Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rights of The Accused
Rights of The Accused
The Court found that the out-of-court identification in this case failed the last criterion because of the
police's announcement to the complainants that the accused-appellant was a suspect in the crime. This
was considered improperly suggestive because it was not the complainants themselves who pointed to
or identified the accused-appellant. There was, therefore, no spontaneity nor objectivity in the
identification.
FACTS
The accused was convicted of rape with homicide for the death of 6-year-old Jennifer Domantay and sentenced
to death. Hence, this automatic review by the SC.
When he was brought to the Malasiqui police station for questioning, SPO1 Espinoza informed the accused of
his Miranda rights in English, which was later translated to Pangasinense. Then, Espinoza claimed that the
accused admitted committing the crime and even told him where he hid the bayonet, which he used to stab the
victim. Espinoza admitted that during this whole time, the accused was not assisted by counsel, neither was the
accused's confession made in writing.
Meanwhile, Celso Manuel, a radio reporter of DPWR, interviewed the accused after he was approached by the
victim's father regarding the case. Manuel conducted the interview in the jail, which was about three meters
away from the police station, and the victim's uncle, along with two police officers who were standing three
meters away, accompanied him then. In the interview, the accused admitted that he was the one who committed
the crime and claimed that he did it out of revenge because of a boundary dispute with the victim's parents.
On arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations against him.
ISSUE
Whether the accused's confessions to SPO1 Espinoza and Manuel are admissible in court.
HELD
YES, as far as his confession to Manuel is concerned because it was a spontaneous and voluntary act on the
part of the accused. Likewise, it was not shown that the interview was conducted to elicit incriminating
information from the accused. On the contrary, the media is known for exposing the anomalies of the
government, if any; more often than not, they will take an anti-government stance.
However, his confession to SPO1 Espinoza and even the bayonet, which the accused used in killing the victim,
could not be admissible as evidence in court. Espinoza contended that the accused waived his right to counsel
before making his extrajudicial confession. The Court found that the waiver did not conform to the following
requirements: (a) voluntary; (b) express; in the presence of counsel and (d) in writing. Therefore, since it
was not a valid waiver, the accused's extrajudicial confession could not be used as evidence against the
accused.
out-of-court identification.
People vs. Hon. Ruben Ayson and Felipe Ramos GR 85215, July 7, 1989
FACTS
Private respondent Ramos was a ticket clerk in PAL when a report came out that he was allegedly involved in
irregularities in ticket sales. He was informed that an investigation would be conducted regarding the matter.
After the investigation, Ramos was informed of the findings of the Audit team. Ramos confessed to the branch
manager that he had indeed misused the proceeds from the ticket sales, but he was willing to settle. He asked
for a compromise agreement to pay back the stolen funds, but no such agreement was finalized.
PAL filed an estafa case against Ramos. Ramos's response to the investigation was put in writing and presented
as Exhibit A while his handwritten admission was presented as Exhibit K during the trial. However, Judge Ayson
dismissed both pieces of evidence as he claimed that they were the fruits of a poisonous tree. According to
him, the exhibits were inadmissible as evidence because the accused was not informed of his constitutional
rights and assisted by counsel when he confessed to committing the crime.
ISSUE
Whether Exhibits A and K are inadmissible as evidence against the accused.
HELD
YES. Judge Ayson contended that they should be inadmissible as evidence because they violated Ramos's right
against self-incrimination as well as his Miranda rights. The Court ruled otherwise. These rights may only be
invoked when the accused is subjected to custodial investigation by police officers. In this case, the accused was
not under custodial investigation at the time he made his written admission or documented confession to the PAL
officers. Moreover, he executed them willingly, as evidenced by the fact that he wanted to have a compromise
agreement with PAL for him to gradually pay back the stolen funds.
People vs. Pacito Ordono and Apolonio Medina GR 132154, June 29, 2000
FACTS
The case is an automatic review of the decision of the La Union RTC convicting the accused of the crime of rape
with homicide, thereby sentencing them to death.
The decomposing body of 15-year-old Shirley Victore was found among the bushes in Brgy. Poblacion, Santol,
La Union. Unidentified sources pointed to the accused as the culprits. The police invited them to the police
station for questioning, but were released later on due to insufficient evidence.
A week later, accused went to the police station and freely admitted that they were responsible for the death of
Shirley Victore. The police then conducted the custodial investigation after apprising the accused of their rights.
Since there were no practicing lawyers in the area, they invited the parish priest, the Municipal Mayor, the Chief
of Police and other police officers to witness the investigation.
After news of the crime spread, Roland Almoite, a leading announcer of radio station DZNL, visited and
interviewed the accused. The interview was broadcast and heard by thousands of listeners.
Two days later, the accused were brought to the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) where they had a closed-door
session with PAO Lawyer Oscar Cruz. Atty. Cruz likewise apprised the accused of their rights and explained to
them the questions as well as the implication of their answers during the investigation. The accused were then
brought to the Balaoan MTC where Judge Fabian Bautista asked them if they were coerced to give their
confession, to which they answered in the negative, and the accused affixed their thumbmarks to the signed
statement.
On arraignment, in a complete turn-about, the accused pleaded not guilty.
ISSUE
Whether the accused's confessions should be inadmissible as evidence against them.
HELD
YES, insofar as they were not assisted by counsel during custodial investigation. Although the Parish Priest,
Municipal Mayor and Chief of Police were present when the accused made their admission, this did not cure the
defect in the custodial investigation particularly the deprivation of their right to competent and independent
counsel. RA 7438, which defines the rights of persons under custodial investigation, allows certain exceptions to
the right to counsel as long as they meet the following conditions: (1) counsel of the accused must be absent
and (2) a valid waiver must be executed. In this case, there was no lawyer available but there was no valid
waiver executed. Even if they were brought to a PAO lawyer days later, it still did not remedy this omission.
There was also no evidence that the accused were effectively informed of their rights. In fact, at the time they
were arrested, they were not informed of their rights so that when they made their admission later on, it actually
violated their right to self-incrimination. Even the advice given by the PAO lawyer were given in a cursory and
perfunctory manner when, ideally, he should have made a conscious effort to ensure that the accused
understood their rights.
However, his interview with Almoite was admissible as evidence as it was voluntary and spontaneous.
(1) NO, because Garcia was not caught in flagrante delicto or immediately after committing a crime. He was
only arrested five days after the police officers were given information that the accused could have
stolen some BSP notes because they were spending beyond their means. Still, this information was not
supported by sufficient evidence and would not, therefore, give rise to probable cause to merit the
warrantless arrest of the accused.
The search and seizure were also illegal because the arrest was illegal. Therefore, the notes confiscated from
Garcia were the fruits of the poisonous tree.
(2) NO, because they were not assisted by counsel during custodial investigation. Even the PAO lawyer
who allegedly assisted them admitted that he was not present during the investigation. Moreover, he
only signed as saksi or witness on the accused's written admissions. The Court held that competent
and independent counsel requires effective and vigilant counsel not just someone to standby and
watch while the accused is being questioned by police officers.
People vs. Benjamin Sayaboc, Patricio Escorpiso, Marlon Buenviaje and Miguel
Buenviaje GR 147201, January 15, 2004
FACTS
The appellants were accused of murdering Joseph Galam, the owner of the Rooftop Disco and Lodging House.
Based on a cartographic sketch of the assailant, the police arrested Sayaboc and brought him to the Provincial
Command Headquarters of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya for questioning. Sayaboc was allegedly informed of his
rights, including his right to counsel of his own choice. Since Sayaboc could not name a laywer to assist him, the
investigators called on PAO lawyer Rodolfo Cornejo to stand as counsel for the accused. When the accused
conceded, the police officers continued with the investigation and Sayaboc eventually signed an extrajudicial
confession in Ilocano.
ISSUES
(1) Whether Sayaboc's extrajudicial confession is admissible as evidence against him.
(2) Whether Marlon and Miguel Buenviaje were denied their right to be heard by themselves and counsel
after they filed their demurrer to evidence allegedly without seeking the express leave of the court.
HELD
(1) NO, because he was not effectively assisted by Atty. Cornejo during the investigation. The Court held
that the right to competent and independent counsel means that the lawyer should satisfy himself, during
the investigation, that the suspect understands the full import and consequences of answering the
questions propounded. This does not imply that he has to prevent the accused from answering
questions or making a confession. It only means that the lawyer has to explain the questions asked by
conferring with his client and halt the investigation if his client's right against self-incrimination is being
violated. Likewise, he should inform his client that he may invoke his right to be silent at any time during
the investigation.
(2) NO, because the demurrer was filed without prior leave of the court. The filing of a demurrer without
prior leave of the court is an unqualified waiver of the right to present evidence for the accused.
According to the Court: The rationale for this rule is that when the accused moves for dismissal on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution evidence, he does so in the belief that said
evidence is insufficient to convict and, therefore, any need for him to present any evidence is negated.
The purpose is also to avoid the practice of filing motions for dismissal as demurrer to evidence and,
after denial thereof, the defense would then claim the right to present its evidence.