with the case, a ter the ra le, !ein" assi"ned to 5ranch 2%%%, presided !y ?ud"e Eduardo P. 0a"uioa. Apon arrai"nment on ; Octo!er 1963, 3upo pleaded not "uilty. #he trial o the case then proceeded, the prosecution ha)in" presented 6 witnesses, includin" the ather o the deceased, Mi"uel #ri!ol, and his common9law wi e, >ydia 5e"notia, who alle"edly recei)ed the ante mortem statement o the )ictim, &odol o #ri!ol. #hen, at the hearin" on 3 ?une 1964, the prosecution presented 0orporal 0onrado &oca o the Meycauayan Police
7epartment, !e ore whom a written statement o 3upo and his alle"ed wai)er o his ri"ht to remain silent and to !e assisted !y a counsel o his own choice was taken. + ter this witness had identi ied the statement o 3upo and the wai)er, he was *uestioned on the incriminatin" answers in such statement to the police, !ut there was an o!,ection on the part o the de ense counsel !ased on the "round o such statement !ein" inadmissi!le in e)idence, as the statement was taken !y the police without any counsel assistin" the accused in the in)esti"ation. ?ud"e 0a"uioa sustained the o!,ection o the de ense on the )iew that such ,udicial con ession o the accused is inadmissi!le in e)idence or !ein" unconstitutional, it appearin" that the accused was not assisted !y a counsel when it was "i)en. He likewise stated that such ri"ht could not !e wai)ed. Apon his re usal to reconsider such rulin", the petition or certiorari was iled. !ssue 8hether the ri"ht to remain silent and ri"ht to counsel durin" custodial in)esti"ation may !e wai)ed. "e#d 8hile there could !e a wai)er o the ri"hts o an accused, it must !e intelli"ently wai)ed, otherwise a court.s ,urisdiction startin" at the !e"innin" o the trial may !e lost in the course o the proceedin". /tatements made durin" the period o custodial interro"ation to !e admissi!le re*uire a clear intelli"ent wai)er o constitutional ri"hts, the suspect !ein" warned prior to *uestionin" that he has a ri"ht to remain silent, that any utterance may !e used a"ainst him, and that he has the ri"ht to the presence o a counsel, either retained or appointed. #he prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemmin" rom custodial interro"ation o the de endant unless it demonstrates the use o procedural sa e"uards e ecti)e to secure the pri)ile"e a"ainst sel 9incrimination. 5y custodial interro"ation, we mean *uestionin" initiated !y law en orcement o icers a ter a person has !een taken into custody or otherwise depri)ed o his reedom o action in any si"ni icant way. +s or the procedural sa e"uards to !e employed, unless other ully e ecti)e means are de)ised to in orm accused persons o their ri"ht o silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the ollowin" measures are re*uired. Prior to any *uestionin", the person must !e warned that he has a ri"ht to remain silent, that any statement he does not make may !e used as e)idence a"ainst him, and that he has a ri"ht to the presence o an attorney, either retained or appointed. #he de endant may wai)e e ectuation o those ri"hts, pro)ided the wai)er is made )oluntarily, knowin"ly and intelli"ently. % , howe)er, he indicates in any manner and at any sta"e o the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney !e ore speakin", there can !e no *uestionin". >ikewise, i the indi)idual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to !e interro"ated, the police may not *uestion him. #he mere act that he may ha)e answered some *uestions or )olunteered some statements on his own does not depri)e him o the ri"ht to re rain rom answerin" any urther in*uiries until he has consulted with an attorney and therea ter consents to !e *uestioned. #ested !y such a clear and une*ui)ocal standard, the alle"ed wai)er herein alls ar short. 3upo merely answered in a monosylla!ic $Opo$ to 0orporal 0onrado 5. &oca o the Police =orce o Meycauayan, worded thus: $%pinaaalam ko sa iyo na ikaw ay sinisiyasat tun"kol sa isan" pa"la!a" sa !atas na iyon" "inawa, !a"o ko ipa"patuloy an" pa"tatanon" sa iyo, ikaw ay may karapatan na huwa" ma"salita kun" ayaw mo at may karapatan ka rin na ma"karoon n" a!o"ado na iyon" "usto, at dapat mo rin" ma!atid na anuman an" sa!ihin mo dito ay maaarin" "amitin n" ayon o la!an sa iyo, ma"sasalaysay ka pa rin !aT$ and that was all. 241 %eo&#e vs. 6a5&us [)* '74469., 28 Marc1 198.] +n ,an-, A<3ino (J)2 & -on-3r, " #oo! no 8ar# Facts +t around 1-:-- a.m. o 14 ?anuary 1966, 0elso /aminado, a prisoner in the national penitentiary at Muntinlupa, &i1al and a patient in the emer"ency ward o the prison hospital, went to the toilet to answer a call o nature and to etch water. ?ose #ampus y Ponce and &odol o +)ila, prisoners in the same penal institution, who were tu!ercular patients in the hospital, ollowed /aminado to the toilet and, !y means o their !laded weapons, assaulted him. #ampus in licted B incised wounds on /aminado while +)ila sta!!ed him nine times. /aminado died upon arri)al at 11:-- a.m. on that same mornin" in the prison hospital. + ter emer"in" rom the toilet, #ampus and +)ila surrendered to a prison "uard with their kni)es. #hey told the "uard: $/urrender po kami, sir. @umanti lan" po kami.$ #he moti)e o the killin" was re)en"e. #ampus and
+)ila, !oth mem!ers o the Oxo "an", a)en"ed the sta!!in" o Eduardo &osales Calso a mem!er o the Oxo "an"D in 7ecem!er 196; !y a mem!er o the 5atan" Mindanao "an", a "roup hostile to the Oxo "an". /aminado was a mem!er o the 5atan" Mindanao "an". #he o icer o the day in)esti"ated the incident ri"ht away. %n his written report su!mitted on the same day when the tra"ic occurrence transpired, he stated that, accordin" to his on9the9spot in)esti"ation, +)ila sta!!ed /aminado when the latter was seated in the com ort room and his !ack was turned to +)ila, while #ampus sta!!ed the )ictim on the chest and neck. #wo days a ter the killin", or on ?anuary 16, another prison "uard in)esti"ated #ampus and +)ila and o!tained their extra,udicial con essions wherein they admitted that they assaulted /aminado. #ampus and +)ila were char"ed or murder !e ore the 0ourt o =irst %nstance o &i1al, Makati 5ranch 36 C0riminal 0ase 1B;1-D. + ter trial, the court con)icted #ampus or murder, sentencin" him to death and orderin" him to pay the heirs o the )ictim, 0elso /aminado, an indemnity o P1(,---.--. %n the same decision, &odol o +)ila, the co9 accused o #ampus, was con)icted o the same o ense and was sentenced to su er imprisonment o 14 years and B months o reclusion temporal as minimum to (- years o reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay the same indemnity. +)ila did not appeal. C+)ila was sentenced to death, to"ether with =rankisio +ro and Pedro >asala, in another case, 0riminal 0ase 11B6. #he death sentence is under re)iew in @& >93B141D. #he present automatic re)iew in)ol)es #ampus. con)iction. !ssue 8hether the IcustodialJ in)esti"ation pursued !y >aho1, where alle"edly #ampus was not in ormed as to his ri"hts to ha)e counsel and to remain silent, ne"ates the extra9,udicial con ession made !y #ampus in the killin" o /aminado. "e#d +s the con ession in the present case was o!tained a ter the 1963 0onstitution took e ect, section (- o +rticle %2 applies thereto. #here is no dou!t that the con ession was )oluntarily made. %n)esti"ator 5uena)entura de la 0uesta in takin" it endea)ored, accordin" to his understandin", to comply with section (-. E)en considerin" that 2i)encio 0. >aho1 in)esti"ated the killin" two days !e ore the con ession was taken !y in)esti"ator de la 0uesta on 16 ?anuary 1966 and that alle"edly durin" said custodial interro"ation #ampus was not in ormed as to his ri"hts to ha)e counsel and to remain silent, #ampus and +)ila had already admitted it when, a ter comin" out o the toilet, the scene o the crime, they surrendered to &eynaldo /. Eusta*uio, the irst "uard whom they encountered, and they re)ealed to him that they had committed an act o re)en"e. #hat spontaneous statement, elicited without any interro"ation, was part o the res "estae and at the same time was a )oluntary con ession o "uilt. 'ot only thatE the two accused, !y means o that statement "i)en reely on the spur o the moment without any ur"in" or su""estion, wai)ed their ri"ht to remain silent and to ha)e the ri"ht to counsel. #hat admission was con irmed !y their extra,udicial con ession, plea o "uilty and testimony in court. #hey did not appeal rom the ,ud"ment o con)iction. %t is urther contended that a ter the iscal had presented the prosecution.s e)idence and when counsel de o icio called upon #ampus to testi y, the trial court should ha)e ad)ised him o his constitutional ri"ht to remain silent. #hat contention is not well9taken considerin" that #ampus pleaded "uilty and had executed an extra,udicial con ession. #he court durin" the trial is not duty9!ound to apprise the accused that he has the ri"ht to remain silent. %t is his counsel who should claim that ri"ht or him. % he does not claim it and he calls the accused to the witness stand, then he wai)es that ri"ht. %t should !e stressed that, howe)er, e)en without takin" into account #ampus. admission o "uilt, con ession, plea o "uilty and testimony, the crime was pro)en !eyond reasona!le dou!t !y the e)idence o the prosecution. 242 %eo&#e vs. )a#it [)* +1$$., 2. Marc1 198+] +n ,an-, (on-e8-ion (J)2 "= -on-3r, " #oo! no 8ar# Facts %n the mornin" o (3 +u"ust 1916, Mrs. 'ati)idad =ernando, a widow, was ound dead in the !edroom o her house located at 5arrio @eronimo, Montal!an, &i1al, as a result o 6 wounded in licted upon di erent parts o her !ody !y a !lunt instrument. More than ( weeks therea ter, police authorities o Montal!an picked up =rancisco @alit, an ordinary construction worker CpionD li)in" in Marikina, &i1al, or suspicion o the murder. On the ollowin" day, howe)er, B /eptem!er 1966, the case was re erred to the
'ational 5ureau o %n)esti"ation C'5%D or urther in)esti"ation in )iew o the alle"ed limited acilities o the Montal!an police station. +ccordin"ly, @alit was !rou"ht to the '5% where he was in)esti"ated !y a team headed !y '5% +"ent 0arlos =lores. '5% +"ent =lores conducted a preliminary inter)iew o the suspect who alle"edly "a)e e)asi)e answers to his *uestions. 5ut the ollowin" day, 9 /eptem!er 1966, =rancisco @alit alle"edly )oluntarily executed a /alaysay admittin" participation in the commission o the crime. He implicated ?ulin" 7ulay and Pa!lin" 7ulay as his companions in the crime. +ctually, @alit had !een o!tained and interro"ated almost continuously or ; days, to no a)ail as he consistently maintained his innocence. #he in)esti"atin" o icers !e"an to maul him and to torture him physically. #hey co)ered his ace with a ra" and pushed his ace into a toilet !owl ull o human waste. 8ith @alit.s will ha)in" !een !roken, he admitted what the in)esti"atin" o icers wanted him to admit and he si"ned the con ession they prepared. @alit was char"ed with the 0rime o &o!!ery with Homicide, in an in ormation iled !e ore the 0ircuit 0riminal 0ourt o Pasi", &i1al. #rial was held, and on 11 +u"ust 196B, immediately a ter the accused had terminated the presentation o his e)idence, the trial ,ud"e dictated his decision on the case in open court, indin" @alit "uilty as char"ed and sentencin" him to su er the death penaltyE to indemni y the heirs o the )ictim in the sum o P11-,---.--, and to pay the costs. Hence, the automatic re)iew. !ssue 8hether a monosylla!ic answer to a lon" *uestion su ices as a )oluntary admission that may !e used a"ainst the accused. "e#d +s held in Morales )s. Ponce Enrile, $+t the time a person is arrested, it shall !e the duty o the arrestin" o icer to in orm him o the reason or the arrest and he must !e shown the warrant o arrest, i any. He shall !e in ormed o his constitutional ri"hts to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he mi"ht make could !e used a"ainst him. #he person arrested shall ha)e the ri"ht to communicate with his lawyer, a relati)e, or anyone he chooses !y the most expedient means U !y telephone i possi!le U or !y letter or messen"er. %t shall !e the responsi!ility o the arrestin" o icer to see to it that this is accomplished. 'o custodial in)esti"ation shall !e conducted unless it !e in the presence o counsel en"a"ed !y the person arrested, !y any person on his !ehal , or appointed !y the court upon petition either o the detainee himsel or !y anyone on his !ehal . #he ri"ht to counsel may !e wai)ed !ut the wai)er shall not !e )alid unless made with the assistance o counsel. +ny statement o!tained in )iolation o the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall !e inadmissi!le in e)idence.$ Herein, there were no eyewitnesses, no property reco)ered rom the accused, no state witnesses, and not e)en in"erprints o the accused at the scene o the crime. #he only e)idence a"ainst @alit is his alle"ed con ession. + lon" *uestion ollowed !y a monosylla!ic answer does not satis y the re*uirements o the law that the accused !e in ormed o his ri"hts under the 0onstitution and our laws. %nstead there should !e se)eral short and clear *uestions and e)ery ri"ht explained in simple words in a dialect or lan"ua"e known to the person under in)esti"ation. @alit is rom /amar and there is no showin" that he understands #a"alo". Moreo)er, at the time o his arrest, @alit was not permitted to communicate with his lawyer, a relati)e, or a riend. %n act, his sisters and other relati)es did not know that he had !een !rou"ht to the '5% or in)esti"ation and it was only a!out two weeks a ter he had executed the salaysay that his relati)es were allowed to )isit him. His statement does not e)en contain any wai)er o ri"ht to counsel and yet durin" the in)esti"ation he was not assisted !y one. +t the supposed reenactment, a"ain @alit was not assisted !y counsel o his choice. #hese constitute "ross )iolations o his ri"hts. #rial courts are cautioned to look care ully into the circumstances surroundin" the takin" o any con ession, especially where the prisoner claims ha)in" !een maltreated into "i)in" one. 8here there is any dou!t as to the )oluntariness, the same must !e re,ected in toto. 243 %eo&#e vs. 0andu#a [)* 89223, 2$ Ma- 1994] 7irs# 4ivision, ,e))osi))o (J)2 = -on-3r, = on )eave Facts On (6 ?anuary 19B6, at around 1-:-- p.m., 6 armed men !ar"ed into the compound o Polo 0oconut Plantation in #an,ay, 'e"ros Oriental. #he armed men were identi ied !y /ecurity @uard +ntonio /al)a o the plantation as +urelio 5andula, #eo ilo 7ionanao, 2ictoriano E,an and Pantaleon /edi"o while the two others
who wore masks were simply re erred to as $5oy #all$ and $5oy /hort.$ +t "unpoint, the ( masked men held /al)a who was mannin" his post, disarmed him o his shot"un and tied his hands !ehind his !ack. #hey then went up the house o >eoncio Pastrano, 0hie o /ecurity and @eneral =oreman o the plantation, ho"9tied him, and di)ested him o his dri)er.s license, "o""les, wristwatch and .3B cal. snu!nose re)ol)er. =rom there, the 6 armed men with /al)a and Pastrano in tow proceeded to the house o +tty. ?uanito @aray, Mana"er o the Polo 0oconut Plantation. 7ionanao, E,an and /edi"o stayed downstairs while 5andula and the two masked men with /al)a and Pastrano went up the house o +tty. @aray. + ter orcin" their way into the house, the masked men and 5andula ransacked the place and took with them money and other )alua!les. #herea ter, the hooded men who were !rin"in" with them +tty. @aray locked Pastrano inside his house to"ether with /al)a. + ew minutes later, Pastrano and /al)a heard "unshots comin" rom the direction o the "ate o the compound. + ter succeedin" in untyin" themsel)es, Pastrano and /al)a went to report the matter to the police. On their way, they ound outside the "ate the li eless !ody o +tty. @aray Cdead with 3 "unshot woundsD. On (B ?anuary 19B6, 7ionanao was $picked9up or in)esti"ation$ and interro"ated !y 0pl. Ephraim 2alles inside the Police /tation in #an,ay where he implicated accused /edi"o. #he ollowin" day, on (9 ?anuary 19B6, he was !rou"ht to the O ice o the Municipal +ttorney o #an,ay, +tty. &u!en Merna, where he supposedly executed his extra,udicial con ession in the presence o the latter. On 4 =e!ruary 19B6, upon the su""estion o another in)esti"ator, 0pl. 2alles took the /upplementary /worn /tatement o 7ionanao, a"ain in the presence o +tty. Merna. %n his /worn /tatement, 7ionanao supposedly admitted that he was with 5andula when the latter, to"ether with $5oy /hort$ and $5oy #all,$ shot +tty. @aray. He added that he was "oin" to !e killed i he did not ,oin the "roup. He also said that /edi"o and E,an were with them that e)enin". #hen, in his /upplementary /worn /tatement, he implicated 3 more persons !ut they were not therea ter included in the %n ormation. Pn the other hand, 5andula was arrested on (B ?anuary 19B6, at around 6:-- a.m., !rou"ht to the #an,ay Police /tation and there interro"ated. He was in)esti"ated !y 0pl. 5orromeo, 0pl. Esparicia, 0pl. E!arso, Pat. Moso and Pat. 5alde,era. %n that in)esti"ation, 5andula alle"edly admitted that he to"ether with ( others shot +tty. @aray with a .3B cal. re)ol)er. +t that time, there was no counsel present $!ecause that Cin)esti"ationD was not yet in writin".$ #wo weeks a ter his arrest, 5andula alle"edly "a)e a sworn statement in the presence o +tty. Merna admittin" his participation in the killin" o +tty. @aray. %n that statement, 5andula narrated that a ter $5oy /hort$ and $5oy #all$ shot +tty. @aray, he C5andulaD was ordered likewise to shoot the latter which he did. 5andula, /edi"o, 7ionanao and E,an were were char"ed or ro!!ery with homicide. On ; May 19B9, a ter hearin" 1( prosecution and 9 de ense witnesses, the trial court rendered ,ud"ment indin" 5andula "uilty o the crime char"ed. Howe)er, his 3 co9accused were ac*uitted $ or insu iciency o e)idence.$ !ssue 8hether admissions o!tained durin" custodial interro"ations re*uires mere counsel or independent counsel present. "e#d 5andula and 7ionanao were in)esti"ated immediately a ter their arrest, they had no counsel present. % at all, counsel came in only a day a ter the custodial in)esti"ation with respect to 7ionanao, and two weeks later with respect to 5andula. +nd, counsel who supposedly assisted !oth accused was +tty. &u!en Merna, the Municipal +ttorney o #an,ay. On top o this, there are telltale si"ns that )iolence was used a"ainst 5andua. 0ertainly, these are !latant )iolations o the 0onstitution which mandates in /ection 1(, +rt. %%%, that C1D +ny person under in)esti"ation or the commission o an o ense shall ha)e the ri"ht to !e in ormed o his ri"ht to remain silent and to ha)e competent and independent counsel pre era!ly o his own choice. % the person cannot a ord the ser)ices o counsel, he must !e pro)ided with one. #hese ri"hts cannot !e wai)ed except in writin" and in the presence o counsel. C(D 'o torture, orce, )iolence, threat, intimidation or any other means which )itiate the ree will shall !e used a"ainst him. /ecret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar orms o detention are prohi!ited. C3D +ny con ession or admission o!tained in )iolation o this or /ection 16 hereo shall !e inadmissi!le in e)idence a"ainst him. C4D #he law shall pro)ide or penal and ci)il sanctions or )iolations o this section as well as compensation to and reha!ilitation o )ictims o torture or similar practices, and their amilies. #he present case is analo"ous to the more recent case o People ). 7e ?esus, where it was held that admissions o!tained durin" custodial interro"ations without the !ene it o
counsel althou"h later reduced to writin" and si"ned in the presence o counsel are still lawed under the 0onstitution. #he 0onstitution also re*uires that counsel !e independent. O!)iously, he cannot !e a special counsel, pu!lic or pri)ate prosecutor, counsel o the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly ad)erse to the accused. @rantin" that +tty. Merna assisted 7ionanao and 5andula when they executed their respecti)e extra,udicial con essions, still their con essions are inadmissi!le in e)idence considerin" that +tty. Merna does not *uali y as an independent counsel. +s a le"al o icer o the municipality, he pro)ides le"al assistance and support to the mayor and the municipality in carryin" out the deli)ery o !asic ser)ices to the people, includin" the maintenance o peace and order. %t is thus seriously dou!ted whether he can e ecti)ely undertake the de ense o the accused without runnin" into con lict o interests. He is no !etter than a iscal or prosecutor who cannot represent the accused durin" custodial in)esti"ations. 244 %eo&#e vs. <uidato [)* 11$4.1, 1 2cto,er 1998] >9ird 4ivision, 0o6ero (J)2 = -on-3r, " on )eave Facts 5ernardo Fuidato, /r. was the ather o 5ernardo Fuidato, ?r. and >eo Fuidato. 5ein" a widower, 5ernardo li)ed alone in his house at /itio >i!od, 5r"y. #a"!ao!o, <aputian, 7a)ao. He owned 16 hectares o coconut land in the area. On 16 /eptem!er 19BB, 5ernardo, accompanied !y his son, and two hired hands, &eynaldo Malita and Eddie Malita, went to 7a)ao 0ity to sell 41 sacks o copra. + ter sellin" the copra, 5ernardo paid the Malita !rothers or their la!or, who therea ter le t. 5ernardo /r. and 5ernardo ?r. went !ack to /itio >i!od that same day. +t around 6:-- p.m. o 16 /eptem!er 19BB, 5ernardo ?r. asked &eynaldo Malita to come to the ormer.s house to discuss an important matter. Apon &eynaldo.s arri)al at 5ernardo ?r..s house, he saw that his !rother Eddie was already there. #hey started drinkin" !eer. 5ernardo ?r. therea ter proposed that they ro! and kill his ather. #hey went to 5ernardo.s house only at 1-:-- p.m., a ter the rain had stopped. &eynaldo !rou"ht alon" a !olo. Apon reachin" the house, 5ernardo ?r. knocked on the door, askin" his ather to let them in. 8hen 5ernardo opened the door, Eddie rushed in and knocked the old man down. &eynaldo then hacked 5ernardo on the nape and neck. 5ernardo ?r. and Eddie ransacked 5ernardo.s aparador lookin" or money !ut they ound noneE so, the 3 o them le t. #he !ody o 5ernardo was disco)ered the next day !y 5ernardo ?r..s son, who had "one there to call his >olo or !reak ast. On (6 /eptem!er 19BB, >eo Fuidato con ronted his !rother re"ardin" the incident and learned that &eynaldo and Eddie Malita were the ones responsi!le or 5ernardo.s death. #he two were promptly arrested !y the police. +side rom arrestin" the latter two, howe)er, the police also arrested 5ernardo ?r. On (9 /eptem!er 19BB, the Malita !rothers were interro"ated !y Patrolman >ucrecio Mara at the <aputian Police /tation. 8hen Mara apprised them o their constitutional ri"hts, includin" their ri"ht to counsel, they si"ni ied their intent to con ess e)en in the a!sence o counsel. +ware that the same would !e useless i "i)en in the a!sence o counsel, Mara took down the testimony o the two !ut re rained rom re*uirin" the latter to si"n their a ida)its. %nstead, he escorted the Malita !rothers to 7a)ao 0ity and presented them, alon" with their unsi"ned a ida)its, to a 0>+O Cnow P+OD lawyer, ?onathan ?ocom. %n ormed o the situation, +tty. ?ocom con erred with &eynaldo and Eddie, a"ain ad)isin" the two o their constitutional ri"hts. #he 0>+O lawyer explained the contents o the a ida)its, in 2isayan, to the Malita !rothers, who a irmed the )eracity and )oluntary execution o the same. Only then did &eynaldo and Eddie a ix their si"natures on the a ida)its. On 16 ?anuary 19B9, 5ernardo ?r. was char"ed with the crime o parricide !e ore the &e"ional #rial 0ourt o 7a)ao. + murder case was likewise iled a"ainst his co9accused, &eynaldo Malita and Eddie Malita. 5ernardo ?r. and the Malita !rothers pleaded not "uilty. #he two cases were tried ,ointly. #he Malita !rothers withdrew their $not "uilty$ plea durin" trial and were accordin"ly sentences. Only 5ernardo ?r..s case was tried on merits. + ter due trial and on ( March 1994, the &e"ional #rial 0ourt o 7a)ao, 5ranch 4, rendered ,ud"ment indin" 5ernardo Fuidato, ?r., "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t as a co9principal in the o ense o Parricide which alls under +rticle (46 Co the &e)ised Penal 0odeD, or the death o his ather, 5ernardo Fuidato, /r., and accordin"ly, was sentenced to su er the penalty o reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties pro)ided !y law and to indemni y the other heirs o 5ernardo Fuidato, /r., the amount o P;-,---.--, and to pay the costs. 5ernardo ?r. appealed.
!ssue 8hether an initially uncounseled extra,udicial con ession, si"ned in the presence o a counsel in a later day, is admissi!le as e)idence a"ainst the accused. "e#d #he prosecution relied hea)ily on the a ida)its executed !y &eynaldo and Eddie. #he two !rothers were, howe)er, not presented on the witness stand to testi y on their extra,udicial con essions. #he ailure to present the two "i)es these a ida)its the character o hearsay. %t is horn!ook doctrine that unless the a iants themsel)es take the witness stand to a irm the a)erments in their a ida)its, the a ida)its must !e excluded rom the ,udicial proceedin", !ein" inadmissi!le hearsay. #he )oluntary admissions o an accused made extra,udicially are not admissi!le in e)idence a"ainst his co9accused when the latter had not !een "i)en an opportunity to hear him testi y and cross9examine him. >ikewise, the manner !y which the a ida)its were o!tained !y the police render the same inadmissi!le in e)idence e)en i they were )oluntarily "i)en. #he settled rule is that an uncounseled extra,udicial con ession without a )alid wai)er o the ri"ht to counsel U that is, in writin" and in the presence o counsel U is inadmissi!le in e)idence. %t is undisputed that the Malita !rothers "a)e their statements to Patrolman Mara in the a!sence o counsel, althou"h they si"ned the same in the presence o counsel the next day. @i)en the inadmissi!ility in e)idence o @ina Fuidato.s CaccusedGs wi eD testimony, as well as o &eynaldo and Eddie.s extra,udicial con essions, nothin" remains on record with which to ,usti y a ,ud"ment un a)ora!le to 5ernardo ?r. He was there ore ac*uitted. 24+ %eo&#e vs. *ous [)* 1.38.37.4, 2$ Marc1 199+] >9ird 4ivision, Me)o (J)2 ' -on-3r Facts +t around 3:3- a.m. o 1; 7ecem!er 19B6E the )ictim Pastor Pasahol in his car dri)en !y &olando >ay"o who was only his companion, and le t 0andon, %locos /ur !ound or Meycauayan, 5ulacan. 8hen they reached 5aran"ay /antia"o, 5auan", >a Anion, ( armed men who, accordin" to &olando >ay"o, ali"hted rom a red car which stopped !eside the )ictim.s car, and then the ( shot the )ictim. #hereupon, one o the assailants took the clutch !a" rom the compartment o the )ictim.s car which, accordin" to the )ictim.s wi e, /elwyn Pasahol, contained "old coins, earrin"s with diamond and re ined "old worth more than P6--,---.--. #herea ter the hold9uppers took the )ictim.s car a Mitsu!ishi >ancer !earin" Plate 7E= BBB, which was ound a!andoned !y the peace o icers at 5aran"ay Arayon", 5auan", >a Anion, a!out ( kilometers away rom the place at 5aran"ay /antia"o, where the crime was committed. ( days therea ter or speci ically on 16 7ecem!er 19B6E the )ictim died in the >orma Hospital at /an =ernando, >a Anion where he was !rou"ht !y &olando >ay"o, as a result o the in licted "un shot wounds. /"t. @addi in)ited >ay"o to the 0%/ O ice in the a ternoon o 1; 7ecem!er 19B6, and inter)iewed the latter, who denied knowled"e o the incident. On the next day, /"t. @addi a"ain in)ited >ay"o to the 0%/ O ice and a ter *uestionin" him or 3- minutes, >ay"o !roke down and he admitted that he and /ocrates &ous were parties to the conspiracy o the ori"inal plan to commit &o!!ery and not to in lict harm on Pastor Pasahol. 8ith >ay"o.s re)elation, /"t. @addi took his sworn statement denominated as $/inumpaan" /alaysay$ on 16 7ecem!er 19B6 with the assistance o +tty. +!raham 7atla", which is a con ession o his participation in the commission o ro!!ery and implicated /ocrates &ous in the commission o the crime. >ay"o, on the same date, also executed a document entitled $<usan" >oo! na <ahilin"an$ also assisted !y +tty. +!raham 7atla" who assisted him in the custodial in)esti"ation and witnessed !y spouses =ely >ay"o and #i!urcio >ay"o. 5oth documents !ear the si"natures o +lly. +!raham 7atla" who assisted him in the custodial in)esti"ation and witness a !y spouses =ely >ay"o and #i!urcio >ay"o. &olando >ay"o also executed another $/inumpaan" /alaysay$ on (( 7ecem!er 19B6 without the assistance o a lawyer. On 7ecem!er (9 or 3-, 19B6, /ocrates &ous alias 5o!!y was arrested !y /"t. @addi when he accompanied 0apt. >u)imindano @arcia in the latter.s appearance !e ore the 0%/ 7istrict 0ommander, >t. 0ol. Pimentel, in the 0%/ O ice at /an =ernando, >a Anion. 8ith >ay"o.s con ession, /"t. @addi also in)esti"ated &ous who, on 6 ?anuary 19B6, executed the $/inumpaan" /alaysay$ with the assistance o +tty. &o!erto =errer who a ixed his si"nature thereon. /u!se*uently, on the !asis o the a ida)it o the )ictim.s wi e, /elwyn Pasahol, the a ida)it o /"t. &o!erto @addi and the sworn statements o &olando >ay"o, the Pro)incial =iscal iled on 16 7ecem!er 19B6 the case CHi"hway &o!!ery with HomicideD a"ainst &olando >ay"o, 5o!!y &ous, ?ohn 7oe and Peter 7oe, and on (1 7ecem!er 19B6, the case or
0arnappin" was iled a"ainst 5o!!y &ous, ?ohn 7oe and Peter 7oe. >ater, the ori"inal %n ormation in !oth cases were amended a ter the identities o the other 7oes were known as Primiti)o Pradis and 0elestino &a!ina. + ter ,oint trial a"ainst >ay"o and &ous only, as the other accused were ne)er arrested and ha)e remained at lar"e, the trial court rendered a decision ac*uittin" &ous o the char"e o carnappin", !ut indin" !oth &ous and >ay"o "uilty under the char"e o Hi"hway &o!!ery and sentencin" each to an imprisonment term o reclusion perpetua, aside rom the payment in solidum o ci)il indemnity. =rom said decision, >ay"o and &ous appealed, with !oth o them ascri!in" as error the admission o their extra,udicial con essions. !ssue 8hether >ay"oGs and &ousG extra9,udicial con essions, si"ned in the presence o the counsel, are admissi!le as e)idence e)en i the counsel arri)ed shortly a ter the custodial in)esti"ation has started and le t !e ore the last 3 *uestions were asked. "e#d #he record shows that the in)esti"atin" o icer ully in ormed >ay"o o his ri"ht to counsel and cate"orically asked >ay"o whether he wanted the assistance o counsel, to which in*uiry, >ay"o expressed his desire to !e so assisted !y counsel. #hereupon, the in)esti"atin" o icer, /"t. &o!ert @addi, !rou"ht him to the o ice o +tty. +!raham 7atla". >ay"o and +tty. 7atla" con erred or a whileE therea ter, /"t. @addi and >ay"o returned to the 0%/ O ice o /"t. @addi and /"t. @addi started the in)esti"ation. +tty. 7atla" arri)ed soon a ter the in)esti"ation started and le t !e ore the last three *uestions were asked, instructin" them to ollow him to his o ice. + ter the extra9,udicial statement o >ay"o was inished, @addi and >ay"o went to the o ice o +tty. 7atla", a ter which, +tty. 7atla" con erred with >ay"o and then ad)ised >ay"o to si"n. >ay"o did so and +tty. 7atla" thereupon likewise si"ned. #hus, there was more than su!stantial compliance with the constitutional re*uirement that a person under in)esti"ation or the commission o a crime should !e pro)ided with counsel, C/ection 1( C1D, +rticle %%%, #he 0onstitution o the &epu!lic o the PhilippinesD. #he )ery purpose o said constitutional re*uirement is to pre)ent the use o coercion in extractin" a con ession rom a suspect. 'owhere in the e)idence is it shown that coercion was e)er employed !y the in)esti"atin" o icer in o!tainin" the con ession o >ay"o. #he in)esti"ation was e)en witnessed !y the relati)es o >ay"o. #he act that +tty. 7atla" arri)ed shortly a ter the in)esti"ation o >ay"o had !e"un and le t !e ore the con ession was concluded does not ne"ate the )alidity and admissi!ility o said con ession or the reason that a ter the con ession was put down in writin", >ay"o and the in)esti"atin" o icer proceeded to the o ice o +tty. 7atla" and the latter then read the con ession, con erred with >ay"o and then ad)ised >ay"o to si"n the con ession. %t will !e readily seen that the con ession was )oluntary and the si"nin" thereo !y >ay"o was done upon ad)ice o counsel. #he constitutional re*uirements were thus ully complied with. Moreo)er, the presence o &olando.s uncle, #i!urcio >ay"o, and the latter.s wi e, =ely, clearly precluded the use o coercion in extractin" the con ession. + con ession constitutes e)idence o hi"h order since it is supported !y the stron" presumption that no person o normal mind would deli!erately and knowin"ly con ess to a crime unless prompted !y truth and his conscience. + con ession is admissi!le until the accused success ully pro)es that it was "i)en as a result o )iolence, intimidation, threat, or promise o reward or leniency. #here is not a speck o e)idence to show that the con ession o >ay"o was extracted !y such means or promise. +tty. 7atla" would not ha)e a ixed his si"nature to the extra,udicial con ession o >ay"o as counsel or >ay"o had he known or had he !een in ormed !y >ay"o o any in irmity in its execution. /aid con ession is, there ore, admissi!le in e)idence. #he same rulin" applies to the extra,udicial con ession o &ous. =ote 0ompare &ous rulin" with other cases, especially People )s. MorialE as per aspect on partial a!sence o counsel durin" custodial in)esti"ation, where the a ida)it o the accused was su!se*uently si"ned in presence o counsel. 246 %eo&#e vs. Januario [)* 982+2, $ Fe,ruar- 199$] >9ird 4ivision, 5angani;an (J)2 ' -on-3r Facts 2icente 7ilanco Pons, /antia"o 0id.s cousin, purportedly actin" upon the instructions o 7oris 8ol , !orrowed rom Myrna #emporas the amount o P4B,;--.-- and used the an %su1u passen"er type ,eepney
CPlate 7=5 ;;-D as a collateral. #he amount was "i)en to Pons in P1-,---.-- cash and the !alance in a check paya!le to 7oris 8ol . #he check was encashed as it was cleared rom Myrna #emporas. account. %t !ore a si"nature supposedly o 7oris 8ol at its !ack portion and a second endorsement !y Pons who su!se*uently deposited it in his account. On /eptem!er 11, #emporas asked Pons to secure a special power o attorney rom 7oris 8ol . Pons promised to comply in one or two weeks. 5ut Pons ailed to pay the inde!tedness. /o, Myrna #emporas repeatedly went to his house in 7i"maan, 0amarines /ur to collect the amount !orrowed !ut Pons always promised that he himsel would "o to her house to pay. %nasmuch as Pons also ailed to produce a deed o sale co)erin" the ,eepney, #emporas lod"ed a complaint a"ainst him or esta a !e ore the '5%. Meanwhile, +ndrew Patriarca, /r. reported the disappearance o his son, +ndrew, ?r., the ,eepney and its dri)er to the police detachment in 5ulihan, /ilan", 0a)ite and the police stations in /ilan" and %mus, 0a)ite. #wo weeks a ter 4 /eptem!er 19B6, the !ody o (39year9old +ndrew Patriarca, ?r. was ound in a su"arcane plantation in Ma"uyam. His head was se)ered rom his !ody. #he !ody o the dri)er, @eronimo Mali!a"o, step ather o 7oris 8ol , the owner o the ,eepney, was reco)ered a ter the har)est o su"arcane in the plantation in Ma"uyam. Mali!a"o.s widow identi ied the !ody rom its clothin". +ctin" on the complaint, the '5% contacted the relati)es o the owner o the ,eepney who went to 0amarines /ur, identi ied the ,eepney and in ormed the '5% that its dri)er Cdeceased @eronimo Mali!a"oD and conductor Cdeceased +ndrew Patriarca, ?r.D had !een killed !y carnappers. Patriarca.s widow also iled a complaint with the '5%. Apon in)esti"ation, an '5% team led !y /uper)isin" +"ent Ma"no #ori!io ound out that the carnappin" o the ,eepney and the killin" o Patriarca and Mali!a"o were the $handiwork$ o a "roup o 4 persons named &ene ?anuario, E ren 0anape, Eliseo /arita alias #oto, and Eduardo /arinos alias 7i"o. #he team also disco)ered that the ,eepney was disposed o throu"h 0id. ?anuario and 0anape, as well as 0id, were arrested in 0amarines /ur. #he '5% then in)ited Pons and #emporas to shed li"ht on the carnappin" incident. #he ,eepney was reco)ered in an auto shop with its en"ine partly dismantled. Apon !ein" in ormed !y the '5% that the ,eepney had !een ound, an insurance company !rou"ht it !ack to Manila. =rom the $oral in)esti"ation$ they conducted at the 'a"a 0ity '5% o ice on (6 March 19BB, the team learned that /arita and /arinos took Patriarca and Mali!a"o inside a su"ar plantation where presuma!ly they were killed. 5ecause ?anuario and 0anape )olunteered that their companions were their nei"h!ors in Paliparan, 7asmariSas, 0a)ite who could !e in Manila already, the '5% team decided to take down their statements at the '5% head o ice in Manila. #he team tra)eled with ?anuario and 0anape to Manila, arri)in" there at around 1:-- p.m. o (B March 19BB. +t the #a t +)enue head o ice o the '5%, the team took the statements o ?anuario and 0anae one at a time. #hey asked +tty. 0arlos /aunar, who was $,ust around somewhere,$ to assist ?anuario and 0anape durin" the in)esti"ation. +"ent +rlis 2ela took the statement o ?anuario while /uper)isin" +"ent #ori!io took that o 0anape. On 6 'o)em!er 19BB, an %n ormation si"ned !y +ssistant Pro)incial =iscal ?ose M. 2elasco, ?r., was iled a"ainst &ene ?anuario and E ren 0anape, and their co9accused /antia"o 0id, Eliseo /arita V #oto and Eduardo /arinos V 7i"o char"in" them with )iolation o &epu!lic +ct 6;39 C+nti9 0arnappin" >awD. +rrai"ned on 6 =e!ruary 19B9, ?anuario and 0anape, assisted !y counsel de o icio, pleaded not "uilty. On 3- May 19B9, 0id, assisted !y counsel de parte, likewise entered a plea o not "uilty. /arita and /arinos remained at lar"e. + ter trial, the &e"ional #rial 0ourt o 0a)ite, 5ranch O2%%% in #a"aytay 0ity, disposin" o 0riminal 0ase #@9139(9B9, rendered ,ud"ment indin" ?anuario and 0anape "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t o the crime o 2iolation o /ection 14, last sentence, o &epu!lic act 6;39, otherwise known as the +nti90arnappin" >aw, and imposed upon them the supreme penalty o &eclusion Perpetua or li e imprisonment, and ordered them to pay ,ointly and se)erally, !ut separately, the heirs o their )ictims, namely, @eronimo Mali!a"o and +ndrew Patriarca, ?r., the sums o : CaD P;-,---.-- or moral dama"esE C!D P;-,---.-- or exemplary dama"esE CcD P(;,---.-- or actual dama"es, and to pay the costs o the proceedin". ?anuario and 0anape appealed. !ssue 8hether /aunarGs presence as counsel in the custodial in)esti"ations satis ies the re*uirements o +rticle %%%, section 1( C1D. "e#d Proo o /aunar.s presence durin" the custodial in)esti"ation o ?anuario and 0anape is, howe)er, not a "uarantee that their respecti)e con essions had !een taken in accordance with +rticle %%%, /ection 1( C1D o the
0onstitution. #his constitutional pro)ision re*uires that a person under in)esti"ation or the commission o an o ense shall ha)e no less than $competent and independent counsel pre era!ly o his own choice.$ /aunar was not the choice o ?anuario as his custodial in)esti"ation counsel. +r"uendo that /aunar.s competence as a lawyer is !eyond *uestion, under the circumstances descri!ed !y the prosecution howe)er, he could not ha)e !een the independent counsel solemnly spoken o !y the 0onstitution. He was an applicant or a position in the '5% and there ore it can ne)er !e said that his loyalty was to the con essants. %n act, he was actually employed !y the '5% a ew months a ter. =urther, althou"h /aunar mi"ht ha)e really !een around to properly apprise ?anuario o his constitutional ri"ht as re lected in the written sworn statement itsel , the same cannot !e said a!out 0anape. 0anape was not properly in ormed o his constitutional ri"hts. Per unctorily in ormin" a con essant o his constitutional ri"hts, askin" him i he wants to a)ail o the ser)ices o counsel and tellin" him that he could ask or counsel i he so desires or that one could !e pro)ided him at his re*uest, are simply not in compliance with the constitutional mandate. %n this case, appellant 0anape was merely told o his constitutional ri"hts and posthaste, asked whether he was willin" to con ess. His a irmati)e answer may not, !y any means, !e interpreted as a wai)er o his ri"ht to counsel o his own choice. =urthermore, the ri"ht o a person under custodial in)esti"ation to !e in ormed o his ri"hts to remain silent and to counsel implies a correlati)e o!li"ation on the part o the police in)esti"ator to explain and to contemplate an e ecti)e communication that results in an understandin" o what is con)eyed. 0anape.s sworn statement, which reads and sounds so li eless on paper, ails to re lect compliance with this re*uirement. 'either does the testimony o '5% +"ent #ori!io. 5earin" in mind that 0anape reached only the i th "rade, the '5% a"ents should ha)e exerted more e ort in explainin" to him his constitutional ri"hts. #he law en orcement a"ents. ca)alier disre"ard o ?anuario.s and 0anape.s constitutional ri"hts is shown not only !y their ailure to o!ser)e /ection 1( C1D o +rticle %%% o the 0onstitution. #hey ha)e likewise or"otten the third para"raph o /ection 1( o the same article which mandates that an admission o acts related to a crime must !e o!tained with the assistance o counselE otherwise it would !e inadmissi!le in e)idence a"ainst the person so admittin". 24$ %eo&#e vs. 'a,tan [)* 12$493, 8 /ece5,er 1999] 7irs# 4ivision, 53no (J)2 ' -on-3r Facts On (B March 1993, at more or less 1-:3- p.m. while inside a motor )ehicle in the national hi"hway at 5aran"ay +"usan up to the road at 0amaman9an, all o 0a"ayan de Oro 0ity, Philippines, Henry =eliciano y >a"ura and Orlando >a!tan y 7a*uihon took away, throu"h intimdation or )iolence, cash amountin" to P6(-.--, pioneer stereo, !ooster and twitters owned !y and !elon"in" to &oman /. Mercado, and a /eiko 7i)er wristwatch owned !y %smael P. E!on, all in all amountin" to P1-,B--.--. >ater on, on or a!out 16 +pril 1993, at a!out (:3- p.m., more or less, at 5unton", 0amaman9an, 0a"ayan de Oro 0ity, Philippines, =eliciano, Orlando >a!tan, and ?onelto >a!tan ro!!ed =lorentino 5olasito o P3- in cash money. %n the course thereo , Orlando and ?onelto >a!tan sta!!ed 5olasito to death. On (3 +pril 1993, an in ormation was iled a"ainst =eliciano, Orlando >a!tan, and ?onelto >a!tan char"in" them with ro!!ery with homicide Cas per 16 +pril 1993 incidentD. /u!se*uently, another in ormation dated (- May 1993 was iled a"ainst =eliciano and Orlando >a!tan char"in" them with hi"hway ro!!ery Cas per (B March 1993 incidentD. Only =eliciano pleaded not "uilty to the two char"es. Orlando >a!tan had escaped the Maharlika &eha!ilitation and 7etention 0enter in 0armen, 0a"ayan de Oro 0ity where he was detained while ?onelto >a!tan has eluded arrest. #he two cases were tried to"ether. + ter trial, the &e"ional #rial 0ourt o 0a"ayan de Oro 0ity, 5ranch (; ound =eliciano "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t as principal !y direct participation in the crime o ro!!ery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemni y the o ended party Cthe heirs o =lorentino 5olasitoD the sum o P;-,---.-- and to pay the o ended party the sum o P3;,---.-- representin" uneral expenses and to pay the cost. #he trial court also ound =eliciano "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t o the crime o hi"hway ro!!ery, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty o 1( years o prision mayor as the minimum term to 14 years, B months o reclusion temporal in its minimum period as the maximum term and to indemni y &oman /. Mercado the sum o PB,---.--, representin" the )alue o the P6--.-- cash, stereo, !ooster, and twitter and to indemni y %smael E!on the sum o P(,;--.--, the )alue o the /eiko 8rist watch di)ested rom him and to pay the cost. #he trial court con)icted =eliciano on the !asis o his sworn
statement which he repudiated durin" the trial. =eliciano appealed. !ssue 8hether the counsellin" o +tty. Pepito 0ha)e1 to =eliciano cured the initial lack o counsel. "e#d =eliciano had !een denied o his ri"ht to ha)e a competent and independent counsel when he was *uestioned in the 0a"ayan de Oro 0ity Police /tation. /PO1 +l onso 0uare1 testi ied that he started *uestionin" =eliciano at B:-- a.m. o (( +pril 1993 re"ardin" his in)ol)ement in the killin" o ,eepney dri)er =lorentino 5olasito, notwithstandin" the act that he had not !een apprised o his ri"ht to counsel. =eliciano had !een su!,ected to custodial in)esti"ation without a counselE inasmuch as when /PO1 0uare1 in)esti"ated =eliciano, the latter was already a suspect in the killin" o ,eepney dri)er 5olasito. =urther, +tty. 0ha)e1 did not pro)ide the kind o counsellin" re*uired !y the 0onstitution. He did not explain to =eliciano the conse*uences o his action U that the sworn statement can !e used a"ainst him and that it is possi!le that he could !e ound "uilty and sent to ,ail. =urthermore, +tty. 0ha)e1Gs independence as counsel is suspect U he is re"ularly en"a"ed !y the 0a"ayan de Oro 0ity Police as counsel de o icio or suspects who cannot a)ail the ser)ices o counsel. He e)en recei)ed money rom the police as payment or his ser)ices. 248 %eo&#e vs. Sa5us [)* 13+9+$7+8, 1$ Se&te5,er 2..2] +n ,an-, 5angani;an (J)2 "' -on-3r Facts @uillermo /amus was a armer, tillin" and li)in" in the land o Mi"uel 0ompleto at 5aran"ay 'iu"an, 0a!uyao, >a"una. #he )ictims, 6( year old 7edicacion 5alisi and her "randson, 6 year old ?ohn +rdee 5alisi, were the nei"h!ors o /amusG ather at /an &amon de 0anlu!an", 5r"y. 0anlu!an", 0alam!a, >a"una. +t 4:(- P.M. on ( /eptem!er 1996, /enior Police C/PD %nspector &i1aldy H. @arcia was at his o ice at the 4th P'P 0riminal %n)esti"ation @roup &e"ional O ice at 0amp 2icente >im in 0alam!a, >a"una when he recei)ed an order rom his superior to in)esti"ate the murder o the two )ictims. #heir o ice had recei)ed a telephone call rom a local !aran"ay o icial in ormin" them o the )ictimsG deaths. +rri)in" at the )ictimsG residence at 5lock B, >ot 6 at /an &amon, 5r"y. 0anlu!an", 0alam!a, @arcia and his team conducted an in)esti"ation, makin" a sketch o the relati)e positions o the )ictims, li tin" in"erprints rom the crime scene and takin" pictures. #herea ter, an in)esti"ation report was prepared !y @arcia and si"ned !y his superior, 0olonel Pedro #an"o. #he in)esti"ators likewise ound a pair o maon" pants, a white #9shirt, a handkerchie and dirty slippers in the !athroom and roo o the house. + pair o earrin"s worn !y 7edicacion 5alisi was likewise reported missin" rom her !ody !y her dau"hter, 'ora 5. >lorera. #he )ictimsG !odies were !rou"ht to the =uneraria /eSere1 de Mesa in 0alam!a. On that same day, Ponciano Pontanos, ?r., then a resident o 5aran"ay 'iu"an, 0a!uyao and an ac*uaintance o /amus, happened to meet /amus at /ammy PachecaGs house in the same !aran"ay where /amus asked Ponciano to accompany him to PoncianoGs wi e to pawn a pair o earrin"s. PoncianoGs wi e was mad at irst !ut upon PoncianoGs proddin", "a)e /amus P3--.-- with no interest. #he earrin"s were placed in a ,ewelry !oxE therea ter, /amus recei)ed another P(;-.--. +t 6:-P.M. on 1- /eptem!er 1996, Ma,or ?ose Pante o the 0riminal %n)esti"ation @roup recei)ed in ormation that /amus was the principal suspect in the killin" o the ( )ictims and that he was si"hted inside the residence o spouses &olly and ?osie 2alle,o at 5aran"ay Maca!lin", /ta. &osa, >a"una. He then ormed and led a team composed o /PO3 @ali)o, %ntelli"ence 0ommission O icer 0asis and /PO3 Mario 5itos. +rri)in" at the site at past 6:-- P.M., the team, accompanied !y local !aran"ay authorities, asked permission rom the 2alle,o spouses to enter the house, which was "ranted. /hortly therea ter, they heard loud ootsteps on the roo . &ushin" outside, they saw /amus crawlin" on the roo . #hey ordered him to stop, !ut he suddenly ,umped rom the roo and landed hard on the "round, sustainin" an in,ury on his ankle and !ruises on his le t and ri"ht orearm. +t that point, the police team closed in on /amus who, while trem!lin" and shakin", admitted the killin"s upon a *uery rom &olly 2alle,o. /amus was !rou"ht to the 0amp 2icente >im P'P %n)esti"ation O ice where he was in ormed o his constitutional ri"hts !y /PO3 +lex Mala!anan. %n the mornin" o 11 /eptem!er 1996, /amus, assisted !y +tty. +rturo ?uliano, "a)e his statement admittin" the killin"s. /PO3 Mala!anan also took the statements o tricycle dri)er &a ael 5aliso, the )ictimsG relati)es /al)acion and Mona 5alisi and witness Mary +r"uelles, who saw /amus enter the house o 7edicacion 5alisi. On the same
day, P'P =in"erprint Examiner &ei"el +llan /orra took in"erprint samples rom /amus. His prints exactly matched with a set o prints ound at the crime scene. >ater that day, /PO3 Mario 5itos was a!le to reco)er the pawned earrin"s rom Ponciano who turned them o)er to /PO3 Mala!anan. #wo separate %n ormations were iled on (6 'o)em!er 1996, char"in" /amus Cin 0riminal 0ase ;-1;99690D with homicide or the death o one 7edicacion 5alisi y /oriano C61 years oldD, and Cin 0riminal 0ase ;-1699690D with murder or the death o one ?ohn +rdee 5alisi y /oriano C6 years oldD. 8hen arrai"ned on (B May 1996, /amus, assisted !y his counsel de o icio, pleaded not "uilty. %n due course, the &e"ional #rial 0ourt o 0alam!a, >a"una, 5ranch 36, ound /amus "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t o the crime o Homicide C0riminal 0ase ;-1;99690D, sentenced him to su er the penalty o imprisonment o 1- years and 1 day o Prision Mayor as minimum up to (- years o &eclusion #emporal as maximum, and ordered him to indemni y the heirs o 7edicacion 5alisi the amount o P;-,---.-- or her death and another P;-,---.-- as and or moral and actual dama"es and cost o suit. #he trial court also ound /amus "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t o the crime o Murder C0riminal 0ase ;-1699690D, sentenced him to su er the penalty o death, and ordered him to indemni y the heirs o ?ohn +rdee 5alisi the amount o P;-,---.-- or his death and another P;-,---.-- as and or moral and actual dama"es and cost o suit. Hence, the automatic re)iew. !ssue 8hether uncounselled admission are a!solutely inadmissi!le. "e#d + ter !ein" ille"ally arrested, /amus was not in ormed o his constitutional ri"hts to remain silent and to ha)e competent and independent counsel. Hence, any admission elicited rom him !y the law en orcers durin" custodial in)esti"ation are normally inadmissi!le in e)idence. %n their a ida)its, the police o icers readily admitted that /amus was su!,ected to a preliminary inter)iew. 3et, durin" their examination in open court, they tried to skirt this issue !y statin" that it was only the media that had *uestioned /amus, and that they were merely present durin" the inter)iew. Howe)er, an examination o the testimonies o the three law en orcers show the olly o their crude attempts to camou la"e inadmissi!le e)idence. %n the a!sence o testimony rom any o the media persons who alle"edly inter)iewed /amus, the uncertainties and )a"ueness a!out how they *uestioned and led him to his con ession lead us to !elie)e that they themsel)es in)esti"ated /amus and elicited rom him uncounselled admissions. #his act is clearly shown !y the + ida)its they executed on 11 /eptem!er 1996, as well as !y their testimonies on cross9examination. 'onetheless, e)en i the uncounselled admission per se may !e inadmissi!le, under the present circumstances the 0ourt cannot rule it out !ecause o /amus. ailure to make timely o!,ections. %ndeed, the admission is inadmissi!le in e)idence under +rticle %%%, /ection 1(C1D and C3D o the 0onstitution, !ecause it was "i)en under custodial in)esti"ation and was made without the assistance o counsel. Howe)er, the de ense ailed to o!,ect to its presentation durin" the trial, with the result that the de ense is deemed to ha)e wai)ed o!,ection to its admissi!ility. % only /amus had made a timely o!,ection to the admissi!ility o PontaSos testimony and the picture o a pair o earrin"s to"ether with the turno)er receipt, which /amus identi ied durin" his testimony, the prosecution could ha)e !een warned o the need to present additional e)idence to support its case. #o disre"ard unceremoniously a ma,or portion o its case at this late sta"e when it can no lon"er present additional e)idence as su!stitute or that which is now claimed to !e inadmissi!le "oes a"ainst undamental airness. 249 %eo&#e vs. )a##ardo [)* 113684, 2+ Januar- 2...] 7irs# 4ivision, 5ardo (J)2 ' -on-3r Facts On (B ?uly 1991, the li eless !ody o Edmundo Ori1al was ound in the rest house o &onnie 5alao in 5al1ain, #u"ue"arao, 0a"ayan. %n an autopsy per ormed !y 7r. Edmundo 5or,a, #u"ue"arao Municipal Health O icer, the )ictim was ound to ha)e sustained 6 "unshot wounds in the chest, a!domen, !ack, le t and ri"ht thi"hs, and two C(D "ra1in" wounds on the le t arm and !ack. %n)esti"ation !y the #u"ue"arao police station identi ied the suspects in the murder o Edmundo Ori1al as +rmando @allardo y @ander, +l redo 0olumna y 0orrea Calias =erminD, and ?essie Micate y Orte1a. #he police recei)ed in ormation that the suspects were detained at the 0amalaniu"an Police /tation !ecause o other criminal char"es. /o elements o the #u"ue"arao police went to the 0amalaniu"an Police /tation in +u"ust 1991 to etch the suspects. Only
@allardo and 0olumna were in the custody o the 0amalaniu"an Police /tation. @allardo and 0olumna were !rou"ht to the #u"ue"arao Police 7epartment. On +u"ust 1B, 1991, they were in)esti"ated !y Police %n)esti"ator /PO4 %sidro Marcos, and they "a)e statements admittin" that they, to"ether with ?essie Micate, killed Edmundo Ori1al. 7urin" the in)esti"ation, the dialect used was %locano, the nati)e ton"ue o the accused, and durin" the takin" o the statements, +tty. &olando 2elasco assisted them. ?ud"e 2ilma Paui" was present. /he administered the oath on the ,urat o the statements. @alardo and 0olumna si"ned their statements admittin" the killin" o Edmundo Ori1al. On 6 'o)em!er 1991, on the !asis o the sworn con essions o the accused, the Pro)incial Prosecutor o 0a"ayan iled with the &e"ional #rial 0ourt, #u"ue"arao, 0a"ayan an in ormation char"in" the accused with murder. On ( 7ecem!er 1991, all three accused entered a plea o not "uilty. #rial ensued. %n due course, the trial court ound them "uilty o murder or the treacherous killin" o Edmundo Ori1al and sentencin" each o them to reclusion perpetua and to pay in solidum the heirs o Edmundo Ori1al in the sum o P;-,---.-- as indemnity or death and P1;-,---.-- as moral dama"es. @allardo, 0olumna and Micate appealed. !ssue 8hether the counsel pro)ided !y the /tate to the accused satis ies the 0onstitutionlal re*uirement that a competent and independent counsel !e present in a custodial in)esti"ation. "e#d #he extra,udicial con essions o the accused were "i)en a ter they were completely and clearly apprised o their 0onstitutional ri"hts. + lawyer assisted them and a ,ud"e administered their oath. while the initial choice o the lawyer in cases where a person under custodial in)esti"ation cannot a ord the ser)ices o a lawyer is naturally lod"ed in the police in)esti"ators, the accused really has the inal choice as he may re,ect the counsel chosen or him and ask or another one. + lawyer pro)ided !y the in)esti"ators is deemed en"a"ed !y the accused where he ne)er raised any o!,ection a"ainst the ormer.s appointment durin" the course o the in)esti"ation and the accused therea ter su!scri!es to the )eracity o his statement !e ore the swearin" o icer. Herein, althou"h +tty. 2elasco was pro)ided !y the /tate and not !y the accused themsel)es, the accused were "i)en an opportunity whether to accept or not to accept him as their lawyer. #hey were asked and they immediately a"reed to ha)e +tty. 2elasco as their counsel durin" the in)esti"ation. #here is no re*uirement in the 0onstitution that the lawyer o an accused durin" custodial in)esti"ation !e pre)iously known to them. #he 0onstitution pro)ides that the counsel !e a competent and independent counsel, who will represent the accused and protect their 0onstitutionally "uaranteed ri"hts. =urther, to !e an e ecti)e counsel, a lawyer need not challen"e all the *uestions !ein" propounded to his client. #he presence o a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused rom sayin" anythin" which mi"ht incriminate him !ut, rather, it was adopted in our 0onstitution to preclude the sli"htest coercion as would lead the accused to admit somethin" alse. #he counsel, howe)er, should ne)er pre)ent an accused rom reely and )oluntarily tellin" the truth. Herein, +tty. 2elasco acted properly in accordance with the dictates o the 0onstitution and in ormed the accused o their 0onstitutional ri"hts. +tty. 2elasco assisted the accused and made sure that the statements "i)en !y the accused were )oluntary on their part, and that no orce or intimidation was used !y the in)esti"atin" o icers to extract a con ession rom them. Ander rules laid !y the 0onstitution, existin" laws and ,urisprudence, a con ession to !e admissi!le must satis y all our undamental re*uirements, namely: C1D the con ession must !e )oluntaryE C(D the con ession must !e made with the assistance o competent and independent counselE C3D the con ession must !e expressE and C4D the con ession must !e in writin". +ll these re*uirements were complied with. 2+. %eo&#e vs. 0arasina [)* 1.9993, 21 Januar- 1994] >9ird 4ivision, Me)o (J)2 ' -on-3r Facts %t was around 6:4- p.m. o 16 ?uly 19BB when =iscal >ino Mayo o Olon"apo 0ity succum!ed to a sin"le !ullet on his side o his ace ired !y a "unman rom an unlicensed .4; cali!er irearm while the ormer was walkin" at the 2%P parkin" lot o the 2ictory >iner 0ompound at 0aloocan 0ity. #he "un man continued walkin" at the same time holdin" his "un with two hands tryin" to cock it. + ter walkin" a ew meters, the "un man tucked the "un in his ri"ht waist and !e"an runnin" away. 5aran"ay 0ouncilman Prudencio Motos
and a!out our other men Camon" them, &uel @aniola and Michael Estapia, !oth portersD chased the "un man. 8hen the "un man was a!out to reach the >&# /tation, they shouted at the policeman conductin" tra ic in the area and pointed at the runnin" man. #he policeman, P c. 'apoleon =rancia, shouted at the "un man, who stopped and raised his hands. P c. =rancia then con iscated a .4; cal. pistol rom the "un man. + terwards, P c. =rancia, 0ouncilman Motos and others !rou"ht the "un man to the <alookan 0ity Police Head*uarters a!oard a passen"er ,eep. #he "un man was identi ied later as Elias 5arasina y >aynesa. 5arasina was char"ed or )iolation o Preisdential 7ecree 1B66 Cille"al possession o irearmsD. 5arasina, $?ohn 7oe$ and $Peter 7oe$ Ctrue names, real identities and present wherea!outs o the last two mentioned accused, still unknownD were also char"e or the crime o murder. 8hen haled to respond to the inculpations, 5arasina was indi erent in enterin" any plea, thus the plea o not "uilty to the two criminal char"es was entered !y the trial court in his !ehal . %n the course o the trial, 5arasina, throu"h counsel, iled a Motion to Fuash on the "round o dou!le ,eopardy, i.e. in ,eopardy o !ein" con)icted o two o enses U Murder and %lle"al Possession o =irearms. %n an Order, dated 16 +u"ust 19B9, the 0ourt denied the Motion to Fuash. On trial, one o the principal de enses set up !y 5arasina was that he was mauled, maltreated and orced to si"n two documents !y the 0aloocan policemen while he was inside a small cell inside the 0aloocan 0ity Police Head*uarters. He identi ied those ( documents, the $Paalala$, dated 1B ?uly 19BB, and his statement dated 1B ?uly 19BB. He urther claimed that he ne)er read any o those documents and that he was not assisted !y any lawyer durin" their execution, and that he does not know o any +tty. +!elardo #orres. He si"ned an + ida)it o retraction dated (( ?uly 19BB. On (B =e!ruary 199-, the trial court ound 5arasina "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t o C1D )iolation o Par. 1 o P.7. 1B66 C%lle"al Possession o =irearmDE and C(D Murder, and sentenced him C1D as a result o his con)iction under P7 1B66 to su er imprisonment o 16 3ears, 4 Months and 1 7ay o &eclusion #emporal as minimum to (- 3ears o &eclusion #emporal, as maximum, and to pay the costs, and C(D as a result o his con)iction o Murder, to su er imprisonment o 1- 3ears and 1 7ay o Prision Mayor, as minimum to 1B 3ears, B Months and 1 7ay o &eclusion #emporal, as maximum, and to pay the costs. #he trial court also directed 5arasina to indemni y the heirs o the )ictim, =iscal >ino Mayo, the amount o P61,---.-representin" the uneral and !urial expenses o the )ictim and the amount o P;-- ,---.-- representin" the moral dama"es su ered !y his widow and the loss o income as a result o the )ictim.s death at the a"e o ;years. On (9 7ecem!er 199(, the 0ourt o +ppeals Cde Pano, El!iSas, @utierre1 KPL, ??.D, actin" on the appeal interposed !y 5arasina, rendered a decision increasin" the penalties imposed on 5arasina to reclusion perpetua or each o the two crimes committed. #he records do not show that the case was certi ied !y the 0ourt o +ppeals to the /upreme 0ourt pursuant to /ection 13, &ule 1(4 o the 19B; &ules on 0riminal Procedure althou"h the records o the case were orwarded to to the /upreme 0ourt !y the 0ourt o +ppeals on 11 May 1993 a ter the assailed decision was promul"ated on (9 7ecem!er 199(. %n any e)ent, the appeal was later accepted !y the /upreme 0ourt and 5arasina was thereupon re*uired to ile his !rie ollowin" which the /olicitor @eneral iled a !rie or the People. !ssue 8hether the admissions made in the custodial in)esti"ation attended to !y +tty. +!elardo #orres, a lawyer which 5arasina did not expressly choose as counsel to assist him therein, are inadmissi!le. "e#d /ection 1( C1D, +rticle 3 o the 19B6 0onstitution dealin" with the ri"hts o a person under"oin" in)esti"ation reads $+ny person under in)esti"ation or the commission o an o ense shall ha)e the ri"ht to !e in ormed o his ri"ht to remain silent and to ha)e competent and independent counsel pre era!ly o his own choice. % the person cannot a ord the ser)ices o counsel, he must !e pro)ided with one. #hese ri"hts cannot !e wai)ed except in writin" and in the presence o counsel.$ #he phrase $competent and independent$ and $pre era!ly o his own choice$ were explicit details which were added upon the persistence o human ri"hts lawyers in the 19B6 0onstitutional 0ommission who pointed out cases where, durin" the martial law period, the lawyers made a)aila!le to the detainee would !e one appointed !y the military and there ore !eholden to the military. 3et, the apprehension o the human ri"hts ad)ocates then alon" this line hardly inspires !elie in the present inasmuch as there was no indication !elow that 5arasina did in act choose +tty. &omeo Mendo1a to assist him while in the process o o erin" the inculpatory statements, to the exclusion o other lawyers C#he hirin" o +tty. &omeo Mendo1a as counsel !y 5arasina a ter the custodial in)esti"ation
appears to !e an a terthou"htD. 8ithal, the word $pre era!ly$ under /ection 1( K1L, +rticle 3 o the 19B6 0onstitution does not con)ey the messa"e that the choice o a lawyer !y a person under in)esti"ation is exclusi)e as to preclude other e*ually competent and independent attorneys rom handlin" his de ense. % the rule were otherwise, then, the tempo o a custodial in)esti"ation will !e solely in the hands o the accused who can impede, nay, o!struct the pro"ress o the interro"ation !y simply selectin" lawyer who or one reason or another, is not a)aila!le to protect his interest. #his a!surd scenario could not ha)e !een contemplated !y the ramers o the charter. 2+1 %eo&#e vs. Moria# [)* 12929+, 1+ Au(ust 2..1] +n ,an-, 5er (3ria62 ": -on-3r, " o3# o* #own on o**i-ia) ;3siness, " on )eave Facts +t 6:-- p.m. on 6 ?anuary 1996, at 5en,amin Morial.s house at 5aran"ay 0a"nituan, Maasin, /outhern >eyte, @a!riel @uilao C6( years oldD saw 'onelito +!iSon slapped Paula 5andi!as. neck. Paula ell and was sta!!ed !y Edwin Morial with a small, sharp, pointed weapon. >eonardo Morial stood outside the house. @a!riel also saw Paula 5andi!as. "randson, +l!ert 5andi!as, run towards his "randmother.s "arden, and later heard the crushin" sound o a stone a"ainst lesh. +!inon and the two Morials stayed in the house or a!out 1- minutes a ter the killin" the )ictims. #herea ter, they departed and headed towards the near!y houses. 5en,amin Morial, Paula.s common9law hus!and, who was in nei"h!orin" 5aran"ay Maria 0lara C6H kilometers away rom 5aran"ay 0a"nituanD when the incident took place, arri)ed at 5aran"ay 0a"nituan at around 4:-- p.m. the next day. +s was his wont, 5en,amin called out Paula.s name when he was some ; meters rom the house. #here was no answer. 5en,amin raced to the house, headin" strai"ht to the !edroom. #here, he ound the clothes all topsy9tur)y. #he !ox where he and Paula hid their money was turned upside down. /omeone had ransacked their house. 5en,amin mo)ed !ack and saw Paula lyin" on the loor with a cut in her neck. He shouted or help. &espondin" to his cries, 5en,amin.s nei"h!ors, includin" !aran"ay ka"awads Patricio +!iSon and &u ino @uilao, rushed to his house. 5en,amin asked his nei"h!ors to help search or +l!ert, who was ound shortly some ;- meters rom the house. +l!ert 5andi!as laid lat on the "round with two stones near his head. 5en,amin re*uested Patricio to send someone to report the incident to the police. Apon learnin" o 5en,amin.s return to 5aran"ay 0a"nituan, @a!riel @uilao hurried to 5en,amin.s house. He re)ealed to the "rie)in" 5en,amin that he witnessed Paula.s killin" and that Edwin Morial, >eonardo Morial and 'onelito +!iSon were the perpetrators. 5en,amin ad)ised @a!riel not to tell anyone a!out what he knew or ear that they would all !e killed since the +!iSons were $saturated in their place.$ @a!riel heeded 5en,amin.s ad)ice. #he police arri)ed at around 1-:-- p.m. /PO4 +ntonio Macion, alon" with our other police o icers, in)esti"ated the tra"edy. #hey ound wounds in Paula 5andi!as. stomach, !reast and neck. +l!ert 5andi!as, on the other hand, had a contusion on the ri"ht side o his head. 5eside him were two stones. + ter examinin" the )ictims. wounds, the police o icers, alon" with 5en,amin Morial, proceeded to the !edroom. 5en,amin in ormed the o icers that P11,---.-- was missin" rom the money!ox. Other than the cash, nothin" else was missin". Outside the house, 5en,amin disclosed to the o icers his three suspects, the accused in this case. He ad)ised them, howe)er, to !rin" only >eonardo and Edwin Morial into custody and not to include 'onelito +!iSon, who had many relati)es in 0a"nituan. +s a ormer !aran"ay captain o (( years, he knew that the +!iSons were $most eared$ in 0a"nituan. 5en,amin did not tell the police that @a!riel @uilao had witnessed the incident. #he police ound Edwin and >eonardo Morial in the house o 'onelito +!iSon and in)ited the two to the police station, where they were turned o)er to /PO4 +ndres =ernande1. >eonardo Morial told /PO4 =ernande1 that he had no money to pay or the ser)ices o counsel. /PO4 =ernande1 in ormed him that there are many lawyers in their municipality and named some o them. >eonardo said he did not know any o the lawyers mentioned. /PO4 =ernande1 thus )olunteered to o!tain a lawyer or the suspect, to which >eonardo Morial consented. /PO4 =ernande1 then contacted +tty. +"uilar. +t a!out B:-- a.m. o 9 ?anuary 1996, +tty. #o!ias +"uilar arri)ed. + ter !ein" introduced to >eonardo Morial, +tty. +"uilar had a short con erence with him. He asked >eonardo i he was willin" to answer the *uestions that may !e propounded !y the police in)esti"ator. +tty. +"uilar warned him that the statements that he may "i)e mi"ht !e used in e)idence a"ainst him. >eonardo said he was willin" to answer the *uestions )oluntarily. +ccordin" to +tty. +"uilar, >eonardo was !ent on re)ealin" what really happened. #herea ter, /PO4
=ernande1 conducted the in)esti"ation in 0e!uano. Midway into the in)esti"ation, a ter the police in)esti"ator had asked $all the material points,$ +tty. +"uilar asked the in)esti"ator that he !e "i)en lea)e as he had a )ery important en"a"ement. #he in)esti"ator a"reed to the lawyer.s re*uest. 5e ore lea)in", +tty. +"uilar asked >eonardo i he was willin" to answer the *uestions in his a!sence. He also instructed the police that, a ter the written con ession had !een prepared, the accused and the document containin" the con ession should !e !rou"ht to his o ice or $ urther examination.$ +tty. +"uilar was in the police station or less than thirty minutes rom the start o the interro"ation. +t a!out 1:3- or (:-- p.m., >eonardo and his policeman9 escort arri)ed at +tty. +"uilar.s o ice. +tty. +"uilar asked the accused whether he was maltreated while he was away and examined the suspect.s !ody or contusions or a!rasions. >eonardo told him that he was not harmed !y the police o icer. #he lawyer then studied the document to determine whether its contents con ormed to the answers "i)en !y the accused in his Ccounsel.sD presence. He propounded *uestions to >eonardo with re erence to the document. +tty. +"uilar asked him whether he understood its contents and whether he was willin" to si"n it. >eonardo replied in the positi)e and si"ned the document in the presence o +tty. +"uilar and the policeman9escort. Edwin Morial, >eonardo Morial CV 0ardin"D and 'onelito +!iSon CV 'olyD were char"ed with ro!ery with homicide. Apon arrai"nment, the three accused pleaded not "uilty. + ter trial, the &e"ional #rial court rendered a decision con)ictin" all the three accused or the crime o ro!!ery with homicide, as de ined under +rticle (93 and penali1ed under +rticle (94 C1D o the &e)ised Penal 0ode and sentenced C1D >eonardo Morial and 'onelito +!iSon to su er the supreme penalty o death !y lethal in,ectionE and C(D Edwin Morial, due to his minority, to su er the lesser penalty o reclusion perpetua. On the ci)il aspect o the case, the court held the three accused li!ale ,ointly and se)erally C1D to indemni y the heirs o Paula 5andi!as the amount o P;-,---.-- as death indemnityE C(D to indemni y the heirs o +l!ert 5andi!as the amount o P;-,---.-- as death indemnityE C3D to indemni y complainant 5en,amin Morial the amount o P(-,;46.-- as actual dama"es or the uneral, !urial and wake expensesE C4D to pay to the heirs KtheL a orementioned moral dama"es o P6-,---.-- or each deathE and C;D to restitute or restore to 5en,amin Morial the P11,---.-- amount ro!!ed. #he court also ordered them to pay the costs. Hence, the automatic re)iew. !ssue 8hether >eonardo MorilaGs extra9,udicial con ession was )alid, inasmuch as the Imaterial pointsJ were tackled when the counsel, +tty. +"uilar #o!ias, was present. "e#d >eonardo Morial.s extra9,udicial con ession in)alid since he was e ecti)ely depri)ed o his ri"ht to counsel durin" the custodial in)esti"ation. +n accused under custodial interro"ation must continuously ha)e a counsel assistin" him rom the )ery start thereo . /PO4 =ernande1 cannot ,usti y +tty. +"uilar.s lea)in" !y claimin" that when the lawyer le t, he knew )ery well that the suspect had already admitted that >eonardo and his companions committed the crime. 'either can +tty. +"uilar rationali1e his a!andonin" his client !y sayin" that he le t only a ter the latter had admitted the $material points,$ re errin" to the three accused.s respecti)e participation in the crime. =or e)en as the person under custodial in)esti"ation en,oys the ri"ht to counsel rom its inception, so does he en,oy such ri"ht until its termination U indeed, $in e)ery phase o the in)esti"ation.$ +n e ecti)e and )i"ilant counsel $necessarily and lo"ically re*uires that the lawyer !e present and a!le to ad)ise and assist his client rom the time the con essant answers the irst *uestion asked !y the in)esti"atin" o icer until the si"nin" o the extra,udicial con ession.$ =urthermore, /ection (CaD o &+ 643B re*uires that $KaLny person arrested, detained or under custodial in)esti"ation shall at all times !e assisted !y counsel.$ #he last para"raph o /ection 3 o the same law mandates that $KiLn the a!sence o any lawyer, no custodial in)esti"ation shall !e conducted.$ #he ri"ht o >eonardo Morial to counsel was there ore completely ne"ated !y the precipitate departure o +tty. #o!ias !e ore the termination o the custodial in)esti"ation. % it were true that +tty. #o!ias had to attend to matters so pressin" that he had to a!andon a client under"oin" custodial in)esti"ation, he could ha)e terminated the same to !e continued only until as soon as his schedule permitted, ad)isin" the suspect in the meantime to remain silent. #his he ailed to do. +ppallin"ly, he e)en asked his client whether he was willin" to answer *uestions durin" the lawyer.s a!sence. #he records also disclose that +tty. #o!ias ne)er in ormed appellant o his ri"ht to remain silent, not e)en !e ore the custodial in)esti"ation started. +tty. #o!ias, !y his ailure to in orm appellant o the latter.s ri"ht to remain silent, !y his
$comin" and "oin"$ durin" the custodial in)esti"ation, and !y his a!rupt departure !e ore the termination o the proceedin"s, can hardly !e the counsel that the ramers o the 19B6 0onstitution contemplated when it added the modi ier $competent$ to the word $counsel.$ 'either can he !e descri!ed as the $)i"ilant and e ecti)e$ counsel that ,urisprudence re*uires. Precisely, it is +tty. #o!ias. nonchalant !eha)ior durin" the custodial in)esti"ation that the 0onstitution a!hors and which this 0ourt condemns. His casual attitude su!)erted the )ery purpose or this )ital ri"ht.#hat the extra9,udicial con ession was su!se*uently si"ned in the presence o counsel did not cure its constitutional de ects. +s >eonardo Morial was e ecti)ely depri)ed o his ri"ht to counsel durin" custodial in)esti"ation, his extra9,udicial con ession is inadmissi!le in e)idence a"ainst him. 2+2 %eo&#e vs. 4astro [)* 1.6+83, 19 June 199$] %e-ond 4ivision, 0o6ero (J)2 ' -on-3r Facts +t a!out ;:3- p.m. o 19 March 1991, 0apt. +llyn E)asco to"ether with /"t. &o"elio &a"uine, /"t. Emilio de @u1man and 0%0 ?ulian 7iscar"ar ormed a team or the purpose o conductin" a !uy9!ust operation. #he team went to their tar"et area in /an &o*ue, /an Mi"uel, Pan"asinan and proceeded to deploy themsel)es as planned. /"t. de @u1man who acted as poseur9!uyer and ci)ilian in ormer 7iscar"ar proceeded to 2ictoriano 0astro y 0ala"no.s house. /"t. &a"uine, meanwhile, hid in a "rassy spot near the house. 7iscar"ar introduced 0astro to /"t. de @u1man who said that he wanted to purchase a kilo o dried mari,uana lea)es. + ter "oin" inside the house, 0astro emer"ed with a plastic !a" which he handed to /"t. de @u1man who, in turn, paid him P6--.--. + ter the exchan"e, /"t. de @u1man made the pre9arran"ed si"nal, indicatin" that the transaction was complete, !y raisin" his ri"ht hand. Apon espyin" the si"nal, /"t. &a"uine and the other team mem!ers approached 0astro, introduced themsel)es as '+&0OM C'arcotics 0ommandD a"ents, and arrested him. He was therea ter !rou"ht to the /an Manuel Police /tation. 8hile the arrestin" team went to /an =ernando, >a Anion or urther in)esti"ation, the mari,uana lea)es were sent to 0amp 0rame or examination where it was disco)ered that the actual wei"ht o the con iscated mari,uana lea)es was 93"rams. 0astro was char"ed !e ore the &e"ional #rial 0ourt o Pan"asinan, 5ranch 3B in an in ormation dated (1 March 1991, or )iolation o /ection 4, +rticle %% o &epu!lic +ct 64(; C7an"erous 7ru"s +ct o 196(D. + ter 0astro entered a plea o not "uilty, trial on the merits commenced. On (9 +pril 199(, the trial court rendered its decision indin" 0astro "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t o the o ense char"ed, and sentencin" him to su er the penalty o li e imprisonment and to pay a ine o P(;,---.--, without su!sidiary imprisonment in case o insol)ency and to pay the costs o the proceedin"s. 0astro appealed. !ssue 8hether 0astroGs si"nature on the I&eceipt o Property /ei1edJ is admissi!le in e)idence. "e#d 0astro.s si"nature on the $&eceipt o Property /ei1ed$ is inadmissi!le in e)idence as there is no showin" that he was assisted !y counsel when he si"ned the same. /ince this is a document tacitly admittin" the o ense char"ed, the constitutional sa e"uard must !e o!ser)ed. 5e that as it may, e)en disre"ardin" this document, there is still ample e)idence to pro)e 0astro.s "uilt !eyond reasona!le dou!t, the same ha)in" !een shown !y the detailed testimonies o the law o icers who took part in the !uy9!ust operation. 2+3 %eo&#e vs. 8on( 41uen Min( [)* 1128.1711, 12 A&ri# 1996] 7irs# 4ivision, 5adi))a (J)2 ' -on-3r Facts On 6 /eptem!er 1991, at a!out 1:-- p.m., Philippine +ir >ines CP+>D =li"ht P& 3-1 rom Hon"kon" arri)ed at the 'inoy +*uino %nternational +irport C'+%+D in Pasay 0ity, Metro Manila. +mon" the many passen"ers who arri)ed on !oard said li"ht were 8on" 0huen Min", +u 8in" 0heun" ,#an /oi #ee, 0hin <ok 8ee, >im 0han =att, 0hin <in 3on", 3ap 5oon +h, 0hin <on" /on", 0hin <in =ah, 0hai Min Huwa and >im 'yuk /un. #heir respecti)e passports showed that 8on" 0huen Min" and +u 8in" 0heun" are the only 5ritish CHon"kon"D nationals in the "roup while the rest are all Malaysian nationals. #heir passports also re)ealed that all Malaysians Cexcept >im 0han =attD ori"inally came rom Malaysia, tra)eled to /in"apore and
Hon"kon" !e ore proceedin" to Manila. Apon the other hand, 8on" 0huen Min" and +u 8in" 0heun", as well as >im 0han =att, directly came rom Hon"kon" to Manila. 8on" 0huen Min", et. al. arri)ed in Manila as a tour "roup arran"ed !y /elect #ours %nternational 0o., >td. +u 8in" 0heun", an employee o /elect #ours %nternational 0o., >td. acted as their tour "uide. + ter passin" throu"h and o!tainin" clearance rom immi"ration o icers at the '+%+, the tour "roup went to the !a""a"e claim area to retrie)e their respecti)e checked9in !a""a"es. #hey placed the same in one pushcart and proceeded to Express >ane ; which at the time was manned !y customs examiner 7anilo @ome1. +u 8in" 0heun" handed to @ome1 the tour "roup.s passen"er.s mani est, their !a""a"e declarations and their passports. 7anilo @ome1 instructed the tour "roup to place their !a""a"es on the examiner.s ta!le or inspection. #hey were directed to hold on to their respecti)e !a""a"es while they wait or their turn to !e examined. 0hin <on" /on".s !a""a"e was irst to !e examined !y @ome1. @ome1 put his hand inside the !a""a"e and in the course o the inspection, he ound 3 !rown colored !oxes similar in si1e to powdered milk !oxes underneath the clothes. #he !oxes were marked +lpen 0ereals and as he ound nothin" wron" with them, @ome1 returned them inside the !a""a"e and allowed 0hin <on" /on" to "o. =ollowin" the same procedure, @ome1 next examined the !a""a"e o 8on" 0huen Min". @ome1 a"ain ound and pulled out ( !oxes o +lpen 0ereals rom said !a""a"e and like in the pre)ious inspection, he ound nothin" wron" with them and allowed 8on" 0huen Min" to "o. #he third !a""a"e to !e examined !elon"ed to >im 'yuk /un. 8hen @ome1 pulled out another 3 !oxes o +lpen 0ereals rom said !a""a"e, he !ecame suspicious and decided to open one o the !oxes with his cutter. %nside the !ox was a plastic !a" containin" white crystalline su!stance. +larmed, @ome1 immediately called the attention o +ppraiser Ore"anan Palala and 7uty 0ollector Menaida &eyes 5oni acio to his disco)ery. Apon learnin" a!out the !oxes containin" the white crystalline su!stance, Menaida &eyes 5oni acio C0hie o the 0ollection 7i)ision and +ctin" 7uty 0ollector o the 0ustoms O ice at the '+%+D immediately ordered the tour "roup to "et their !a""a"es and proceed to the district collector.s o ice. 0hin <on" /on" and 8on" 0huen Min", who were pre)iously cleared !y @ome1, were also !rou"ht inside to"ether with the rest o the "roup. %nside the collector.s o ice, @ome1 continued to examine the !a""a"es o the other mem!ers o the tour "roup. He alle"edly ound that each !a""a"e contained 1, ( or 3 !oxes similar to those pre)iously ound in the !a""a"es o 0hin <on" /on", 8on" 0huen Min" and >im 'yuk /un. + total o 3- !oxes o +lpen 0ereals containin" white crystalline su!stance were alle"edly reco)ered rom the !a""a"es o the 11 accused. +s @ome1 pulled out these !oxes rom their respecti)e !a""a"es, he !undled said !oxes !y puttin" maskin" tape around them and handed them o)er to 5oni acio. Apon receipt o these !undled !oxes, 5oni acio called out the names o accused as listed in the passen"ers. mani est and ordered them to si"n on the maskin" tape placed on the !oxes alle"edly reco)ered rom their respecti)e !a""a"es. +lso present at this time were 0apt. &ustico =rancisco and his men, a"ents o the 5ureau o 0ustoms and se)eral news reporters. + ew minutes later, 7istrict 0ollector +ntonio Mar*ue1 arri)ed with @eneral ?o! Mayo and then '5% 7eputy 7irector Mariano Mison. /hortly a ter all !oxes o +lpen 0ereals were reco)ered, 0apt. &ustico =rancisco, O icer in 0har"e CO%0D o the Philippine 'ational Police 'arcotics 0ommand 7etachment at the '+%+, conducted a ield test on a sample o the white crystalline su!stance. His test showed that the su!stance was indeed $sha!u.$ 0apt. =rancisco immediately in ormed the 11 accused that they were under arrest. #herea ter, all accused, as well as the +lpen 0ereals !oxes which were placed inside a !i" !ox, were !rou"ht to 0amp 0rame. +t 0amp 0rame, accused were asked to identi y their si"natures on the !oxes and a ter ha)in" identi ied them, they were a"ain made to si"n on the plastic !a"s containin" white crystalline su!stance inside the !oxes !earin" their si"natures. #he examination !y Eli1a!eth +yonon, a orensic chemist at the Philippine 'ational Police 0rime >a!oratory at 0amp 0rame, con irmed that the white crystalline su!stance reco)ered rom accused was $sha!u.$ #he total wei"ht o $sha!u$ reco)ered was placed at 34.4; kilo"rams. 11 separate criminal in ormations were iled a"ainst all o the accused indi)idually. #he counsel o +u 8in" 0heun" earlier iled a petition or rein)esti"ation and de erment o his arrai"nment !ut the same was denied !y the trial court or lack o merit. +t their respecti)e arrai"nments, all accused with the assistance o their counsels, includin +u 8in" 0heun" pleaded not "uilty to the char"e. #he trial court conducted a ,oint andNor consolidated trial o all the cases upon motion !y the prosecution considerin" that the /tate had common testimonial and documentary e)idence a"ainst all accused. On (9 'o)em!er 1991, the &e"ional #rial 0ourt, 5ranch 1-9 o Pasay 0ity, ound the accused "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t o )iolatin" /ection 1;, +rticle
%%% o &epu!lic +ct 64(;, as amended, otherwise known as the 7an"erous 7ru"s +ct o 196(E and sentenced each to li e imprisonment and a ine o P(-,---.--. 8on" 0huen Min" and +u 8in" 0heun" appealed. !ssue 8hether the si"natures o accused on the !oxes, as well as on the plastic !a"s containin" $sha!u$, are admissi!le in e)idence. "e#d #he 0ourt holds that the si"natures o accused on the !oxes, as well as on the plastic !a"s containin" $sha!u$, are inadmissi!le in e)idence. + care ul study o the records re)eals that accused were ne)er in ormed o their undamental ri"hts durin" the entire time that they were under in)esti"ation. /peci ically, accused were not in ormed o their Miranda ri"hts i.e. that they had the ri"ht to remain silent and to counsel and any statement they mi"ht make could !e used a"ainst them, when they were made to a ix their si"natures on the !oxes o +lpen 0ereals while they were at the '+%+ and a"ain, on the plastic !a"s when they were already taken in custody at 0amp 0rame. 5y a ixin" their si"natures on the !oxes o +lpen 0ereals and on the plastic !a"s, accused in e ect made a tacit admission o the crime char"ed or mere possession o $sha!u$ is punished !y law. #hese si"natures o accused are tantamount to an uncounselled extra9,udicial con ession which is not sanctioned !y the 5ill o &i"hts C/ection 1(K1LK3L, +rticle %%%, 19B6 0onstitutionD. #hey are, there ore, inadmissi!le as e)idence or any admission wrun" rom the accused in )iolation o their constitutional ri"hts is inadmissi!le a"ainst them. #he act that all accused are orei"n nationals does not preclude application o the $exclusionary rule$ !ecause the constitutional "uarantees em!odied in the 5ill o &i"hts are "i)en and extend to all persons, !oth aliens and citi1ens. 2+4 Marce#o vs. Sandi(an,a-an >First /ivision? [)* 1.9242, 26 Januar- 1999] %e-ond 4ivision, Mendoza (J)2 ' -on-3r Facts On 1- =e!ruary 19B9, ?acinto Merete, a letter carrier in the Makati 0entral Post O ice, disclosed to his chie , Pro,ecto #uma"an, the existence o a "roup responsi!le or the pil era"e o mail matter in the post o ice. +mon" those mentioned !y Merete were +rnold Pasicolan, an emer"ency la!orer assi"ned as a !a" opener in the Printed Matters /ection, and &edentor +"uinaldo, a mail sorter o the Makati Post O ice. Merete likewise descri!ed the modus operandi o the "roup. =or this reason, #uma"an sou"ht the aid o the 'ational 5ureau o %n)esti"ation C'5%D in apprehendin" the "roup responsi!le or mail pil era"e in the Makati Post O ice. On 16 =e!ruary 19B9, '5% 7irector /al)ador &anin dispatched '5% a"ents to >e"aspi 2illa"e ollowin" a report that the "roup would sta"e a the t o mail matter on that day. #uma"an accompanied a team o '5% a"ents composed o /enior +"ent +rles 2ela and two other a"ents in a pri)ate car. #hey arri)ed at >e"aspi 2illa"e at a!out 1:-- p.m. #hey stayed at the corner o +delantado and @am!oa /treets, while two other teams o '5% a"ents waited at +morsolo /treet, near the Es*uerra 5uildin". +t (:-p.m., a postal deli)ery ,eep, dri)en !y one Henry Orindai, was parked in ront o the Es"uerra 5uildin" on +delantado /treet. #he passen"ers o the postal deli)ery ,eep were +rnold Pasicolan, ?acinto Merete, and the dri)er, Henry Orindai. Pasicolan ali"hted rom the ,eep !rin"in" with him a mail !a". Merete stayed inside the ,eep. Pasicolan then passed throu"h an alley !etween Es"uerra and Montepino 5uildin"s "oin" towards +morsolo /t. Apon reachin" +morsolo /t., Pasicolan "a)e the mail !a" to two persons, who were later identi ied as &onnie &omero and >ito Marcelo. #he latter trans erred the contents o the mail !a" Ci.e., assorted mail matterD to a tra)ellin" !a". #he two then secured the !a" to the !ack o their motorcycle. Meanwhile, the '5% team led !y a"ent 2ela, upon seein" Pasicolan "oin" towards +morsolo /t., mo)ed their car and started towards +morsolo /t. #hey were ,ust in time to see Pasicolan handin" o)er the mail !a" to Marcelo and &omero. +t that point, +tty. /aca"uin" and +rles 2ela arrested Marcelo and &omero. Anaware o the arrest o &omero and Marcelo, Pasicolan went !ack to the postal deli)ery ,eep and proceeded toward Pasay &oad. #he '5% a"ents ollowed the postal deli)ery ,eep, o)ertook it, and arrested Pasicolan. #he '5% a"ents !rou"ht Pasicolan, Marcelo, and &omero to their head*uarters. #hey also !rou"ht alon" with them the motorcycle o &omero and Marcelo and the !a" o unsorted mail ound in their possession. On their way to the '5% head*uarters, they passed !y the Makati 0entral Post O ice, intendin" to arrest another suspect, &edentor +"uinaldo. Howe)er, they were not a!le to ind him there. #he unsorted mail sei1ed rom Marcelo
and &omero consisted o 6(( letters. #he names o the addressees were listed. #hey were su!se*uently noti ied !y the 5ureau o Posts to claim their letters. Many o them, a ter proper identi ication, were a!le to claim their letters. /ome letters contained money. &omero, Marcelo, and Pasicolan were asked to a ix their si"natures on the en)elopes o the letters. #hey did so in the presence o the mem!ers o the '5% +dministrati)e and %n)esti"ati)e /ta and the people transactin" !usiness with the '5% at that time. +ccordin" to 7irector &anin, they re*uired the accused to do this in order to identi y the letters as the )ery same letters con iscated rom them. +rnold Pasicolan y Ma!a11a, &onnie &omero y /antos, and >ito Marcelo y 0ru1 were char"ed with in idelity in the custody o documents. #he case was later withdrawn and another in ormation or *uali ied the t was iled !e ore the /andi"an!ayan. On B March 1993, the /andi"an!ayan ound all the accused "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t as principals o the crime o *uali ied the t. #he /andi"an!ayan sentenced Pasiclon the penalty ran"in" rom B years, B months, and 1 day o Prision mayor, as minimum, to 13 years, 1 month, and 11 days o reclusion temporal, as maximumE &omero and Marcelo, the penalty ran"in" rom 6 3E+&/, 4 months, and 1 day o prision mayor, as minimum, to 11 years, 6 months, and (1 days o prision mayor, as maximum, each. Marcelo iled the petition or re)iew on certiorari with the /upreme 0ourt. !ssue 8hether the exclusion o the admission, made throu"h the si"natures on the en)elopes, extend to the exclusion rom e)idence o the letters themsel)es. "e#d #he purpose or securin" the si"nature o Marcelo, et. al. on the en)elopes was to authenticate the en)elopes as the ones sei1ed rom him and &onnie &omero. #his purpose and their si"natures on the en)elope, when coupled with the testimony o prosecution witnesses that the en)elopes sei1ed rom Marcelo were those "i)en to him and &omero, undou!tedly help esta!lish the "uilt o Marcelo. /ince these si"natures are actually e)idence o admission o!tained rom Marcelo and his co9accused under circumstances contemplated in +rt. %%%. WW1(C1D and 16 o the 0onstitution, they should !e excluded. =or indeed, Marcelo and his co9accused si"ned ollowin" their arrest. Hence, they were at the time under custodial in)esti"ation, de ined as *uestionin" initiated !y law en orcement o icers a ter a person has !een taken into custody or otherwise depri)ed o his reedom o action in a si"ni icant way. Ander the 0onstitution, amon" the ri"hts o a person under custodial in)esti"ation is the ri"ht to ha)e competent and independent counsel pre era!ly o his own choice and i the person cannot a ord the ser)ices o counsel, that he must !e pro)ided with one. Howe)er, the letters are themsel)es not inadmissi!le in e)idence. #he letters were )alidly sei1ed rom Marcelo and &omero as an incident o a )alid arrest. + rulin" that Marcelo.s admission that the letters in *uestion were those sei1ed rom him and his companion on 16 =e!ruary 19B9 is inadmissi!le in e)idence does not extend to the exclusion rom e)idence o the letters themsel)es. #he letters can stand on their own, !ein" the ruits o a crime )alidly sei1ed durin" a law ul arrest. #hat these letters were the ones ound in the possession o Marcelo and his companion and sei1ed rom them was shown !y the testimonies o 2ela and #uma"an. %ndeed, Marcelo and his co9accused were not con)icted solely on the !asis o the si"natures ound on the letters !ut on other e)idence, nota!ly the testimonies o '5% a"ents and other prosecution witnesses. 2++ %eo&#e vs. Andan [)* 11643$, 3 Marc1 199$] +n ,an-, 5er (3ria62 "5 -on-3r Facts On 19 =e!ruary 1994 at a!out 4:-- P.M., in 0oncepcion /u!di)ision, 5aliua", 5ulacan, Marianne @ue)arra, (- years o a"e and a second9year student at the =atima /chool o 'ursin", le t her home or her school dormitory in 2alen1uela, Metro Manila. /he was to prepare or her inal examinations on (1 =e!ruary 1994. Marianne wore a striped !louse and aded denim pants and !rou"ht with her two !a"s containin" her school uni orms, some personal e ects and more than P(,---.-- in cash. Marianne was walkin" alon" the su!di)ision when Pa!lito +ndan y Hernande1 in)ited her inside his house. He used the pretext that the !lood pressure o his wi e.s "randmother should !e taken. Marianne a"reed to take her !lood pressure as the old woman was her distant relati)e. /he did not know that no!ody was inside the house. +ndan then punched her in the a!domen, !rou"ht her to the kitchen and raped her. His lust sated, +ndan dra""ed the unconscious "irl
to an old toilet at the !ack o the house and le t her there until dark. 'i"ht came and +ndan pulled Marianne, who was still unconscious, to their !ackyard. #he yard had a pi"pen !ordered on one side !y a 69 oot hi"h concrete ence. On the other side was a )acant lot. +ndan stood on a !ench !eside the pi"pen and then li ted and draped the "irl.s !ody o)er the ence to trans er it to the )acant lot. 8hen the "irl mo)ed, he hit her head with a piece o concrete !lock. He heard her moan and hit her a"ain on the ace. + ter silence rei"ned, he pulled her !ody to the other side o the ence, dra""ed it towards a shallow portion o the lot and a!andoned it. +t 11:-- a.m. o the ollowin" day, the !ody o Marianne was disco)ered. /he was naked rom the chest down with her !rassiere and #9shirt pulled toward her neck. 'ear!y was ound a panty with a sanitary napkin. Marianne.s "ruesome death drew pu!lic attention and prompted Mayor 0ornelio #rinidad o 5aliua" to orm a crack team o police o icers to look or the criminal. /earchin" the place where Marianne.s !ody was ound, the policemen reco)ered a !roken piece o concrete !lock stained with what appeared to !e !lood. #hey also ound a pair o denim pants and a pair o shoes which were identi ied as Marianne.s. +ndan.s near!y house was also searched !y the police who ound !loodstains on the wall o the pi"pen in the !ackyard. #hey inter)iewed the occupants o the house and learned rom &omano 0alma, the step!rother o +ndan.s wi e, that +ndan also li)ed there !ut that he, his wi e and son le t without a word. 0alma surrendered to the police se)eral articles consistin" o porno"raphic pictures, a pair o wet short pants with some reddish !rown stain, a towel also with the stain, and a wet #9shirt. #he clothes were ound in the laundry hamper inside the house and alle"edly !elon"ed to +ndan. #he police tried to locate +ndan and learned that his parents li)e in 5aran"ay #an"os, 5aliua", 5ulacan. On =e!ruary (4 at 11:-- P.M., a police team led !y Mayor #rinidad traced +ndan in his parents. house. #hey took him a!oard the patrol ,eep and !rou"ht him to the police head*uarters where he was interro"ated. %nitially, +ndan denied any knowled"e o Marianne.s death. Howe)er, when the police con ronted him with the concrete !lock, the )ictim.s clothes and the !loodstains ound in the pi"pen, +ndan relented and said that his nei"h!ors, @il!ert >arin and &eynaldo 7i1on, killed Marianne and that he was merely a lookout. He also said that he knew where >arin and 7i1on hid the two !a"s o Marianne. %mmediately, the police took +ndan to his house. >arin and 7i1on, who were rounded up earlier, were likewise !rou"ht there !y the police. +ndan went to an old toilet at the !ack o the house, leaned o)er a lower pot and retrie)ed rom a canal under the pot, two !a"s which were later identi ied as !elon"in" to Marianne. #herea ter, photo"raphs were taken o +ndan and the two other suspects holdin" the !a"s. 5y this time, people and media representati)es were already "athered at the police head*uarters awaitin" the results o the in)esti"ation. Mayor #rinidad arri)ed and proceeded to the in)esti"ation room. Apon seein" the mayor, +ndan approached him and whispered a re*uest that they talk pri)ately. #he mayor led +ndan to the o ice o the 0hie o Police and there, +ndan !roke down and said $Mayor, patawarin mo akoX % will tell you the truth. % am the one who killed Marianne.$ #he mayor opened the door o the room to let the pu!lic and media representati)es witness the con ession. #he mayor irst asked or a lawyer to assist +ndan !ut since no lawyer was a)aila!le he ordered the proceedin"s photo"raphed and )ideotaped. %n the presence o the mayor, the police, representati)es o the media and +ndan.s own wi e and son, +ndan con essed his "uilt. He disclosed how he killed Marianne and )olunteered to show them the place where he hid her !a"s. He asked or or"i)eness rom >arin and 7i1on whom he alsely implicated sayin" he did it !ecause o ill9 eelin"s a"ainst them. He also said that the de)il entered his mind !ecause o the porno"raphic ma"a1ines and ta!loid he read almost e)eryday. + ter his con ession, +ndan hu""ed his wi e and son and asked the mayor to help him. His con ession was captured on )ideotape and co)ered !y the media nationwide. +ndan was detained at the police head*uarters. #he next two days, =e!ruary (6 and (6, more newspaper, radio and tele)ision reporters came. +ndan was a"ain inter)iewed and he a irmed his con ession to the mayor and reenacted the crime. Pa!lito +ndan y Hernande1 alias $5o!!y$ was char"ed with rape with homicide. On arrai"nment, howe)er, +ndan entered a plea o $not "uilty.$ %n a decision dated 4 +u"ust 1994, the trial court con)icted +ndan and sentenced him to death pursuant to &epu!lic +ct 66;9. #he trial court also ordered +ndan to pay the )ictim.s heirs P;-,---.-- as death indemnity, P61,---.-- as actual !urial expenses and P1--,---.-- as moral dama"es. Hence, the automatic re)iew. !ssue 8hether +ndanGs con ession to the police, the mayor, and the newsmen may !e admitted as e)idence a"ainst +ndan.
"e#d +ny person under in)esti"ation or the commission o an o ense shall ha)e the ri"ht C1D to remain silentE C(D to ha)e competent and independent counsel pre era!ly o his own choiceE and C3D to !e in ormed o such ri"hts. #hese ri"hts cannot !e wai)ed except in writin" and in the presence o counsel. +ny con ession or admission o!tained in )iolation o this pro)ision is inadmissi!le in e)idence a"ainst him. #he exclusionary rule is premised on the presumption that the de endant is thrust into an un amiliar atmosphere and runs throu"h menacin" police interro"ation procedures where the potentiality or compulsion, physical and psycholo"ical, is orce ully apparent. #he incommunicado character o custodial interro"ation or in)esti"ation also o!scures a later ,udicial determination o what really transpired. 8hen the police arrested +ndan, they were no lon"er en"a"ed in a "eneral in*uiry a!out the death o Marianne. %ndeed, +ndan was already a prime suspect e)en !e ore the police ound him at his parents. house. +ndan was already under custodial in)esti"ation when he con essed to the police. %t is admitted that the police ailed to in orm appellant o his constitutional ri"hts when he was in)esti"ated and interro"ated. His con ession is there ore inadmissi!le in e)idence. /o too were the two !a"s reco)ered rom +ndan.s house. #he )ictim.s !a"s were the ruits o +ndan.s uncounselled con ession to the police. #hey are tainted e)idence, hence also inadmissi!le. On the other hand, howe)er, +ndan.s con ession to the mayor was not made in response to any interro"ation !y the latter. %n act, the mayor did not *uestion +ndan at all. 'o police authority ordered +ndan to talk to the mayor. %t was +ndan himsel who spontaneously, reely and )oluntarily sou"ht the mayor or a pri)ate meetin". #he mayor did not know that +ndan was "oin" to con ess his "uilt to him. 8hen +ndan talked with the mayor as a con idant and not as a law en orcement o icer, his uncounselled con ession to him did not )iolate his constitutional ri"hts. +ndan.s con essions to the media were properly admitted. #he con essions were made in response to *uestions !y news reporters, not !y the police or any other in)esti"atin" o icer. /tatements spontaneously made !y a suspect to news reporters on a tele)ised inter)iew are deemed )oluntary and are admissi!le in e)idence. #he records show that +lex Marcelino, a tele)ision reporter or $Eye to Eye$ on 0hannel 6, inter)iewed +ndan on (6 =e!ruary 1994. #he inter)iew was recorded on )ideo and showed that +ndan made his con ession willin"ly, openly and pu!licly in the presence o his wi e, child and other relati)es. Orlan Mauricio, a reporter or $#ell the People$ on 0hannel 9 also inter)iewed appellant on (; =e!ruary 1994. +ndan.s con essions to the news reporters were "i)en ree rom any undue in luence rom the police authorities. #he news reporters acted as news reporters when they inter)iewed +ndan. #hey were not actin" under the direction and control o the police. #hey were there to check +ndan.s con ession to the mayor. #hey did not orce +ndan to "rant them an inter)iew and reenact the commission o the crime. %n act, they asked his permission !e ore inter)iewin" him. #hey inter)iewed him on separate days not once did +ndan protest his innocence. %nstead, he repeatedly con essed his "uilt to them. He e)en supplied all the details in the commission o the crime, and consented to its reenactment. +ll his con essions to the news reporters were witnessed !y his amily and other relati)es. #here was no coerci)e atmosphere in the inter)iew o +ndan !y the news reporters. #hus, +ndan.s )er!al con essions to the newsmen are not co)ered !y /ection 1( C1D and C3D o +rticle %%% o the 0onstitution. #he 5ill o &i"hts does not concern itsel with the relation !etween a pri)ate indi)idual and another indi)idual. %t "o)erns the relationship !etween the indi)idual and the /tate. #he prohi!itions therein are primarily addressed to the /tate and its a"ents. #hey con irm that certain ri"hts o the indi)idual exist without need o any "o)ernmental "rant, ri"hts that may not !e taken away !y "o)ernment, ri"hts that "o)ernment has the duty to protect. @o)ernmental power is not unlimited and the 5ill o &i"hts lays down these limitations to protect the indi)idual a"ainst a""ression and unwarranted inter erence !y any department o "o)ernment and its a"encies. 2+6 %eo&#e vs. 9ndino [)* 133.26, 2. Fe,ruar- 2..1] %e-ond 4ivision, ,e))osi))o (J)2 ' -on-3r Facts On a !usy street in Puerto Princesa 0ity in the e)enin" o 16 Octo!er 1991, an em!oldened @erry
@al"arin CV #otoD, uncle o Edward Endino, suddenly and without warnin" lun"ed at 7ennis +*uino and sta!!ed him repeatedly on the chest. 7ennis. "irl riend 0lara +"a"as who was with him, stunned !y the unexpected attack, pleaded to @al"arin to stop. 7ennis stru""led and succeeded momentarily to ree himsel rom his attacker. 7ennis dashed towards the near!y Midtown /ales !ut his escape was oiled when rom out o nowhere Edward Endino appeared and ired at 7ennis. +s 7ennis sta""ered or sa ety, the ( assailants led in the direction o the airport. Meanwhile, 7ennis, wounded and !leedin", sou"ht re u"e inside the Elohim /tore where he collapsed on the loor. He was "raspin" or !reath and near death. 0lara with the help o some onlookers took him to the hospital !ut 7ennis expired e)en !e ore he could recei)e medical attention. On 1B Octo!er 1991, an %n ormation or the murder o 7ennis +*uino was iled a"ainst Edward Endino and @erry @al"arin and warrants were issued or their arrest. Howe)er, as !oth accused remained at lar"e, the trial court issued on (6 7ecem!er 1991 an order puttin" the case in the archi)es without pre,udice to its reinstatement upon their apprehension. On 19 'o)em!er 199(, @erry @al"arin was arrested throu"h the com!ined e orts o the +ntipolo and Palawan police orces at a house in /itio /to. 'iSo, +ntipolo, &i1al. He was immediately taken into temporary custody !y the +ntipolo Police. Early in the e)enin" o the ollowin" day, he was etched rom the +ntipolo Police /tation !y PO3 @audencio Manla)i and PO3 Edwin Ma"!anua o the Palawan police orce to !e taken to Palawan and !e tried accordin"ly. On their way to the airport, they stopped at the +5/905' tele)ision station where @al"arin was inter)iewed !y reporters. 2ideo oota"es o the inter)iew were taken showin" @al"arin admittin" his "uilt while pointin" to his nephew Edward Endino as the "unman. +ccordin" to @al"arin, a ter attackin" +*uino, they le t or &oxas, Palawan, where his sister >an""in" who is Edward.s mother, was waitin". >an""in" "a)e them money or their are or Manila. #hey took the !oat or 5atan"as, where they stayed or a ew days, and proceeded to Manila where they separated, with him headin" or +ntipolo. @al"arin appealed or Edward to "i)e himsel up to the authorities. His inter)iew was shown o)er the +5/905' e)enin" news pro"ram #2 Patrol. 7urin" trial, @al"arin disowned the con ession which he made o)er #2 Patrol and claimed that it was induced !y the threats o the arrestin" police o icers. He asserted that the )ideotaped con ession was constitutionally in irmed and inadmissi!le under the exclusionary rule pro)ided in /ec. 1(, +rt. %%%, o the 0onstitution. #he trial court ound @al"arin "uilty o murder *uali ied !y #reachery, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to indemni y the heirs o 7ennis +*uino in the amount o P;-,---.-- as compensatory dama"es and P6(,6(;.3; as actual dama"es. !ssue 8hether the +5/905' inter)iew recordin" @al"arinGs con ession is admissi!le as e)idence. "e#d #he inter)iew was recorded on )ideo and it showed @al"arin un!urdenin" his "uilt willin"ly, openly and pu!licly in the presence o newsmen. /uch con ession does not orm part o custodial in)esti"ation as it was not "i)en to police o icers !ut to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and or"i)eness rom the pu!lic. 5esides, i he had indeed !een orced into con essin", he could ha)e easily sou"ht succor rom the newsmen who, in all likelihood, would ha)e !een sympathetic with him. Howe)er, !ecause o the inherent dan"er in the use o tele)ision as a medium or admittin" one.s "uilt, and the recurrence o this phenomenon in se)eral cases, it is prudent that trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must !e taken in urther admittin" similar con essions. =or in all pro!a!ility, the police, with the conni)ance o unscrupulous media practitioners, may attempt to le"itimi1e coerced extra9,udicial con essions and place them !eyond the exclusionary rule !y ha)in" an accused admit an o ense on tele)ision. /uch a situation would !e detrimental to the "uaranteed ri"hts o the accused and thus imperil our criminal ,ustice system. %t is not su""ested that )ideotaped con essions "i)en !e ore media men !y an accused with the knowled"e o and in the presence o police o icers are impermissi!le. %ndeed, the line !etween proper and in)alid police techni*ues and conduct is a di icult one to draw, particularly in cases such as this where it is essential to make sharp ,ud"ments in determinin" whether a con ession was "i)en under coerci)e physical or psycholo"ical atmosphere. + word o counsel then to lower courts: $we should ne)er presume that all media con essions descri!ed as )oluntary ha)e !een reely "i)en. #his type o con ession always remains suspect and there ore should !e thorou"hly examined and scrutini1ed. 7etection o coerced con essions is admittedly a di icult and arduous task or the courts to make. %t re*uires persistence and determination in separatin" polluted con essions rom untainted
ones. 8e ha)e a sworn duty to !e )i"ilant and protecti)e o the ri"hts "uaranteed !y the 0onstitution.$ 2+$ %eo&#e vs. 2rdono [)* 1321+4, 29 June 2...] +n ,an-, 5er (3ria62 "5 -on-3r Facts On ; +u"ust 1994, the decomposin" !ody o a youn" "irl was ound amon" the !ushes near a !rid"e in 5aran"ay Po!lacion, /antol, >a Anion. #he "irl was later identi ied as /hirley 2ictore, 1; years old, a resident o 5aran"ay @uesset, Po!lacion, /antol, >a Anion, who 3 days !e ore was reported missin". Post9 mortem examination conducted !y 7r. +rturo >la)ore, a medico9le"al o icer o the '5%, re)ealed that the )ictim was raped and stran"led to death. Anidenti ied sources pointed to Pacito OrdoSo and +polonio Medina as the authors o the crime. +ctin" on this lead, the police thereupon in)ited the ( suspects and !rou"ht them to the police station or *uestionin". Howe)er, or lack o e)idence then directly linkin" them to the crime, they were allowed to "o home. On 1- +u"ust 1994, OrdoSo and Medina returned to the police station one a ter another and acknowled"ed that they had indeed committed the crime. +ctin" on their admission, the police immediately conducted an in)esti"ation and put their con essions in writin". #he in)esti"ators howe)er could not at once "et the ser)ices o a lawyer to assist the ( accused in the course o the in)esti"ation !ecause there were no practicin" lawyers in the Municipality o /antol, a remote town o the Pro)ince o >a Anion. 5e that as it may, the statements o the ( accused where ne)ertheless taken. 5ut !e ore doin" so, !oth accused were apprised in their own dialect o their constitutional ri"ht to remain silent and to !e assisted !y a competent counsel o their choice. Apon their ac*uiescence and assurance that they understood their ri"hts and did not re*uire the ser)ices o counsel, the in)esti"ation was conducted with the Parish Priest, the Municipal Mayor, the 0hie o Police and other police o icers o /antol, >a Anion, in attendance to listen to and witness the "i)in" o the )oluntary statements o the ( suspects who admitted their participation in the crime. + ter Medina said his piece, his wi e and mother suddenly !urst into tears. He then a ixed his si"nature on his statement and so did his wi e, ollowed !y all the other witnesses who listened to his con ession. Pacito OrdoSo narrated his story in the a ternoon. +t the end o his narration OrdoSo a ixed his thum!mark on his statement in lieu o his si"nature as he did not know how to write. #herea ter, Medina and OrdoSo were detained at the /antol police station. 'ews a!out the apprehension and detention o the culprits o the rape9slay o /hirley 2ictore soon spread that &oland +lmoite, leadin" radio announcer o radio station 7M'>, )isited and inter)iewed them. %n the inter)iew, which was duly tape9recorded !oth accused admitted a"ain their complicity in the crime and narrated indi)idually the e)ents surroundin" their commission thereo . +ccordin" to Medina, his remorse in ha)in" committed the crime was so "reat !ut his repentance came too late. He and OrdoSo hoped that the parents o /hirley 2ictore would or"i)e them. Apon conclusion o the inter)iew, &oland +lmoite immediately went to radio station 7M'> and played the taped inter)iew on the air. #he same inter)iew was played a"ain on the air the ollowin" mornin" and was heard !y thousands o listeners. + couple o days later, the police !rou"ht the ( accused to the o ice o the P+O lawyer in 5alaoan, >a Anion, or assistance and counselin". %n a closed9door session, P+O lawyer Oscar 5. 0orpu1 apprised each o the accused o his constitutional ri"hts and, e)en thou"h their con essions were already written in their dialect, explained to them each o the *uestions and answers taken durin" the in)esti"ation. He likewise ad)ised them to ponder the conse*uences o their con essions, leadin" them to de er the a ixin" o their second si"natureNthum!mark thereon. + ter a week or so, the ( separately went !ack to +tty. 0orpu1 and in ormed him o their willin"ness to a ix their si"natures and thum!marks or the second time in their respecti)e con essions. Once a"ain +tty. 0orpu1 apprised the ( accused o their constitutional ri"hts, explained the contents o their respecti)e statements, and inally, accompanied them to ?ud"e =a!ian M. 5autista, M#0 ,ud"e o 5alaoan, >a Anion, who urther apprised the ( accused o their constitutional ri"hts and asked them i they had !een coerced into si"nin" their con essions. #hey assured ?ud"e 5autista that their statements had !een "i)en reely and )oluntarily. Apon such assurance that they had not !een coerced into "i)in" and si"nin" their con essions, ?ud"e 5autista inally asked OrdoSo and Medina to a ix their si"naturesNthum!marks on their respecti)e con essions, and to su!scri!e the same !e ore him. +tty. 0orpu1 then si"ned their statements as their assistin" counsel, ollowed !y a ew mem!ers o the M#0 sta who witnessed the si"nin". Ordono and Medina were char"ed or rape with homicide. On arrai"nment, in a
complete turna!out, the ( accused pleaded not "uilty. On 11 7ecem!er 1996, the trial court ad,ud"ed OrdoSo and Medina "uilty o the crime o rape with homicide attended with conspiracy, and imposed upon each o them ( death penalties on the !asis o their extra,udicial con essions. Hence, the automatic re)iew. !ssue 8hether the custodial in)esti"ation made in the presence o the municipal mayor, parish priest, etc. andNor the taped inter)iew containin" the accusedGs con essions are admissi!le as e)idence. "e#d 0ustodial in)esti"ation !e"an when the accused OrdoSo and Medina )oluntarily went to the /antol Police /tation to con ess and the in)esti"atin" o icer started askin" *uestions to elicit in ormation andNor con ession rom them. +t such point, the ri"ht o the accused to counsel automatically attached to them. 0oncededly, a ter in ormin" the accused o their ri"hts the police sou"ht to pro)ide them with counsel. Howe)er, none could !e urnished them due to the non9a)aila!ility o practicin" lawyers in /antol, >a Anion, and the remoteness o the town to the next ad,oinin" town o 5alaoan, >a Anion, where practicin" lawyers could !e ound. +t that sta"e, the police should ha)e already desisted rom continuin" with the interro"ation !ut they persisted and "ained the consent o the accused to proceed with the in)esti"ation. #o the credit o the police, they re*uested the presence o the Parish Priest and the Municipal Mayor o /antol as well as the relati)es o the accused to o!)iate the possi!ility o coercion, and to witness the )oluntary execution !y the accused o their statements !e ore the police. 'onetheless, this did not cure in any way the a!sence o a lawyer durin" the in)esti"ation. %n the a!sence o such )alid wai)er, the Parish Priest o /antol, the Municipal Mayor, the relati)es o the accused, the 0hie o Police and other police o icers o the municipality could not stand in lieu o counsel.s presence. #he apparent consent o the ( accused in continuin" with the in)esti"ation was o no moment as a wai)er to !e e ecti)e must !e made in writin" and with the assistance o counsel. 0onse*uently, any admission o!tained rom the ( accused emanatin" rom such uncounselled interro"ation would !e inadmissi!le in e)idence in any proceedin". /ecurin" the assistance o the P+O lawyer ; to B days later does not remedy this omission either. +lthou"h there was a showin" that the P+O lawyer made a thorou"h explanation o the ri"hts o the accused, enli"htened them on the possi!le repercussions o their admissions, and e)en "a)e them time to deli!erate upon them, this aid and )alua!le ad)ice "i)en !y counsel still came se)eral days too late. %t could ha)e no palliati)e e ect. %t could not cure the a!sence o counsel durin" the custodial in)esti"ation when the extra,udicial statements were !ein" taken. #he second a ixation o the si"naturesNthum!marks o the accused on their con essions a ew days a ter their closed9door meetin" with the P+O lawyer, in the presence and with the si"nin" o the M#0 ,ud"e, the P+O lawyer and other witnesses, likewise did not make their admissions an in ormed one. +dmissions o!tained durin" custodial in)esti"ation without the !ene it o counsel althou"h reduced into writin" and later si"ned in the presence o counsel are still lawed under the 0onstitution. % the lawyer.s role is diminished to !ein" that o a mere witness to the si"nin" o a prepared document al!eit an indication therein that there was compliance with the constitutional ri"hts o the accused, the re*uisite standards "uaranteed !y +rt. %%%, /ec. 1(, par. C1D, are not met. #he standards utili1ed !y police authorities to assure the constitutional ri"hts o the accused there ore ell short o the standards demanded !y the 0onstitution and the law. +s with the inter)iew taken !y 7M'> radio announcer &oland +lmoite, the taped inter)iew was o ered to orm part o the testimony o witness &oland +lmoite to whom the admissions were made and to pro)e throu"h electronic de)ice the )oluntary admissions !y the ( accused that they raped and killed /hirley 2ictore. #he de ense o!,ected to its acceptance on the "round that its inte"rity had not !een preser)ed as the tape could easily ha)e !een spliced and tampered with. Howe)er, as &oland +lmoite testi ied, it was the ori"inal copy o the taped inter)iewE it was not alteredE the )oices therein were the )oices o the ( accusedE and, the de ense ne)er su!mitted e)idence to pro)e otherwise. Ander the circumstances, the 0ourt is inclined to admit the authenticity o the taped inter)iew. + re)iew o the contents o the tape as included in &oland +lmoite.s testimony re)eals that the inter)iew was conducted ree rom any in luence or intimidation rom police o icers and was done willin"ly !y the accused. 7espite alle"ations to the contrary, no police authority ordered or orced the accused to talk to the radio announcer. 8hile it may !e expected that police o icers were around since the inter)iew was held in the police station, there was no showin" that they were within
hearin" distance nor within the )icinity where the inter)iew was !ein" conducted. +t most, the participation o the police authorities was only to allow &oland +lmoite to conduct an inter)iew. #he taped inter)iew likewise re)ealed that the accused )oluntarily admitted to the rape9slay and e)en expressed remorse or ha)in" perpetrated the crime. 8e ha)e held that statements spontaneously made !y a suspect to news reporters on a tele)ised inter)iew are deemed )oluntary and are admissi!le in e)idence. 5y analo"y, statements made !y herein accused to a radio announcer should likewise !e held admissi!le. #he inter)iew was not in the nature o an in)esti"ation as the response o the accused was made in answer to *uestions asked !y the radio reporter, not !y the police or any other in)esti"atin" o icer. 8hen the accused talked to the radio announcer, they did not talk to him as a law en orcement o icer, as in act he was not, hence their uncounselled con ession to him did not )iolate their constitutional ri"hts. /ections 1(, pars. C1D and C3D, +rt. %%%, o the 0onstitution do not co)er the )er!al con essions o the ( accused to the radio announcer. 8hat the 0onstitution !ars is the compulsory disclosure o incriminatin" acts or con essions. #he ri"hts enumerated under /ec. 1(, +rt. %%%, are "uaranteed to preclude the sli"htest use o coercion !y the state as would lead the accused to admit somethin" alse, not to pre)ent him rom reely and )oluntarily tellin" the truth. %n relation to this, the admissions o the accused !e ore the radio announcer and duly tape9recorded are !olstered and su!stantiated !y the indin"s o the '5% Medico9>e"al O icer as re lected in the +utopsy &eportNPost Mortem =indin"s. 2+8 %eo&#e vs. )ui##er5o [)* 14$$86, 2. Januar- 2..4] +n ,an-, ?3is36;ing (J)2 ": -on-3r =acts: 2ictor =rancisco <eyser, was the owner and mana"er o <eyser Plastic Manu acturin" 0orp., with principal place o !usiness at /itio Halan", >orna)ille, /an &o*ue, +ntipolo 0ity. <eyser Plastics shared its !uildin" with @reatmore 0orporation, a manu acturer o aucets. /eparatin" the respecti)e spaces !ein" utili1ed !y the two irms in their operations was a wall, the lower portion o which was made o concrete hollow !locks, while the upper portion was o lawanit !oards. #he part o the wall made o lawanit had two lar"e holes, which could allow a person on one side o the wall to see what was on the other side. On (( March 199B, &omualdo 0ampos, a security "uard assi"ned to @reatmore was on duty. +t around B:-- a.m., he saw Eric @. @uillermo enter the premises o <eyser Plastics. 0ampos i"nored @uillermo, as he knew him to !e one o the trusted employees o <eyser Plastics. +n hour later, he saw 2ictor =. <eyser arri)e. <eyser checked the pump motor o the deep well, which was located in the area o @reatmore, a ter which he also went inside the part o the !uildin" occupied !y <eyser Plastics. 0ampos paid scant attention to <eyser. >ater, at around 1-:-- a.m., 0ampos was makin" some entries in his lo"!ook, when he heard some loud noises CIkala!u"anJD comin" rom the <eyser Plastics area. He stopped to listen, !ut thinkin" that the noise was comin" rom the machines used to make plastics, he did not pay much attention to the sound. +t around noontime, 0ampos was suddenly interrupted in the per ormance o his duties when he saw @uillermo look throu"h one o the holes in the di)idin" wall. +ccordin" to 0ampos, appellant calmly told him that he had killed 2ictor <eyser and needed 0amposG assistance to help him carry the corpse to the "ar!a"e dump where he could !urn it. /hocked !y this re)elation, 0ampos immediately dashed o to telephone the police. #he police told him to immediately secure the premises and not let the suspect escape, while a reaction team was !ein" dispatched to the scene. 1- minutes later, a team composed o /PO4 =elix 5autista, /PO1 0arlito &eyes, and Police +ide ?o)enal 7i1on, ?r., all rom the +ntipolo Philippine 'ational Police CP'PD /tation, arri)ed at the crime scene. 8ith them was =elix Marcelo, an o icial police photo"rapher. #hey were immediately met !y 0ampos, who in ormed them that @uillermo was still inside the !uildin". #he law en orcers tried to enter the premises o <eyser Plastics, !ut ound the "ates securely locked. #he o icers then talked to @uillermo and a ter some minutes, persuaded him to "i)e them the keys. #his ena!led the police to open the "ate. Once inside, /PO4 5autista and /PO1 &eyes immediately accosted @uillermo, who was clad only in a pair o shorts, naked rom the waist up. /PO1 &eyes then asked him where the !ody o the )ictim was and @uillermo pointed to some card!oard !oxes. On openin" the !oxes, the police ound the dismem!ered lim!s and chopped torso o <eyser. #he )ictimGs head was ound stu ed inside a cement !a". 8hen the police asked how he did it, accordin" to the prosecution witness, @uillermo said that he !ashed the
)ictim on the head with a piece o wood, and a ter <eyser ell, he dismem!ered the !ody with a carpenterGs saw. He then mopped up the !lood on the loor with a plastic oam. @uillermo then turned o)er to the police a !loodstained, two9 oot lon" piece o coconut lum!er and a carpenterGs saw. Photo"raphs were taken o the suspect, the dismem!ered corpse, and the implements used in committin" the crime. 8hen asked as to his moti)e or the killin", @uillermo replied that <eyser had !een maltreatin" him and his co9employees. He expressed no re"ret whatsoe)er a!out his actions. #he police then !rou"ht @uillermo to the +ntipolo P'P /tation or urther in)esti"ation. /PO1 0arlos conducted the in)esti"ation, without apprisin" @uillermo a!out his constitutional ri"hts and without pro)idin" him with the ser)ices o counsel. /PO1 0arlos re*uested the 'ational 5ureau o %n)esti"ation C'5%D to conduct a post9mortem examination on <eyserGs remains. #he +ntipolo police then turned o)er the !loodstained piece o wood and saw, reco)ered rom the locus delicti, to the P'P 0rime >a!oratory or testin". <eyserGs death shocked the nation. @uillermo, who was then in police custody, was inter)iewed on separate occasions !y two #2 reporters, namely: +u"usto I@usJ +!el"as o +5/905' 'ews and <ara 7a)id o @M+ 0hannel 6. 5oth inter)iews were su!se*uently !roadcast nationwide. @uillermo admitted to 7a)id that he committed the crime and ne)er "a)e it second thou"ht. He disclosed to 7a)id the details o the crime, includin" how he struck <eyser on the head and cut up his !ody into pieces, which he placed in sacks and cartons. 8hen asked why he killed his employer, @uillermo stated that <eyser had not paid him or years, did not eed him properly, and treated him Ilike an animal.J 5oth +!el"as and 7a)id said that @uillermo expressed a!solutely no remorse o)er his alle"ed misdeed durin" the course o their respecti)e inter)iews with him. On (3 March 199B, @uillermo was char"ed !y /tate Prosecutor ?aime +u"usto 5. 2alencia, ?r., o murderin" his employer, 2ictor =rancisco <eyser. 8hen arrai"ned on 3 +pril 199B, @uillermo, assisted !y counsel de o icio, pleaded "uilty to the char"e. On (3 +pril 199B, howe)er, @uillermo mo)ed to withdraw his plea o "uilty and prayed or a re9arrai"nment. #he trial court "ranted the motion and on (B +pril 199B, he was re9arrai"ned. +ssisted !y counsel de parte, he entered a plea o not "uilty. #he case then proceeded to trial. + ter trial, the &e"ional #rial 0ourt C&#0D o +ntipolo 0ity, 5ranch 63, dated 6 March (--1 C0riminal 0ase 9B9146(4D, ound Eric @uillermo y @arcia "uilty o murder and sentencin" him to su er the penalty o death. #he court also ordered @uillermo to pay the mother o the )ictim P;-,---.-- or death indemnity, P;-,---.-- or uneral expenses, P;--,---.-- as compensatory dama"es, P;--,---.-- as moral dama"es, P3--,---.-- as exemplary dama"es, and P1--,--- plus P3,--- per court appearance as attorney.s ees. Hence, the automatic re)iew. !ssue 8hether @uillermoGs con ession to the police o icers, to the security "uard o @reatmore 0orp., and to the newsmen are admissi!le as e)idence. "e#d #he con ession @uillermo made while he was under in)esti"ation !y /PO1 0arlito &eyes or the killin" o <eyser at the +ntipolo P'P /tation, alls short o the protecti)e standards laid down !y the 0onstitution. #he in)esti"atin" o icer made no serious e ort to make @uillermo aware o his !asic ri"hts under custodial in)esti"ation. 8hile the in)esti"atin" o icer was aware o @uillermoGs ri"ht to !e represented !y counsel, the o icer exerted no e ort to pro)ide him with one on the limsy excuse that it was a /unday. 7espite the a!sence o counsel, the o icer proceeded with said in)esti"ation. Moreo)er, the record is !are o any showin" that @uillermo had wai)ed his constitutional ri"hts in writin" and in the presence o counsel. 5e that as it may, howe)er, the inadmissi!ility o @uillermoGs con ession to /PO1 &eyes at the +ntipolo P'P /tation as e)idence does not necessarily lead to his ac*uittal. =or constitutional sa e"uards on custodial in)esti"ation Cknown, also as the Miranda principlesD do not apply to spontaneous statements, or those not elicited throu"h *uestionin" !y law en orcement authorities !ut "i)en in an ordinary manner where!y the appellant )er!ally admits to ha)in" committed the o ense. #he ri"hts enumerated in the 0onstitution, +rticle %%%, /ection 1(, are meant to preclude the sli"htest use o the /tateGs coerci)e power as would lead an accused to admit somethin" alse. 5ut it is not intended to pre)ent him rom reely and )oluntarily admittin" the truth outside the sphere o such power. Herein, @uillermo admitted the commission o the crime not ,ust to the police !ut also to pri)ate indi)iduals. +ccordin" to the testimony o the security "uard, &omualdo 0ampos, on the )ery day o the killin" @uillermo called him to say that he had killed his employer and needed assistance to dispose o the cada)er. 0amposG testimony was not re!utted !y the
de ense, and thus @uillermo.s statements to 0ampos are admissi!le or !ein" part o the res "estae. =urther, when inter)iewed on separate occasions !y the media, @uillermo not only a"reed to !e inter)iewed !y the news reporters, !ut he spontaneously admitted his "uilt to them. He e)en supplied the details re"ardin" the commission o the crime to reporter <ara 7a)id o @M+ 0hannel 6. #he #2 news reporters were actin" as media pro essionals when they inter)iewed @uillermo. #hey were not under the direction and control o the police. #here was no coercion or @uillermo to ace the #2 cameras. #he inter)iews also took place on se)eral occasions, not ,ust once. Each time, @uillermo did not protest or insist on his innocence. %nstead, he repeatedly admitted what he had done. He e)en supplied details o <eyserGs killin". +s held in +ndan, statements spontaneously made !y a suspect to news reporters durin" a tele)ised inter)iew are )oluntary and admissi!le in e)idence. 2+9 %eo&#e vs. )o5ez [)* 1.181$, 26 Marc1 199$] 7irs# 4ivision, Vi#3g (J)2 ' -on-3r Facts On (6 =e!ruary 199-, +rt 7a)id, an employer o =elipe %mmaculata sent the latter to 5an"kok, #hailand, to can)ass ready9to9wear clothes. 7a)id and Eduardo @ome1 ollowed %mmaculata a!out a week later C-4 March 199-D. %mmaculata etched the two at the 5an"kok +irport. %mmaculata, 7a)id and @ome1 proceeded to and stayed at the Anion #owers Hotel. + ter ( days, they trans erred to the apartment o one >ito #ua1on where they spent the rest o their stay in 5an"kok. On 14 March 199-, %mmaculata, @ome1 and +ya 3upan"co le t 5an"kok and !oarded Manila9!ound li"ht P&9631. %mmaculata and 3upan"co occupied seats (+ and 'o. ;47. @ome1 was on the same li"ht. He checked9in two "ol !a"s, and he was issued interline claim ta"s P& 669(B961 and 669(B96(. %n Manila, @ome1 deposited the two "ol !a"s with the interline !a""a"e room or his connectin" li"ht rom Manila to /an =rancisco )ia Anited +irlines C$A+>$D li"ht -;B scheduled to depart the ollowin" mornin" C1; March 199-D. #he "ol !a"s were kept in the transit rack !a""a"e alon" with other pieces o lu""a"e destined or /an =rancisco )ia the A+> li"ht. 8ell !e ore li"ht time on 1; March 199-, &omeo 7uma", a customs policeman at the 'inoy +*uino %nternational +irport C$'+%+$D, was re*uested !y 0ustoms 0ollector Ed"ardo de >eon to help acilitate the checkin"9in o Eduardo @ome1. 7uma" sou"ht rom his security o icer, a certain 0apt. &eyes, the latter.s permission. Ha)in" recei)ed the "o9si"nal, 7uma" accepted rom 7e >eon the ticket and passport o @ome1. 7uma" proceeded to the A+> check9in counter. #he airline.s lady sta , +nna!elle >um!a, directed 7uma" to irst claim the passen"er.s items to !e checked9in at the interline !a""a"e room. +t the interline !a""a"e room, 7uma" spoke to Michael +n"elo 5enipayo, a P+> employee assi"ned at the '+%+ central !a""a"e di)ision and !a""a"e handlin" section, and presented the two claim ta"s o @ome1 to"ether with the latter.s passport and plane ticket. 0on)inced that 7uma" had !een duly authori1ed to retrie)e the !a""a"e, 5enipayo released, upon the appro)al o a customs examiner named 'ick, the two "ol !a"s wrapped in !lue cloth. #o acknowled"e the release, 7uma" a ixed his si"nature to the $unclaimed !a""a"eNtransit list.$ P+> loader Ed"ardo 2illa uerte helped carry the "ol !a"s to the A+> check9in counter. +nna!elle >um!a attached a /an =rancisco laser ta" CA+ #a" ;94;13 and #a" ;94;14D and wrote the name $@ome1$ on each side o the "ol !a"s. /he then handed to 7uma" the !oardin" pass and A+> plane ticket or @ome1. 7uma" proceeded to Patio Manila, a restaurant at the '+%+, where he turned o)er to 0ollector 7e >eon the tra)el papers o @ome1. @ome1 ailed to !oard the A+> li"ht. #he two "ol !a"s were o 9loaded rom the aircra t. +t around 4:-- p.m., P+> sta 7ennis Mendo1a !rou"ht the "ol !a"s !ack to the check9in counter or a security check9 up. #he x9ray machine showed unidenti ied dark masses. +larmed, Mendo1a immediately relayed the in ormation to 0apt. Ephraim /indico o the B-1st +)iation /ecurity /*uadron o the Philippine +ir =orce /ecurity 0ommand C$P+=/E0OM$D then deployed at the '+%+. 0apt. /indico rushed to the check9in area. He instructed his men to "et the "ol !a"s pass throu"h the x9ray machine once a"ain. /atis ied that somethin" was indeed wron", 0apt. /indico reported the matter to 0ol. 0laudio 0ru1 who ordered his men to ha)e the "ol !a"s "o, or the third time, throu"h the x9ray machine. #he unidenti ied dark masses ha)in" !een de initely con irmed, 0ol. 0ru1 ordered his men to open the "lued !ottom 1ipper o the "ol !a"s. #he "ol !a"s yielded 31 sin"le packs, each with an approximate si1e o 1$ x 6$ x 4,$ containin" a white powder su!stance suspected to !e $heroin$ with a total wei"ht o (-.11;9 kilo"rams. #he examination !y the
P+=/E0OM personnel was witnessed !y the '+%+ mana"er, a representati)e o the A+> and other customs personnel. Eduardo @ome1, a !artender, and =elipe %mmaculata, a ormer !us dri)er, were implicated in the crime o transportin" (- kilo"rams o heroin, estimated to !e worth Y4-,---,---.--, contained in two "ol !a"s. +lso char"ed, with ha)in" )iolated /ection 4, +rticle %%, in relation to /ection (1, +rticle %2, o &epu!lic +ct 64(; Cthe 7an"erous 7ru"s +ct o 196(D, as amended, were +ya 3upan"co, +rt 7a)id, >ito #ua1on and 5enito 0unanan, who all were a!le to e)ade arrest. @ome1 surrendered to the o icer9in9char"e o the then 0lark +ir =orce 5ase in +n"eles 0ity. #he O%0 o 0lark +ir =orce 5ase turned o)er custody o @ome1 to the 7ru" En orcement +"ency C$7E+$D o the Anited /tates in Manila. #he 7E+, in turn, surrendered him to the '5%. On the other hand, on (( March 199-, 7a)id and %mmaculata le t or Hon"kon" reportedly to "et some spare parts or 7a)id.s Mercedes 5en1 car. %n Hon"kon", a ter !uyin" the car spare parts, 7a)id and %mmaculata went to the A./. 7epartment o ?ustice in Hon"kon". 8hile waitin" or 7a)id, %mmaculata was con ronted !y a "roup o people, who turned out to !e rom the Hon"kon" %mmi"ration O ice, re*uestin" or his tra)el papers. %mmaculata was !rou"ht in or in)esti"ation !ecause o an expired )isa, then turned o)er to the police authorities and inally to the court which decreed his imprisonment. %n the Hon"kon" prison, %mmaculata was )isited !y '5% a"ents or his implication in the $heroin$ case. He denied the accusation. >ater, he a"reed, without the assistance o counsel, to execute a sworn statement at the /tanley Prison. + ter his prison term, %mmaculata was deported to Manila. @ome1 and %mmaculata entered a plea o $not "uilty$ to the accusation. + ter trial, @ome1 and %mmaculata were each meted the penalty o reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay a P(-,---.-- ine !y the &e"ional #rial 0ourt o Pasay 0ity, 5ranch 113 C0riminal 0ase 9-94616D. 8hile @ome1 and %mmaculata iled separate notices o appeal to the /upreme 0ourt rom their con)iction, only %mmaculata, howe)er, iled his !rie . @ome1, assisted !y counsel, iled a $mani estation o withdrawal o appeal$ to which the /olicitor @eneral interposed no o!,ection. #he 0ourt would only thus consider the appeal o %mmaculata. !ssue 8hether%mmaculataGs uncounselled statement made in /tanley Prison in Hon"kon" is admissi!le as e)idence in the Philippines. "e#d 8hile the sworn statement taken rom %mmaculata !y an '5% a"ent at the /tanley Prison in Hon"kon" durin" his incarceration was not made the !asis or %mmaculata.s con)iction !y the court, a word could !e said a!out the manner in which it was procured. %t would seem that %mmaculata was merely apprised in "eneral terms o his constitutional ri"hts to counsel and to remain silent. He then was asked i he would !e willin" to "i)e a statement. Ha)in" answered in the a irmati)e, the '5% in)esti"atin" a"ent asked him whether he needed a lawyer. + ter that response, the in)esti"ation orthwith proceeded. #his procedure hardly was in compliance with /ection 1(C1D, +rticle %%%, o the 0onstitution which re*uires the assistance o counsel to a person under custody e)en when he wai)es the ri"ht to counsel. %t is immaterial that the sworn statement was executed in a orei"n land. %mmaculata, a =ilipino citi1en, should en,oy these constitutional ri"hts, like anyone else, e)en when a!road. 26. !##inois vs. %er@ins [496 US 292, 4 June 199.] @enned1 (J) Facts %n 'o)em!er 19B4, &ichard /tephenson was murdered in a su!ur! o East /t. >ouis, %llinois. #he murder remained unsol)ed until March 19B6, when one 7onald 0harlton told police that he had learned a!out a homicide rom a ellow inmate at the @raham 0orrectional =acility, where 0harlton had !een ser)in" a sentence or !ur"lary. #he ellow inmate was >loyd Perkins. 0harlton told police that, while at @raham, he had !e riended Perkins, who told him in detail a!out a murder that Perkins had committed in East /t. >ouis. On hearin" 0harlton.s account, the police reco"ni1ed details o the /tephenson murder that were not well known, and so they treated 0harlton.s story as a credi!le one. 5y the time the police heard 0harlton.s account, Perkins had !een released rom @raham, !ut police traced him to a ,ail in Mont"omery 0ounty, %llinois, where he was !ein" held pendin" trial on a char"e o a""ra)ated !attery, unrelated to the /tephenson murder. #he police wanted to in)esti"ate urther Perkins. connection to the /tephenson murder, !ut eared that the use o
an ea)esdroppin" de)ice would pro)e impractica!le and unsa e. #hey decided instead to place an underco)er a"ent in the cell!lock with Perkins and 0harlton. #he plan was or 0harlton and underco)er a"ent ?ohn Parisi to pose as escapees rom a work release pro"ram who had !een arrested in the course o a !ur"lary. Parisi and 0harlton were instructed to en"a"e Perkins in casual con)ersation and report anythin" he said a!out the /tephenson murder. Parisi, usin" the alias $2ito 5ianco,$ and 0harlton, !oth clothed in ,ail "ar!, were placed in the cell!lock with Perkins at the Mont"omery 0ounty ,ail. #he cell!lock consisted o 1( separate cells that opened onto a common room. Perkins "reeted 0harlton who, a ter a !rie con)ersation with Perkins, introduced Parisi !y his alias. Parisi told Perkins that he $wasn.t "oin" to do any more time$ and su""ested that the three o them escape. Perkins replied that the Mont"omery 0ounty ,ail was $rinky9dink$ and that they could $!reak out.$ #he trio met in Perkins. cell later that e)enin", a ter the other inmates were asleep, to re ine their plan. Perkins said that his "irl riend could smu""le in a pistol. 0harlton said: $Hey, %.m not a murderer, %.m a !ur"lar. #hat.s your "uys. pro ession.$ + ter tellin" 0harlton that he would !e responsi!le or any murder that occurred, Parisi asked Perkins i he had e)er $done$ any!ody. Perkins said that he had and proceeded to descri!e at len"th the e)ents o the /tephenson murder. Parisi and Perkins then en"a"ed in some casual con)ersation !e ore Perkins went to sleep. Parisi did not "i)e Perkins Miranda warnin"s !e ore the con)ersations. Perkins was char"ed with the /tephenson murder. 5e ore trial, he mo)ed to suppress the statements made to Parisi in the ,ail. #he trial court "ranted the motion to suppress, and the /tate appealed. #he +ppellate 0ourt o %llinois a irmed, holdin" that Miranda ). +ri1ona C3B4 A./. 436 K1966LD, prohi!its all underco)er contacts with incarcerated suspects that are reasona!ly likely to elicit an incriminatin" response. !ssue 8hether strate"ic deception may !e employed !y law en orcers to solicit con essions rom suspects, such as the deployment o an underco)er a"ent posin" as an inmate, and without the need to "i)e Miranda warnin"s. "e#d 0on)ersations !etween suspects and underco)er a"ents do not implicate the concerns underlyin" Miranda. #he essential in"redients o a $police9dominated atmosphere$ and compulsion are not present when an incarcerated person speaks reely to someone whom he !elie)es to !e a ellow inmate. Miranda or!ids coercion, not mere strate"ic deception !y takin" ad)anta"e o a suspect.s misplaced trust in one he supposes to !e a ellow prisoner. +s reco"ni1ed in Miranda: $0on essions remain a proper element in law en orcement. +ny statement "i)en reely and )oluntarily without any compellin" in luences is, o course, admissi!le in e)idence.$ Ploys to mislead a suspect or lull him into a alse sense o security that do not rise to the le)el o compulsion or coercion to speak are not within Miranda.s concerns. Miranda was not meant to protect suspects rom !oastin" a!out their criminal acti)ities in ront o persons whom they !elie)e to !e their cellmates. Herein, Perkins had no reason to eel that underco)er a"ent Parisi had any le"al authority to orce him to answer *uestions or that Parisi could a ect Perkins. uture treatment. Perkins )iewed the cellmate9 a"ent as an e*ual and showed no hint o !ein" intimidated !y the atmosphere o the ,ail. %n recountin" the details o the /tephenson murder, Perkins was moti)ated solely !y the desire to impress his ellow inmates. He spoke at his own peril. #he tactic employed here to elicit a )oluntary con ession rom a suspect does not )iolate the /el 9%ncrimination 0lause. +s held in Ho a ). Anited /tates C3B; A/ (93 K1966LD, that placin" an underco)er a"ent near a suspect in order to "ather incriminatin" in ormation was permissi!le under the =i th +mendment. #he only di erence !etween the present case and Ho a is that the suspect here was incarcerated, !ut detention, whether or not or the crime in *uestion, does not warrant a presumption that the use o an underco)er a"ent to speak with an incarcerated suspect makes any con ession thus o!tained in)oluntary. >aw en orcement o icers will ha)e little di iculty puttin" into practice the 0ourt.s holdin" that underco)er a"ents need not "i)e Miranda warnin"s to incarcerated suspects. #he use o underco)er a"ents is a reco"ni1ed law en orcement techni*ue, o ten employed in the prison context to detect )iolence a"ainst correctional o icials or inmates, as well as or the purposes ser)ed here. #he interests protected !y Miranda are not implicated in these cases, and the warnin"s are not re*uired to sa e"uard the constitutional ri"hts o inmates who make )oluntary statements to underco)er a"ents. 261 %eo&#e vs. 'u(od [)* 1362+3, 21 Fe,ruar- 2..1]
+n ,an-, .onzaga/0e1es (J)2 "' -on-3r Facts On 1; /eptem!er 1996 at around 6:-- p.m., Helen &amos was asleep in her house to"ether with her hus!and C7anilo &amosD and children, 'imrod, 'eres and 'airu!e, the )ictim. 'airu!e slept close to her $on the upper part$ o her !ody. +t around 1(:3- a.m., her hus!and woke her up !ecause he sensed someone "oin" down the stairs o their house. /he noticed that 'airu!e was no lon"er in the place where she was sleepin" !ut she assumed that 'airu!e merely answered the call o nature. 'airu!e.s !lanket was also no lon"er at the place she slept !ut that her slippers were still there. + ter three minutes o waitin" or 'airu!e.s return, she stood up and !e"an callin" out or 'airu!e !ut there was no answer. #herea ter, she went downstairs and saw that the !ackdoor o their house was open. /he went outside throu"h the !ackdoor to see i 'airu!e was there !ut she was not. /he ound a pair o ru!!er slippers on top o a wooden !ench outside o her !ackdoor. #he sole o the slippers was red while the strap was a com!ination o yellow and whiteE said slippers did not !elon" to any mem!er o her amily. #herea ter, she proceeded to the house o +lma 7ia1 to ask her or help. #hen, in the mornin" o 16 /eptem!er 1996, she went to the police station to report the loss o her child. /he also reported the disco)ery o the pair o slippers to /P-( Fuirino @allardo. /he then went home while the police !e"an their search or 'airu!e. +t around 1(:3- p.m., +lma 7ia1 re*uested her to "o with the searchin" team. 7urin" the search, +lma 7ia1 ound a panty which she reco"ni1ed as that o her dau"hter. + ter seein" the panty, she cried. /he was therea ter ordered to "o home while the others continued the search. #herea ter, they continued the search and ound a !lack collared #9shirt with !uttons in ront and pipin" at the end o the slee)e han"in" on a "ua)a twi". +lma 7ia1 "a)e the shirt to /P-( @allardo. >oreto 2eloria in ormed him that the two items were worn !y 0lemente ?ohn >u"od when he went to the house o 2ioleta 0a!uhat. +t around 6:-- p.m., /P-( @allardo apprehended >u"od on the !asis o the pair o slippers and the !lack #9shirt. He then !rou"ht >u"od to the police station where he was temporarily incarcerated. +t irst, the accused denied that he did anythin" to 'airu!e !ut a ter he told him what happened to the "irl. >ater, althou"h he admitted to ha)in" raped and killed 'airu!e, >u"ud re used to make a statement re"ardin" the same. + ter ha)in" !een in ormed that the !ody o 'airu!e was in the "rassy area, @allardo to"ether with other mem!ers o the P'P, the 0rime 8atch and the townspeople continued the search !ut they were still not a!le to ind the !ody o 'airu!e. %t was only when they !rou"ht >u"od to 2illa +nastacia to point out the location o the cada)er, on 1B /eptem!er 1996, that they ound the !ody o 'airu!e. On 19 /eptem!er 1996, at around 3:3- p.m., =loro Es"uerra, the 2ice9Mayor o 0a)inti attended the uneral o 'airu!e. + ter the uneral, he )isited the accused in his cell. %n the course o his con)ersation with >u"od, >u"od alle"edly con essed to the commission o the o ense. On 1- Octo!er 1996, >u"od was char"ed or rape with homicide. Apon arrai"nment, >u"od with the assistance o counsel entered a plea o not "uilty. #herea ter, trial ensued. On B Octo!er 199B, the &e"ional #rial 0ourt C&#0D o /anta 0ru1, >a"una ound >u"od "uilty !eyond reasona!le dou!t, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to indemni y the heirs o the )ictim, 'airu!e &amos the sum o P;-,---.-- as ci)il indemnity or her death and P36,(--.-- as actual dama"es. Hence, the automatic re)iew. !ssue 8hether >u"odGs alle"ed con ession to the Mayor and 2ice9Mayor o 0a)anti can !e used a"ainst him. "e#d #he records do not support the con ession alle"edly made !y >u"od to the Mayor and 2ice9Mayor o 0a)inti. &ecords show that the Mayor o 0a)inti did not testi y in the criminal trial. Moreo)er, the testimony o the 2ice9Mayor with respect to the alle"ed con ession made !y >u"od is not conclusi)e. =rom the testimony o the 2ice9Mayor, >u"od merely responded to the am!i"uous *uestions that the 2ice9Mayor propounded to him. He did not state in certain and cate"orical terms that he raped and killed 'airu!e. %n act, the 2ice9Mayor admitted that >u"od did not tell him that he raped and killed 'airu!e. %n addition, the 0ourt notes the contradiction !etween the testimony o the 2ice9Mayor who stated that he was alone when he spoke to >u"od and that o /PO( @allardo who claimed that he was present when >u"od con essed to the Mayor and 2ice9Mayor. 0onsiderin" that the con ession o >u"od cannot !e used a"ainst him, the only remainin" e)idence which was esta!lished !y the prosecution are circumstantial in nature. #he circumstances, taken with the testimonies o the other prosecution witnesses, merely esta!lish >u"od.s wherea!outs on that ate ul e)enin" and places >u"od at the scene o the crime and nothin" more. #he e)idence o the prosecution does
not pro)ide a link which would ena!le the 0ourt to conclude that he in act killed and raped 'airu!e. 262 %eo&#e vs. 'uvendino [)* 699$1, 3 Ju#- 1992] %e-ond 4ivision, 7e)i-iano (J)2 "0 -on-3r Facts On the mornin" o 16 ?anuary 19B3, 1B9year old &owena 0apcap le t her home at 7e)a 2illa"e, #am!ak, #a"ui", Metro Manila to attend classes at the Ani)ersity o Manila where she was a sophomore commerce student. /he would usually !e home !y 6:3- to B:-- on school e)enin"s, !ut on that tra"ic day, she would not reach home ali)e. On that particular e)enin", her ather Pan ilo 0apcap arri)in" home rom work at around 6:3- p.m., noted her a!sence and was told !y his wi e and other children that &owena was not yet home rom school. >ater, a youn"er !rother o &owena, sent on an errand, arri)ed home carryin" &owena.s !a" which he had ound dropped in the middle o a street in the )illa"e. Pan ilo 0apcap lost no time in seekin" the help o the !aran"ay captain o Ha"onoy, #a"ui". 'ot !ein" satis ied with the latter.s promise to send or a $tanod$ to help locate his missin" dau"hter, Pan ilo went to the #a"ui" Police /tation to report his dau"hter as missin". #he desk o icer there ad)ised him that a search party would !e mounted presently. Pan ilo returned home and, with the help o some nei"h!ors, launched a search party or the missin" &owena. #he search ended in a "rassy )acant lot within the 7e)a 2illa"e /u!di)ision, only a!out 6- to B- meters rom the 0apcap residence, where lay the apparently li eless !ody o &owena, her pants pulled down to her knees and her !louse rolled up to her !reasts. Her underwear was !lood9stained and there were !loody in"erprint marks on her neck. &owena, her !ody still warm, was rushed to a hospital in #a"ui", where on arri)al she was pronounced dead. #he autopsy report stated that the multiple in,uries indicated the )ictim had stru""led )i"orously with her attackerCsDE that the presence o spermato1oa showed that the )ictim had sexual intercourse prior to deathE and that death was due to asphyxia !y manual stran"ulation. 5y ; March 19B4, an in ormation had !een iled in the trial court char"in" Ernesto 0. >u)endino, 0esar 5orca alias $0esar Putol$ and &icardo de @u1man alias $&ic$ with the crime o rape with murder. 8arrants o arrest were issued a"ainst all the accused !ut only Ernesto >u)endino was actually apprehendedE the other ( ha)e remained at lar"e. %t appears that >u)endino re9enacted the e)ents that transpired in the e)enin" o ?anuary 16 at the crime scene, where pictures were taken !y a photo"rapher !rou"ht !y the police o icers. %n the course o the demonstration, >u)endino alle"edly remarked: $%naamin ko po na kasama ko si 0esar 5orca sa pa" re9rape kay &owena.$ +t arrai"nment, >u)endino assisted !y his counsel, +tty. >uisito /ardillo, pleaded not "uilty and then proceeded to trial. On 1( 7ecem!er 19B4, the trial court rendered a decision indin" >u)endino "uilty, sentencin" him to death, and re*uirin" him to indemni y the heirs o the )ictim &owena in the amount o P;-,---.-- or the dama"es su ered as a result o her death. !ssue 8hether >u)endinoGs re9enactment o the crime may !e admitted as e)idence a"ainst the accused. "e#d #he trial court took into account the testimony "i)en !y Pan ilo 0apcap on what had occurred durin" the re9enactment o the crime !y >u)endino. #he re9enactment was apparently sta"ed promptly upon apprehension o >u)endino and e)en prior to his ormal in)esti"ation at the police station. #he decision o the trial court ound that the accused was in ormed o his constitutional ri"hts $!e ore he was in)esti"ated !y /"t. @alan" in the police head*uarters$ and cited the $/alaysay$ o appellant >u)endino. #he decision itsel , howe)er, states that the re9enactment took place !e ore >u)endino was !rou"ht to the police station. #hus, it is not clear rom the record that !e ore the re9enactment was sta"ed !y >u)endino, he had !een in ormed o his constitutional ri"hts includin", speci ically, his ri"ht to counsel and that he had wai)ed such ri"ht !e ore proceedin" with the demonstration. Ander these circumstances, the 0ourt must decline to uphold the admissi!ility o e)idence relatin" to that re9enactment. 263 %eo&#e vs. A#icando [)* 11$48$, 12 /ece5,er 199+] +n ,an-, 53no (J)2 9 -on-3r Facts %n the a ternoon o 1( ?une 1994, &omeo Penecilla, ather o the our year old )ictim <ha1ie Mae, was
drinkin" li*uor with &amil &odri"ue1 and &emus @addi in his CPenecilla.sD house at 5aran"ay &i1al, Mone 1, Pulo 5ala, %loilo. +rnel +licando y 5riones ,oined them !ut e)ery now and then would take lea)e and return. +licando was li)in" in his uncle.s house some ; arm.s len"th rom Penecilla.s house. +t a!out 4:3- p.m., Penecilla.s "roup stopped drinkin" and le t. +t a!out ;:3- p.m. o that day, >uisa &e!ada saw the )ictim at the window o +licando.s house. /he o ered to !uy her $yemas$ !ut +licando closed the window. /oon she heard the )ictim cryin". /he approached +licando.s house and peeped throu"h an openin" !etween its loor and door. #he si"ht shocked her U +licando was naked, on top o the )ictim, his le t hand chokin" her neck. /he retreated to her house in ri"ht. /he "athered her children to"ether and in ormed her compadre, &icardo >a"rana, then in her house, a!out what she saw. >a"rana was also o)ercome with ear and hastily le t. &omeo Penecilla returned to his house at B:-- p.m.. He did not ind <ha1ie Mae. He and his wi e searched or her until 1:-- a.m. #heir e ort was ruitless. &e!ada was aware that the Penecillas were lookin" or their dau"hter !ut did not tell them what she knew. %nstead, &e!ada called out +licando rom her window and asked him the time <ha1ie Mae le t his house. +licando replied he was drunk and did not know. +s the sun started to rise, another nei"h!or, >eopoldo /antia"o went down rom his house to answer the call o nature. He disco)ered the li eless !ody o <ha1ie Mae under his house. Her parents were in ormed and so was the police. +t 9:-a.m., &e!ada su ered a chan"e o heart. /he in ormed &omeo Penecilla and his wi e ?ulie +nn, that +licando committed the crime. =orthwith, +licando was arrested and interro"ated !y P-3 7anilo #an. He )er!ally con essed his "uilt without the assistance o counsel. On the !asis o his uncounseled )er!al con ession and ollow up interro"ations, the police came to know and reco)ered rom +licando.s house, <ha1ie Mae.s "reen slippers, a pair o "old earrin"s, a !uri mat, a stained pillow and a stained #9shirt. +licando was char"ed with the crime o rape with homicide. On (9 ?une 1994, +licando was arrai"ned with the assistance o +tty. &o"elio +nti*uiera o the P+O, 7epartment o ?ustice. +licando pleaded "uilty. + ter +licando.s plea o "uilt, the trial court ordered the prosecution to present its e)idence. %t also set the case or reception o e)idence or +licando, i he so desired. On (- ?uly 1994, the trial court ound +licando "uilty and sentenced him to death, and to indemni y the heirs o the o ended party, <ha1ie Mae 7. Penecilla, the sum o P;-,---.--. Hence, the automatic re)iew. !ssue 8hether the pillow and the #9shirt with the alle"ed !loodstains, e)idence deri)ed rom the uncounselled con ession ille"ally extracted !y the police rom +licando, may !e admitted as e)idence. "e#d %t is now amiliar learnin" that the 0onstitution has sti"mati1ed as inadmissi!le e)idence uncounselled con ession or admission. /ection 1( para"raphs C1D and C3D o +rticle %%% o the 0onstitution pro)ide that $+ny person under in)esti"ation or the commission o an o ense shall ha)e the ri"ht to !e in ormed o his ri"ht to remain silent and to ha)e competent and independent counsel pre era!ly o his own choice. % the person cannot a ord the ser)ices o counsel, he must !e pro)ided with one. #hese ri"hts cannot !e wai)ed except in writin" and in the presence o counsel$E and $+ny con ession or admission o!tained in )iolation o this or the precedin" section shall !e inadmissi!le a"ainst him$E respecti)ely. Herein, PO3 #an did not e)en ha)e the simple sense to reduce the all important con ession o +licando in writin". 'either did he present any writin" showin" that +licando wai)ed his ri"ht to silence and to ha)e competent and independent counsel. %t is not only the uncounselled con ession that is condemned as inadmissi!le, !ut also e)idence deri)ed there rom. #he pillow and the #9shirt with the alle"ed !loodstains were e)idence deri)ed rom the uncounselled con ession ille"ally extracted !y the police rom +licando. #he 0ourt has not only constitutionali1ed the Miranda warnin"s in Philippine ,urisdiction. %t has also adopted the li!ertarian exclusionary rule known as the $ ruit o the poisonous tree,$ a phrase minted !y Mr. ?ustice =elix =rank urter in the cele!rated case o 'ardone ). Anited /tates. +ccordin" to this rule, once the primary source Cthe $tree$D is shown to ha)e !een unlaw ully o!tained, any secondary or deri)ati)e e)idence Cthe $ ruit$D deri)ed rom it is also inadmissi!le. /tated otherwise, ille"ally sei1ed e)idence is o!tained as a direct result o the ille"al act, whereas the $ ruit o the poisonous tree$ is the indirect result o the same ille"al act. #he $ ruit o the poisonous tree$ is at least once remo)ed rom the ille"ally sei1ed e)idence, !ut it is e*ually inadmissi!le. #he rule is !ased on the principle that e)idence ille"ally o!tained !y the /tate should not !e used to "ain other e)idence !ecause the ori"inally ille"ally o!tained e)idence taints all e)idence su!se*uently o!tained. #he !urden to pro)e that an accused
wai)ed his ri"ht to remain silent and the ri"ht to counsel !e ore makin" a con ession under custodial interro"ation rests with the prosecution. %t is also the !urden o the prosecution to show that the e)idence deri)ed rom con ession is not tainted as $ ruit o the poisonous tree.$ #he !urden has to !e dischar"ed !y clear and con)incin" e)idence. 264 "arris vs. =eA Bor@ [4.1 US 222, 24 Fe,ruar- 19$1] ,3rger ((J) Facts #he /tate o 'ew 3ork char"ed Harris in a two9count indictment with twice sellin" heroin to an underco)er police o icer. +t a su!se*uent ,ury trial the o icer was the /tate.s chie witness, and he testi ied as to details o the two sales. + second o icer )eri ied collateral details o the sales, and a third o ered testimony a!out the chemical analysis o the heroin. Harris took the stand in his own de ense. He admitted knowin" the underco)er police o icer !ut denied a sale on 4 ?anuary 1966. He admitted makin" a sale o contents o a "lassine !a" to the o icer on ?anuary 6 !ut claimed it was !akin" powder and part o a scheme to de raud the purchaser. On cross9examination, Harris was asked seriatim whether he had made speci ied statements to the police immediately ollowin" his arrest on ?anuary 6 9 statements that partially contradicted his direct testimony at trial. %n response to the cross9examination, Harris testi ied that he could not remem!er )irtually any o the *uestions or answers recited !y the prosecutor. +t the re*uest o Harris. counsel the written statement rom which the prosecutor had read *uestions and answers in his impeachin" process was placed in the record or possi!le use on appealE the statement was not shown to the ,ury. #he trial ,ud"e instructed the ,ury that the statements attri!uted to Harris !y the prosecution could !e considered only in passin" on Harris. credi!ility and not as e)idence o "uilt. %n closin" summations !oth counsel ar"ued the su!stance o the impeachin" statements. #he ,ury then ound Harris "uilty on the second count o the indictment. #he 'ew 3ork 0ourt o +ppeals a irmed in a per curiam opinion. !ssue 8hether the statements made !y the accused a ter his arrest should !e a!solutely excluded, or whether such statements can !e used to impeach the accused who acted as his own witness. "e#d /ome comments in the Miranda opinion can indeed !e read as indicatin" a !ar to use o an uncounseled statement or any purpose, !ut discussion o that issue was not at all necessary to the 0ourt.s holdin" and cannot !e re"arded as controllin". Miranda !arred the prosecution rom makin" its case with statements o an accused made while in custody prior to ha)in" or e ecti)ely wai)in" counsel. %t does not ollow rom Miranda that e)idence inadmissi!le a"ainst an accused in the prosecution.s case in chie is !arred or all purposes, pro)ided o course that the trustworthiness o the e)idence satis ies le"al standards. %n 8alder ). Anited /tates C346 A/ 6( K19;4LD, the 0ourt permitted physical e)idence, inadmissi!le in the case in chie , to !e used or impeachment purposes. %t is true that 8alder was impeached as to collateral matters included in his direct examination, whereas Harris here was impeached as to testimony !earin" more directly on the crimes char"ed. #here is no di erence in principle that warrants a result di erent rom that reached !y the 0ourt in 8alder. Harris. testimony in his own !ehal concernin" the e)ents o ?anuary 6 contrasted sharply with what he told the police shortly a ter his arrest. #he impeachment process here undou!tedly pro)ided )alua!le aid to the ,ury in assessin" Harris. credi!ility, and the !ene its o this process should not !e lost !ecause o the speculati)e possi!ility that impermissi!le police conduct will !e encoura"ed there!y. +ssumin" that the exclusionary rule has a deterrent e ect on proscri!ed police conduct, su icient deterrence lows when the e)idence in *uestion is made una)aila!le to the prosecution in its case in chie . #he shield pro)ided !y Miranda cannot !e per)erted into a license to use per,ury !y way o a de ense, ree rom the risk o con rontation with prior inconsistent utterances. #he 0ourt holds, there ore, that Harris. credi!ility was appropriately impeached !y use o his earlier con lictin" statements. 26+ =eA Bor@ vs. <uar#es [46$ US 649, 12 June 1984] 0e9n<3is# (J)
Facts On 11 /eptem!er 19B-, at approximately 1(:3- a. m., O icer =rank <ra t and O icer /al /carrin" were on road patrol in Fueens, 'ew 3ork, when a youn" woman approached their car. /he told them that she had ,ust !een raped !y a !lack male, approximately six eet tall, who was wearin" a !lack ,acket with the name $5i" 5en$ printed in yellow letters on the !ack. /he told the o icers that the man had ,ust entered an + Z P supermarket located near!y and that the man was carryin" a "un. #he o icers dro)e the woman to the supermarket, and O icer <ra t entered the store while O icer /carrin" radioed or assistance. O icer <ra t *uickly spotted Fuarles, who matched the description "i)en !y the woman, approachin" a checkout counter. +pparently upon seein" the o icer, Fuarles turned and ran toward the rear o the store, and O icer <ra t pursued him with a drawn "un. 8hen Fuarles turned the corner at the end o an aisle, O icer <ra t lost si"ht o him or se)eral seconds, and upon re"ainin" si"ht o Fuarles, ordered him to stop and put his hands o)er his head. +lthou"h more than three other o icers had arri)ed on the scene !y that time, O icer <ra t was the irst to reach Fuarles. He risked him and disco)ered that he was wearin" a shoulder holster which was then empty. + ter handcu in" him, O icer <ra t asked him where the "un was. Fuarles nodded in the direction o some empty cartons and responded, $the "un is o)er there.$ O icer <ra t therea ter retrie)ed a loaded .3B9 cali!er re)ol)er rom one o the cartons, ormally placed Fuarles under arrest, and read him his Miranda ri"hts rom a printed card. Fuarles indicated that he would !e willin" to answer *uestions without an attorney present. O icer <ra t then asked Fuarles i he owned the "un and where he had purchased it. Fuarles answered that he did own it and that he had purchased it in Miami, =lorida. 5en,amin Fuarles was char"ed in the 'ew 3ork trial court with criminal possession o a weapon. #he trial court suppressed the "un in *uestion, and a statement made !y Fuarles, !ecause the statement was o!tained !y police !e ore they read Fuarles his $Miranda ri"hts.$ #hat rulin" was a irmed on appeal throu"h the 'ew 3ork 0ourt o +ppeals. !ssue 8hether the statement, $the "un is o)er there,$ and the "un itsel should !e excluded as e)idence in li"ht o the o icer.s ailure to read Fuarles his Miranda ri"hts !e ore attemptin" to locate the weapon. "e#d #here is a $pu!lic sa ety$ exception to the re*uirement that Miranda warnin"s !e "i)en !e ore a suspect.s answers may !e admitted into e)idence, and that the a)aila!ility o that exception does not depend upon the moti)ation o the indi)idual o icers in)ol)ed. %n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one con rontin" these o icers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order o the day, the application o the exception which the 0ourt reco"ni1es should not !e made to depend on post hoc indin"s at a suppression hearin" concernin" the su!,ecti)e moti)ation o the arrestin" o icer. Andou!tedly most police o icers, i placed in O icer <ra t.s position, would act out o a host o di erent, instincti)e, and lar"ely un)eri ia!le moti)es 99 their own sa ety, the sa ety o others, and perhaps as well the desire to o!tain incriminatin" e)idence rom the suspect. 8hate)er the moti)ation o indi)idual o icers in such a situation, the 0ourt does not !elie)e that the doctrinal underpinnin"s o Miranda re*uire that it !e applied in all its ri"or to a situation in which police o icers ask *uestions reasona!ly prompted !y a concern or the pu!lic sa ety. #he Miranda decision was !ased in lar"e part on the 0ourt.s )iew that the warnin"s which it re*uired police to "i)e to suspects in custody would reduce the likelihood that the suspects would all )ictim to constitutionally impermissi!le practices o police interro"ation in the presumpti)ely coerci)e en)ironment o the station house. #he police herein, in the )ery act o apprehendin" a suspect, were con ronted with the immediate necessity o ascertainin" the wherea!outs o a "un which they had e)ery reason to !elie)e the suspect had ,ust remo)ed rom his empty holster and discarded in the supermarket. /o lon" as the "un was concealed somewhere in the supermarket, with its actual wherea!outs unknown, it o!)iously posed more than one dan"er to the pu!lic sa ety: an accomplice mi"ht make use o it, a customer or employee mi"ht later come upon it. %n such a situation, i the police are re*uired to recite the amiliar Miranda warnin"s !e ore askin" the wherea!outs o the "un, suspects in Fuarles. position mi"ht well !e deterred rom respondin". Procedural sa e"uards which deter a suspect rom respondin" were deemed accepta!le in Miranda in order to protect the =i th +mendment pri)ile"eE when the primary social cost o those added protections is the possi!ility o ewer con)ictions, the Miranda ma,ority was willin" to !ear that cost. Here, had Miranda warnin"s deterred Fuarles rom respondin" to O icer <ra t.s *uestion a!out the wherea!outs o the "un, the cost would ha)e !een somethin" more than merely the ailure to o!tain e)idence use ul in
con)ictin" Fuarles. O icer <ra t needed an answer to his *uestion not simply to make his case a"ainst Fuarles !ut to insure that urther dan"er to the pu!lic did not result rom the concealment o the "un in a pu!lic area. #hus, the need or answers to *uestions in a situation posin" a threat to the pu!lic sa ety outwei"hs the need or the prophylactic rule protectin" the =i th +mendment.s pri)ile"e a"ainst sel 9 incrimination. #he 0ourt declines to place o icers such as O icer <ra t in the untena!le position o ha)in" to consider, o ten in a matter o seconds, whether it !est ser)es society or them to ask the necessary *uestions without the Miranda warnin"s and render whate)er pro!ati)e e)idence they unco)er inadmissi!le, or or them to "i)e the warnin"s in order to preser)e the admissi!ility o e)idence they mi"ht unco)er !ut possi!ly dama"e or destroy their a!ility to o!tain that e)idence and neutrali1e the )olatile situation con rontin" them. Here, O icer <ra t asked only the *uestion necessary to locate the missin" "un !e ore ad)isin" Fuarles o his ri"hts. %t was only a ter securin" the loaded re)ol)er and "i)in" the warnin"s that he continued with in)esti"atory *uestions a!out the ownership and place o purchase o the "un. #he exception which the 0ourt reco"ni1es, ar rom complicatin" the thou"ht processes and the on9the9scene ,ud"ments o police o icers, will simply ree them to ollow their le"itimate instincts when con rontin" situations presentin" a dan"er to the pu!lic sa ety. #he 0ourt hold that the 0ourt o +ppeals erred in excludin" the statement, $the "un is o)er there,$ and the "un !ecause o the o icer.s ailure to read Fuarles his Miranda ri"hts !e ore attemptin" to locate the weapon.

Narratives: Constitutional Law II

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Narratives: Constitutional Law II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Narratives

Some %i&hts %eserved"

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 3 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 23 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 51 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 53 )

You might also like