Se.

12 (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (4) the law shall provide for penal & civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to & rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families. Rights under investigation: (1) (2) The right to remain silent The right to competent & independent counsel preferably of his own choice

Supreme Court more friendly to police operations limited its scope several times, although failing to reverse its central holding, and in 2000 the Rehnquist court, in an opinion authored by the chief justice, reaffirmed the original decision as a constitutional rule that may not be overturned by an act of Congress. Civil liberties groups have continued to protest that police routinely omit Miranda warnings The ff constitutional requirements must be observed in custodial investigations: (1) The person in custody must be informed at the outset in clear & unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent After being so informed, he must be told that anything he says can and will be used against him in court He must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during the interrogation. He does not have to ask for a lawyer. The investigators should tell him that he has the right to counsel at that point. He should be warned that not only has he the right to consult with a lawyer but also that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Even if the person consents to answer questions without the assistance of counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point in the investigation, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. If the foregoing protections and warnings are not demonstrated during the trial to have been observed by the prosecution, no evidence obtained as a result of the interrogation can be used against him.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (3) The right to be informed of such rights

Reason making the rule applicable to investigation: According to Miranda vs Arizona, it is but a recognition of the fact that the psychological if not physical atmosphere of custodial investigations, in the absence of proper safeguards, is inherently coercive. Miranda v Arizona (immediate jurisprudential antecedent ) Of all cases to make its way to the Supreme Court, Miranda v Arizona may well be the most popular to date. Virtually everyone has heard of the "Miranda Rights" which are read to suspects. While many people may be familiar with the terminology from television shows, not nearly as many understand the true origins of the Miranda rights. The actual case of Miranda v Illinois may be the case the "Miranda Rights" are named after, but several other Supreme Court decisions all came together to form the ruling, including Escabedo v Illinois. However, since Miranda was the final case to be decided at the time covering this issue, it is considered the father of the "Right to remain silent." On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at Arizona his home. The police took him into custody, and transported him to a Phoenix police station. The witness whom had filed the complaint identified him. Miranda was then lead to the interrogation room. Then, the police officers proceeded to question him. Miranda had never been informed of his rights prior to the questioning. He was never told he had the right to an attorney to be present during the questioning. After two hours, the officers had succeeded in getting a written confession signed by Miranda. Located on the top of the confession was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was voluntary, without any promises of immunity or threats. The statement also said that Miranda signed the confession "with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." When Miranda's case went to trial, the prosecution used the written confession as evidence against him. The defense objected, asking for the evidence to be suppressed. However, the judge allowed the confession to be admitted. Miranda was convicted of all counts, which consisted of kidnapping and rape. On each count he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years, with the sentences running concurrently. On Miranda's first appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that his rights had not been violated by the admission of the confession, and therefore affirmed the conviction. The basis for the decision was connected to the fact that Miranda never specifically requested council. Identified in a police lineup, Miranda had been questioned, had confessed, and had signed a written statement without being told that he had a right to a lawyer; his confession was used at trial. In overturning Miranda's conviction, Chief Justice Earl Warren held that the prosecution may not use statements made by a person in police custody unless certain minimum procedural safeguards were in place. Before questioning, a person must be given what is now known as a “Miranda warning”: that you have the right to remain silent; that anything you say may be used as evidence against you; that you may request the presence of an attorney, either retained by you or appointed by the court; and that you have the right, even after beginning to answer questions, to stop answering or request an attorney. The Miranda decision was one of the most controversial of the Warren Court. Under Chief Justices Warren Burger and William Rehnquist (who as a legal spokesman for the Nixon administration had proposed that Miranda be overturned), a (6)

** The entirety of the Miranda Rule is now part of Philippine Law Pp vs DE LA CRUZ, alias RODOLFO DOMINGO or "OMPONG Rodolfo de la Cruz, aliasRodolfo Domingo or "Ompong” impugns his conviction for multiple murder in Antipolo, Rizal. He anchors his entreaty for the reversal thereof mainly on the ground that he was not fully and appropriately apprised of or allowed to exercise his constitutional rights prior to and while undergoing custodial investigation. The 3 Laroya’s were all bloodied consequent to numerous stab wounds, and each of them had a knife still embedded in and protruding from their bodies when found by neighbors in Cainta, Rizal. Karen Verona also bore external signs of sexual assault. None of their neighbors, however, witnessed the gruesome murders. Two of them later testified in court, namely, Harold Jim F. Balocating and Anita F. Pangan. The former merely recounted how, while playing table tennis in front of the Laroya residence, he and his friends stumbled upon the dead bodies of the victims. Anita Pangan, on the other hand, recalled that at around 9:00 P.M. of June 23, 1992, appellant, who was a brother-in-law of Teodorico Laroya, Jr., purchased some candies at her store which is located inside the village. 4 Both Balocating and Pangan had previously executed sworn statements just three days after the incident, the assertions in which were of the same import as their respective testimonies in court. 5On June 27, 1992, the police authorities apprehended appellant at the house of his brother in Fort Bonifacio. SPO1 Carlos R. Atanacio, Jr., a member of the Cainta Police Station in Cainta, Rizal interrogated appellant regarding the crimes on the same day that he was arrested. This police officer declared in the trial court that before he questioned appellant as to his participation in said crimes, all steps were undertaken to completely inform the latter of his rights and this he did in the presence of appellant's supposed counsel, one Atty. Lorenza Bernardino-Villanueva. Appellant then signed, likewise in the presence of said counsel, an extrajudicial confession wherein he narrated in detail how he allegedly snuffed out the lives of the victims. When presented as the lone witness for himself, appellant was observed by the trial court to be afflicted with a problem in expressing himself and an impediment in his speech (ngo-ngo). By appellant's own account, he only reached the fourth grade of elementary schooling and, although conversant with Tagalog, he is unable to read and write, although he can sign his name. He bluntly repudiated the version of SPO1 Atanacio, Jr. and insisted that he was never assisted by any counsel of his choice, much less met said Atty. Lorenza Bernardino-Villanueva, when he was interrogated at the police

Section 20 of the Bill of Rights seeks to remedy this imbalance. (b) his retrieving of the bones discovered therein (c) his posing before a photographer while executing such acts. that any statement he made could be used for or against him in any court. Jr. the intimidating and coercive presence of the officers of the law in such an atmosphere overwhelms them into silence. Jurisprudence along these lines have all been too consistent — an accused under custodial interrogation must continuously have a counsel assisting him from the very start thereof. Curiously. As explained by this Court in People vs. In the present case." The situation contemplated has also been more precisely described by this Court. his answers to the questions appearing therein are in surprisingly fluent. In unambiguous and explicit terms. The foregoing lapses on the part of the police authorities are all fatal to the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession supposedly executed by appellant before SPO1 Atanacio. admitted in his the investigation actually commenced at the time when appellant was still without counsel. Where he lacks a counsel of his choice because of indigence or other incapacitating cause. A mere perfunctory reading by the constable of such rights to the accused would thus not suffice. or what may pass for it.headquarters in Cainta. custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. for being integral parts of the uncouselled admission – or fruits of the poisonous tree – are the photographs of subsequent acts which the accused was made to do in order to obtain proof to support such admission or confession. a confrontation arises which at best may be termed unequal. that his right thereto would mean simply that he can consult a lawyer if he has one or has the financial capacity to obtain legal services. paragraph 1. 1997). which could not have been done by him because of his defect in speech and articulation. While the three were sleeping. not only does the fundamental law impose. he must be provided with one. as it is by non-compliance with the procedural and substantive safeguards to which an accused is entitled . The objective is to prohibit "incommunicado" interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere. a jeep was parked in front of the boarding house where children (later witnesses) were playing. The rights above specified." or "in-custody interrogation of accused persons. accused-appellant Rodolfo de la Cruz. “Equally inadmissible. SPO1 Atanacio. she could feel that the man had no cover on his face when he was raping her. He then proceeded to have carnal knowledge with Michelle." Corollary thereto. Without this further safeguard. This man had his head covered with a t-shirt to prevent identification and carried a knife about four inches long. On the night of the crime (December 27. and nothing more.. he could be provided with one. in the language or dialect that he knows. thus putting into serious doubt her independence and competence in assisting appellant during the investigation as to affect its admissibility. Rizal and signed his supposed extrajudicial confession. paragraph 3 thereof declares that any confession or admission obtained in violation of the same shall be inadmissible in evidence against the confessant." And. needless to state. Parenthetically. Marra. After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins. as this Court has already stated.” Evidently. the presumption of innocence enjoyed by appellant has remained intact and impervious to the prosecution's assault thereon. And even if they were. She then turned to the other petitioners who were already awake by that time and was able to take P3100 from Michelle and none from Teresa because her bag was in the other room. as a requisite function of the investigating officer. Section 12. the prosecution must not rely on the weakness of the evidence of the defense but upon the vigor of its own. the duty to explain those rights to the accused but also that there must correspondingly be a meaningful communication to and understanding thereof by the accused. . He further claims that he was instead tortured by the police authorities into signing the same. Again. where what emerges from a perusal of the record is that this counsel was merely picked out and provided by the law enforcers themselves. such as (a) his digging in the place where Virginia Trangia was allegedly buried. the full extent of the same. flawless and expressive Tagalog. informed appellant in Tagalog of his right to remain silent. alias Rodolfo Domingo or "Ompong. On the other hand. Erma was awakened by the presence of a man. And. Most detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their constitutional rights. yields no evidence or indication pointing to her having explained to the appellant his rights under the Constitution. exist only in "custodial interrogations. and that he could have counsel preferably of his own choice. Withal. resulting in selfincriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights. out of the detainee. Michelle said that although she was blindfolded and could not see. In sum. She felt that his chest was rough and had some scars. perforated." is hereby ACQUITTED. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. Jr. They employ all the methods and means that experience and study have taught them to extract the truth. The investigators are well-trained and seasoned in their work. . they were told to blindfold one another. he shall be provided with one. He asked for her money and was able to get P500 from her. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. it assumes commensurate significance and strength where the evidence for the prosecution itself is frail and effete. While the defense of alibi advanced by appellant is by nature a weak one by itself. of Article III of the Constitution requires that "[a]ny person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have independent counsel preferably of his own choice. and every person he meets. the record is completely bereft of any indication as to how appellant was able to engage the services of Atty. Furthermore. PEOPLE v ESCORDIAL Facts Petitioners were all living in the ground floor of a boarding house. to repeat. . a cursory reading of the confession itself and SPO1 Atanacio's version of the manner in which he conducted the interrogation. he flatly denied having killed them as he left the trio well and alive that same night when he proceeded to his brother's place in Fort Bonifacio. The defendant in the dock must be made to understand comprehensively. about the only matter that bears out the presence of such counsel at that stage of custodial interrogation are the signatures which she affixed on the affidavit. He finds himself in strange and unfamiliar surroundings. A confession made in an atmosphere characterized by deficiencies in informing the accused of all the rights to which he is entitled would be rendered valueless and inadmissible. . Lorenza BernardinoVillanueva. Jr. the rule begins to operate at once as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory question which tend to elicit incriminating statements. When he placed her hands on his nape. While he admits having been at the residence of the victims on the night that they were murdered. While SPO1 Atanacio. by custodial interrogation is meant "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. and not that he did so voluntarily. They were told to go home by a man who would be later identified as the accused. Erma claimed she was able to see through her blindfold and that she saw the man’s face. For. An accused person must be informed of the rights set out in said paragraph of Section 12 upon being held as a suspect and made to undergo custodial investigation by the police authorities. he considers hostile to him. he nonetheless failed to tell appellant that if the latter could not afford the services of counsel. After taking the money. The detainee is brought to an army camp or police headquarters and there questioned and "cross-examined" not only by one but as many investigators as may be necessary to break down his morale. herein appellant cannot be made to suffer the extreme penal consequences of the crimes on account of the shaky and decrepit circumstantial evidence proffered by the prosecution. she felt that it was also rough (keloid).

After he finished raping Michelle. -Fracture of the skull with left temporal On January 15. for three years prior to this proceedings Juanito Bravo. or in a show-up (where the accused is brought face to face with witness for identification) for that matter. Evelyn positively identified the appellant as the person last seen with Len-len before she was found dead. shirtless and skirt pulled up. only Evelyn was left watching television. A report was made in the police station. On January 15. IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION: inadmissibility of these out-of-court identifications does not render the in-court identification of accusedappellant inadmissible for being the “fruits of the poisonous tree.m. 1994 a policeman came to his place of work and apprehended him without a warrant of arrest and at the police station he was forced to admit commission of the crime of rape. Len-Len asked her to go with them but she did not want to because she was watching television. Accused claims that he went home to Pontevedra.” As it was not derived or drawn from the illegal arrest of accused-appellant or as a consequence PEOPLE vs BENITO BRAVO and balut. the accused is already under custodial investigation? HELD SC held that when the out-of-court identification was conducted by the police. On September 26. which directly caused her death. the children playing in the jeep in front of the boarding house. extremities has no pertinent findings except easy pulling of skin and all are edematous Vaginal examination. her panty stuffed in her mouth. trial court Wherefore. and prepared to go to work. 1994 an Information for rape with homicide[5] was filed against BENITO BRAVO that he willfully. marked as Exhibit B. easy pulling of the skin and plenty of small worms coming out from the ears. Appellant admitted in court that he passed by the house of Gracia Monahan but stated that he did not see the two girls watching television along the road. eyes and mouth (without panty). 1994 the decomposing body of nine year old girl named Juanita “Len-len” Antolin was found in a vacant lot along the road leading Rosario. After which (about 12:30am) he left. Santiago City neighbor and cousin of the victim testified that she was with the deceased the night before she disappeared. The owner of the house where Len-len and Evelyn watched television. Mico found the appellant at his place of work at the Spring Garden Resort at Sinsayon. and others led to the pinpointing of accused-appellant. he found his mother very sick and so he decided to stay home all night. the brother of the appellant testified that the appellant stayed home on the night of January 12. Upon seeing Bravo. old lacerations at 5:00 and 7:00 o’clock-could easily accept two fingers. the mother of the child. Negros Occidental at the time of the incident as testified by three other witnesses for the defense. necessitating the presence of counsel for the accused. failure to object when these pieces of evidence were presented constituted a waiver. During custodial investigation. Santiago City.cerebral hemorrhage (fracture of skull temporal region. (Accused. to counsel and of his right against self-incrimination before the appellant made the said admission because he was only informally interviewing the accused when he made the admission and that custodial interrogation proper was conducted by the assigned investigator. nose. The Chief of the Intelligence Section of the Santiago Police Department. was admitted by both parties. Monahan testified that she is familiar with the appellant and the two children because they are neighbors. testified that he has known the appellant for a long time and that he knows him to be hardworking and of good moral character. However. any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up or in a show-up after the start of custodial investigation is inadmissible in evidence against him. In court. Evelyn San Mateo an eight year old second grader from Rosario. Pastor corroborated the appellant’s testimony that police investigator Mico came to the Spring Garden Resort and arrested Bravo without a warrant. Gracia Monahan. They picked him out of four in the line-up. Len-Len went alone with the accused. Ernesto Pastor. Both counsels for the accused-appellant and the appellee plead for the acquittal of the accused. Accused was playing in basketball when the police “invited” him to the Pontevedra police station for questioning. threatening her so she’d concede that it would be much worse if he’d call others (companions) from outside to rape her. coming out of small worms on both eyes and ears and mouth. 1994 to take care of their sick mother who died a few days thereafter. This is because the result of these pre-trial proceedings “might well settle the fate of the accused and reduce the trial to a mere formality” Thus. these types of identification have been recognized as “critical confrontations of the accused by the prosecution”. On cross-examination Mico admitted that he did not inform the appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent. the whole body is edematous. The cause of death was cerebral hemorrhage On May 25. through the descriptions of the petitioners. He was also brought to the Bacolod police station so that the other witnesses could identify him. Mico further narrated in court that at the police station the appellant admitted he was with the girl and he carried her on his shoulder but he was so drunk that night that he does not remember what he did to her. Mico informed him that he is a suspect in the killing of a girl in Rosario. OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION: This should have been inadmissible because identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up (where the suspect is identified by a witness from a group of persons gathered for that purpose). Both the accused-appellant and the appellee invoke the constitutionally guarded presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the latter’s right to remain silent and to counsel.shows fresh laceration at 2:30 o’clock. Santiago City and asked him to come with him for questioning. The testimony of the Municipal Health Officer who conducted the autopsy was dispensed with by the prosecution as the handwritten Autopsy Report made by the Municipal Health Officer of Santiago. TESTIMONIES OF THE WITNESSES (regarding the identity of the accused): should be regarded as inadmissible under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. with lewd design and by means of violence and intimidation. unlawfully and feloniously. again. At the station Michelle saw him and she identified him as his alleged robber and rapist. The . corroborated Evelyn’s testimony that on the evening she saw the appellant talking to Len-len while the two girls were watching television from her open window and that when she looked again towards the end of the program to the direction where the girls were situated. Subsequent searches. finding the accused BENITO BRAVO “GUILTY” beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE WITH HOMICIDE This case is before us on automatic review in view of the penalty imposed by the trial court. The following morning Len-Len’s mother told Evelyn and her mother that Len-Len was missing. He then raped Michelle for the second time. Isabela. the accused was already under custodial investigation. He woke up the following morning at around 4:30 a. The appellant agreed. The scalp on the left side of her head was detached exposing a fracture on the left temporal lobe of her skull. the foreman at the Spring Garden Resort where the appellant was employed. have carnal knowledge with Len-len & inflicting upon her. having become the focus of attention by the police after he had been pointed to by a certain Ramie as the possible perpetrator of the crime) Issue: WON. The appellant denied the accusation and stated that the deceased was his godchild and that he has known Fely Handoc. Alexander Mico interviewed Evelyn who pointed to the appellant as the man last seen with the deceased. left). At home. She stated that while they stood on the roadside watching “Home Along Da Riles” from an open window of a neighbor’s house the appellant approached them and asked Len-Len to come with him to a birthday party and then he will buy her Coke -Edematous -Abdomen. after the start of the custodial investigation is inadmissible as evidence against him. scalp on the left side was detached and skull exposed. Cause of death. Vaginal examination showed fresh laceration at 2:30 o’clock and old lacerations at 5:00 and 7:00 o’clock and easily accepts two fingers. a fracture on the skull. Was investigated under the mango tree where the crime was committed and left side of the face is covered by sand (done by anay) with rigor mortis and with putrification. After complete washing. Santiago City between two concrete fences half naked. he sat down on the bed and talked to the women. PO3 Tancinco was one of those who responded to the crime. 1994 the accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

coupled with circumstantial evidence. Autopsy reports found that Genelyn was raped before she was drowned. In sum. the dead body of an 11-year-old girl Genelyn Camacho was found. The appellant was not invited to the police station as part of a general inquiry for any possible lead to the perpetrators of the crime under investigation. Helen Ramos gave him a pair of slippers and pointed to him the location where she found the same. Any measure short of this requirement is considered a denial of such right. both the appellant and the appellee profess that the presumption of innocence of the accused was not successfully overturned by the prosecution. against her will and by reason or on the same occasion and in order to hide the crime he just committed. that an admission made to news reporters or to a confidant of the accused is not covered by the exclusionary rule. It has been held. of the suspect to admit responsibility for the crime under investigation. he could not thenceforth be asked about his complicity in the offense without the assistance of counsel. However. HELD: (1)YES. 1997 at around 7:30 in the a. an eight-year old girl. testified that during the course of his examination of the cadaver. he discovered an 8 cm. who claimed that he had caught sight of it while he was catching frogs in a nearby creek. The admission was allegedly made to the arresting officer during an “informal talk” at the police station after his arrest as a prime suspect. the prosecution failed to show that he effectively waived his rights through a written waiver executed in the presence of counsel. Juanito confessed to the Barangay Captain that he only wanted to frighten the girl but ended up raping and throwing her body in the ravine. The one who caused its discovery was accused-appellant Juanito Baloloy himself. Law enforcement agencies are required to effectively communicate the rights of a person under investigation and to insure that it is fully understood. Courts are not allowed to distinguish between preliminary questioning and custodial investigation proper when applying the exclusionary rule. that more or less. BALOLOY FACTS: At the waterfalls of Barangay Inasagan. province of Laguna by means force and intimidation and with lewd designs. was missing. the medico-legal officer who examined the cadaver of Nairube on September 19. Helen Ramos reported that her daughter. dump the victim in the grassy coconut plantation area. The evidence for the prosecution falls short of the quantum of evidence required by the Rules to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. on the evening of August 3. (2) NO. Loreto PEOPLE VS. the parents of the victim and SPO2 QUIRINO GALLARDO testified that on September 16. the police officers. the PNP and some townspeople to conduct an ocular inspection. the custodial investigation is deemed to have started. Juanito did not offer any evidence of improper or ulterior motive on the part of Ceniza. Judge Dicon's claim that no complaint has yet been filed and that neither was he conducting a preliminary investigation deserves scant consideration. wound penetration in her vagina which was probably caused by the insertion of a penis. While in the custody of the authorities. Supportive of such presumption is the absence of a written extrajudicial confession to that effect and the appellant’s denial in court of the alleged oral admission. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. Moreover. the two failed to inform him of his constitutional rights before they took it upon themselves to elicit from him the incriminatory information. (2) Whether or not Juanito’s extrajudicial confession before the was admissible. LORETO VELORIA. . Juanito voluntarily narrated to Ceniza that he raped GENELYN and thereafter threw her body into the ravine. he did not inform the accused of his constitutional rights before he asked him of his participation in the crime under investigation.testimony of the policeman that the accused admitted he was with the victim on the evening of January 12. As to his confession with the Baragay Captain Ceniza. the approximate time of death of the victim was three (3) days prior to his examination. Neither can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a suspect in the commission of a crime before he is placed under investigation. for as public officials it was incumbent upon them to observe the express mandate of the Constitution. which resulted in her death due to shock secondary to vulvar laceration EDILBERTO CASTILLO. did then and there willfully. Based on his alleged extrajudicial . physical and psychological. This narration was a spontaneous answer. the accused pointed out where the body of the victim was. the very evil the rule stands to avoid..[4] RICARDO VIDA. there is merit in Juanito’s claim that his constitutional rights during custodial investigation were violated by Judge Dicon when the latter propounded to him incriminating questions without informing him of his constitutional rights. not elicited through questioning by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having committed the crime. The arresting policeman admitted that he did not inform the appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. it has been held that the constitutional provision on custodial investigation does not apply to a spontaneous statement. the trial court found Juanito guilty of rape with homicide and sentenced him to death. While in the wake of Genelyn. Any statement allegedly made by him pertaining to his possible complicity in the crime without prior notification of his constitutional rights is inadmissible in evidence. which could have compelled her to testify falsely against him. ISSUE: (1) Whether or not Juanito’s extrajudicial confession before the barangay captain was admissible. he was asked incriminating questions by Judge Dicon who justified his actions saying that Juanito was not yet in custodial investigation. 1996. freely and voluntarily given in an ordinary manner. The exclusionary rule applies. We resolve to acquit Benito Bravo. The alleged admission should be struck down as inadmissible. The fact remains that at that time Juanito was already under the custody of the police authorities. **A police line-up is not considered a part of any custodial inquest. It is settled that at the moment the accused voluntarily surrenders to. HELEN DANILO RAMOS. While these rights may be waived. PEDRO DELA TORRE. however. The exclusionary rule presumes that the alleged admission was coerced. The appellant Benito Bravo is acquitted. So. that the cadaver was in an advanced state of decomposition. In the instant case. According to him. It was given before he was arrested or placed under custody for investigation in connection with the commission of the offense. Juanito maintains that the trial court violated Section 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution when it admitted in evidence his alleged extrajudicial confession to Barangay Captain Ceniza and Judge Dicon. because it is conducted before that stage of investigation is reached. Any information or admission given by a person while in custody which may appear harmless or innocuous at the time without the competent assistance of an independent counsel should be struck down as inadmissible. the Task Force Chief of Cavinti. It is of no moment that Ceniza and Dicon are not police investigators. Alma Diaz also gave him a black T-shirt which she found. Nairube. On appeal. We note that the alleged admission is incriminating because it places the accused in the company of the victim at the time the crime was probably committed. 1994 but the latter was too drunk to remember what happened should have been held inadmissible by the trial court in view of the policeman’s own admission. he was handcuffed to the accused VIOLETA CABUHAT . ROMUALDO RAMOS. and that the cause of death of the victim was hypovolenic shock secondary to the laceration. 1997. PEOPLE vs. unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one NAIRUBE J. confession. We must however uphold the primacy of the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused when the evidence at hand falls short of the quantum required to support conviction. RAMOS. Zamboanga del Sur.m. Trial court erred in relying merely the sole circumstantial evidence that the victim was last seen by her cousin in the company of the accused whereas the Rules of Court clearly requires the presence of at least two proven circumstances & cannot serve as basis for any conclusion leading to the guilt of the accused of the crime charged. He thereafter proceeded to the house of the victim together with members of the Crime Investigation Group. It is to protect the accused from admitting what he is coerced to admit although untrue. ALMA DIAZ . It states: The mantle of protection under this constitutional provision covers the period from the time a person is taken into custody for investigation of his possible participation in the commission of a crime or from the time he is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime although not yet in custody The exclusionary rule sprang from a recognition that police interrogatory procedures lay fertile grounds for coercion. CLEMENTE JOHN LUGOD Rape with homicide was filed against CLEMENTE JOHN LUGOD in Cavinti. At the time the alleged admission was made the appellant was in custody and had been arrested as the prime suspect in the rape and killing. Aurora. He concludes that his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence. or is arrested by. who had already taken the statement of the witnesses who were then before Judge Dicon for the administration of their oaths on their statements. Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution embodies the mandatory protection afforded a person under investigation for the commission of a crime and the correlative duty of the State and its agencies to enforce such mandate.

accusedappellant merely responded to the ambiguous questions that the ViceMayor propounded to him. Article III of the Constitution. Arizona: the rights of the accused include: 1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel.Veloria informed him that the two items were worn by the accused when he went to the house of Violeta Cabuhat. Besides. he apprehended the accused on the basis of the pair of slippers and the black Tshirt. accused-appellant was already placed under arrest and was suspected of having something to do with the disappearance of Nairube. Considering the commotion he caused. Thus. the waiver must be made in writing and with the assistance of counsel. to which defendants argued that the confession was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. Yes. The ViceMayor’s testimony reads as follows: As can be seen from the testimony of the Vice-Mayor. the neighbor of Helen Ramos. the accused slept. When he woke up. in order to be valid. the accused went to the house of Gemma Lingatong. assigned at its Baguio City station. The findings of the Audit team were given to him. Issue: WON. Ricardo Vida stated that the townspeople were antagonistic towards accused-appellant and wanted to hurt him. thus. After removing his slippers. or to refuse to testify altogether. Held: No. to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed.[19] However. the act in pointing out the location of the body of Nairube was also elicited in violation of the accused-appellant’s right to remain silent. His confession was elicited by SPO2 Gallardo who promised him that he would help him if he told the truth. the whole police force as well as nearly one hundred (100) of the townspeople of Cavinti escorted him there.R.. In fact. He must claim it and could be waived.000. But unless and until such rights and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial. he visited the accused in his cell. Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as evidence the admission and statement of accused. (PO2 ANTONIO DECENA agree) FLORO ESGUERRA. the PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted.not present in case at bar). He was not informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel. accused entitled with Miranda rights? response. This is accorded to every person who gives evidence. This is a basic tenet of our Constitution which cannot be disregarded or ignored no matter how brutal the crime committed may be. the accused confessed to the commission of the offense RTC rendered a decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide. Hence this appeal. he raped her three times. So after the drinking spree. the apprehending officers did not inform the accusedappellant and in fact acted in a blatant and wanton disregard of his constitutional rights specified in Section 12. Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in miranda v. the Vice-Mayor of Cavinti. In support of his appeal. After successfully raping Nairube. the Vice-Mayor admitted that the accused-appellant did not tell him that he raped and killed Nairube. he saw the lifeless body of Nairube which he wrapped in a blanket and hid in a grassy place. He then returned to Villa Anastacia and went out through its gate. PEOPLE VS. The Vice-Mayor. In addition. It was only when they brought the accused to Villa Anastacia to point out the location of the cadaver that they found the body of Nairube. the Crime Watch and the townspeople continued the search but they were still not able to find the body of Nairube. He then brought the accused to the police station where he was temporarily incarcerated. intimidation. or administrative proceeding. De La Cruz. It was alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. 3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence." the right can be claimed only when the specific question. at the time of his arrest. Clemente John Lugod alias “HONASAN” is ACQUITTED. Moreover. when accused-appellant allegedly pointed out the body of the victim. he attended the funeral of Nairube. we note the contradiction between the testimony of the Vice-Mayor who stated that he was alone when he spoke to the accusedappellant and that of SPO2 Gallardo who claimed that he was present when accused-appellant confessed to the Mayor and Vice-Mayor. Moreover. He claims that the alleged confession he made to the vice-mayor was not a confession. 1997. G. The individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena. Amidst such a highly coercive atmosphere. There is no question that at the time of his apprehension. and he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was prevented from settling said amounts. Although he admitted to having raped and killed Nairube. Upon his arrival at the house of Gemma. 85215. Section 20 of the 1987 constitution provides that the right against self-incrimination (only to witnesses other than accused. A motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was denied. in any civil. Gallardo claims that the accused told him that after the drinking spree on September 15. Gallardo together with other members of the PNP. he left and went to the house of Nairube Ramos. the testimony of the Vice-Mayor with respect to the alleged confession made by the accused-appellant is not conclusive. He proffered a compromise however this did not ensue. It is a right that a witness knows or should know. He did not state in certain and categorical terms that he raped and killed Nairube. In court. Then. he took a bath in the river.m. even if he did waive these rights. After having been informed that the body of Nairube was in the grassy area. After taking Nairube. his act of confessing to SPO2 Gallardo that he raped and killed Nairube without the assistance of counsel cannot be used against him for having transgressed accused-appellant’s rights under the Bill of Rights. The atmosphere from the time accused-appellant was apprehended and taken to the police station up until the time he was alleged to have pointed out the location of the body of the victim was highly intimidating and was not conducive to a spontaneous Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines. At first. SPO2 Gallardo. After the funeral. accused-appellant’s claim that he was beaten up and maltreated by the police officers raises a very serious doubt as to the voluntariness of his alleged confession. Records show that the Mayor of Cavinti did not testify in the criminal trial. Gallardo demonstrated how the accused claimed to have lifted the child by raising two of his hands as if he was lifting something off the ground. threat. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’ written admission and statement. he noticed that the accused-appellant had bruises on his face. Furthermore. The right is not to "be compelled to be a witness against himself. Consequently. “custody investigation” which has been defined as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. the accused wanted to have sexual intercourse with a woman. That investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline. The same was an integral part of the uncounselled confession and is considered a fruit of the poisonous tree. 2) nor force. reiterated People vs. who testified that when he visited accused-appellant in the jail cell. In fact. In the course of his conversation with the accused. Even if we were to assume that accused-appellant was not yet under interrogation and thus not entitled to his constitutional rights at the time he was brought to the police station. The rule . he entered the house of Nairube and slowly went upstairs. At around 7:00 p.[24] In addition. NO. Ramos pleaded not guilty. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. he would be provided with one. he brought her to the farm where according to the accused. JUDGE AYSON [175 SCRA 216. A letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle the amount of P76. he bumped pots which awakened the occupants of the house. and to be informed of such right.” It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry. incriminatory in character. the lower court declared that accused-appellant’s warrantless arrest was valid based on Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. the accused refused to make a statement regarding the same. and that if he cannot afford to have counsel of his choice. the records do not support the confession allegedly made by the accused-appellant to the Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Cavinti. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena. Not having the benefit of counsel & not having been informed of his rights. no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him. unless what is asked is relating to a different crime charged. Gallardo stated that the accused pointed to the location by using his lips. is actually put to the witness. the accused denied that he did anything to Nairube but after he told him what happened to the girl. Respondent Judge did not admit those stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. the confession is inadmissible. there is no evidence to indicate that he intended to waive these rights. In view of the imposition of the death penalty. violence. corroborated accused-appellant’s assertion that he was maltreated. accused-appellant submits that the evidence presented by the prosecution fails to establish that he raped and killed Nairube Ramos beyond reasonable doubt. 7 JUL 1989] Held:. It cannot be claimed at any other time. In the same vein. the acts of accused-appellant subsequent to his apprehension cannot be characterized as having been voluntarily made considering the peculiar circumstances surrounding his detention. and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. He saw that Helen Ramos was sleeping beside her husband so he took Nairube instead. criminal. the case is now before this Court on automatic review.

**Such investigation does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. The matter was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman which held otherwise. the accused asked him to dispose of Keyser's corpse. For in all probability. The accused was interviewed by news reporters Gus Abelgas of ABS CBN and Karen David of GMA. contending (1) that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offense and the person of the accused and (2) that since the accused had already been arraigned by the RTC. Therefore. The interview was recorded on video and it showed accused unburdening his guilt willingly. it was found that the accused was only made to read a list of rights . the provincial auditor) appears to be belied by his own testimony. An information for malversation of public funds was filed. he made his confession without the assistance of counsel. People vs. the allegation of his having been "pressured" to sign the Examination Report prepared by Dulguime (examined cash. He even narrated how he bashed Keyser on the head and dismembered him thereafter. A new order for Navallo's arrest was issued by the Sandiganbayan. The accused initially entered a plea of guilty. When the police officers arrived at the scene. Presidential Decree No. the accused calmly surrendered and admitted that he killed Keyser. NAVALLO VS. it is prudent that the trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions. The rights enumerated are not available before police investigators become involved. Galgarin was arrested and taken into custody in the Antipolo Police Station. Shocked by this revelation. He was to be transferred to Palawan for him to be tried there. ** SC ruled that the admission of the videotaped confession is proper. may attempt to legitimize coerced extrajudicial confessions and place them beyong the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an offense on television. The accused allegedly murdered Victor Keyser. However this was denied and trial ensued and he was found guilty. The information was then docketed with the Sandiganbayan. Facts: Accused was the Collecting and Disbursing Officer of the Numancia National Vocational School. However. He was released on provisional liberty upon the approval of his property bail bond Upon motion of the prosecution. with the aid of his uncle Gerry Galgarin. if he had indeed been forced into confessing. Such confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to solicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. In any case. were charged with the murder of Dennis Aquino who was Endino's rival for the love of Aquino's girlfriend Clara Agagas. According to the security guard of the factory. the guard ran to the police station and reported the matter to the authorities. Quiñones-Marcos opined that since Navallo had already been arraigned before the case was transferred to the Sandiganbayan. He also told David the details of the killing. during the trial. His defense consisted of outright denial and he alleged that he was just “framed-up”. The constitutional safeguards for the rights of the accused should never be disregarded. However. and remittance of collections exceeding P500. Edward Endino and Gerry Galgarin FACTS: Edward Endino. People vs. but subsequently changed it to “not guilty”. the attempt to prosecute him before the Sandiganbayan would constitute double jeopardy. He also said that he did not regret his actions. the owner of Keyser Plastics and employer of the accused. ISSUE WON. on 10 December 1978. the RTC should continue taking cognizance of the case. The warrant was returned with a certification by the RTC Clerk of Court that the accused had posted a bail bond. Besides. Navallo was finally arrested. An audit examiner himself can hardly be deemed to be the law enforcement officer contemplated in the above rule. preparation of vouchers for salaries of teachers and employees. but accused-petitioner could not be found. SANDIGANBAYAN appellant. the accused-appellant's videotaped confession is admissible as evidence in court? HELD YES. and direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements. openly. Surigao del Norte. as ordered by Espino. Appellant is not in custodial investigation. through the combined efforts of the Antipolo and Palawan police forces. and publicly in the presence of newsmen. in all likelihood. although the police contended that the accused was informed of his rights. Both interviews were broadcast nationwide. The police also did not make an active effort to make sure he was provided with one before they began questioning the accused. the Court still left a word of caution against presumptions that confessions to the media are always voluntary and permissible as evidence in court.00 to the National Treasury. because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a medium for admitting one’s guilt. There was no showing that the interview was coerced or against his will. The interview did not form part of the custodial investigation. In the interview. Special Prosecutor Luz L. people must ascertain whether such confessions are made under duress or with the influence of police officers. We should never presume that all media confessions described as voluntary have been freely given. On 15 November 1984. A person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial investigation. A warrant of arrest was issued. 2004 Issue: Whether or Not the constitutional right against custodial investigations in favor of the accused violated? Held: No. they stopped at the ABS CBN TV station where Galgarin had an interview with the media. Eric Guillermo – GR 147786. he could have easily sought succor from the newsmen who. courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions. the RTC transferred the case and transmitted its records to the Sandiganbayan. 1606 took effect creating the Sandiganbayan and conferring on it original and exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by public officersembraced in Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. There was no evidence that he was indeed coerced or threatened by the police to do the interview. which school is also located at del Carmen. However. On their way to the airport. thereby sentencing him to death. He claimed that he was coerced by police officers to admit to the crime. FACTS This is an automatic review of the Antipolo RTC's decision to convict accused Guillermo of the crime of murder. However. Whether the accused's confession to the media is admissible as evidence against him. Navallo filed a motion to quash. ISSUE (1) (2) Whether the police officers violated the accused's Miranda rights. The suspects fled after killing Aquino. Moreover. with the connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners. the accused-appellant pleaded “not guilty” and disowned his interview with TV Patrol. Nevertheless. His duties included the collection of tuition fees. First. Second. and the recurrence of this phenomenon in several cases. it was made spontaneously and voluntarily by the accused- HELD (1) YES. This interview was aired on TV Patrol. January 20.begins to operate at once as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime. would have been sympathetic with him. he admitted that it was his nephew Endino who shot Aquino and he was only an accomplice in the crime. the police. because of the inherent danger in the use of the television as a medium for admitting one’s guilt. Thus the protection is not available to a person undergoing audit because an audit examiner is not a law enforcement officer.

00 payable to Dizon. that an on-thespot audit examination was conducted by the Fiscal Audit Division of the Office of Court Administrator. unlawfully and feloniously take. he immediately acted with haste and instructed Malla to turn over the money. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people.[31] In resolving this case.000.[21] Thus. Flaviano Pangilinan. That on or before the 23rd day of October. The evidence against Judge Sumilang adequately proves his gross negligence in this matter. a second complaint was lodged against Malla for removing judicial records outside the court premises. until her resignation on August 31. we ruled that the aforementioned constitutional provision may be invoked only during “custodial investigation” or as in “custody investigation” which has been defined as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. the Court is convinced that respondents did commit acts prejudicial to the service for which they should be held accountable. The evidence against Malla is equally incriminating. Teodorico Dizon. conspiring and confederating with one another and mutually helping and aiding one another. explained that she deposited it at the Sta Cruz. Lagmay executed an affidavit stating that the amount of P55. Laguna (hereinafter referred to as the lower court). the latter refused because there was no order from Judge Sumilang. vs. It was at this juncture that she used the money for personal purposes. P.000.[11] It bears emphasizing that this is not the first time that respondent judge has been charged with an administrative case. This case arose as an aftermath of an on-the-spot audit examination of the official cashbook and other documents of the lower court.00 to Mrs. 1992. Rebecca Avanzado assumed the position of officer in charge.00 to said respondent instead of handling it over to the Clerk of Court pursuant to Supreme Court Circular.posted on the wall of the police station.00.000. respectively.00 to steno-reporter Mercado.[10] After carefully studying the records of this case. In Arviso v. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. Upon further questioning by the examining team. 1993.P40. There was no evidence that he actually understood those rights. that upon learning of the irregularities being committed by his court personnel. and this is not denied by Malla. 1992 during the tenure of Malla entrusted the amount of P240.000.000. In the course of the examination. The ignorance of respondent Judge as to the irregularities occurring in his own backyard constitutes serious breach of judicial ethics Judge Sumilang’s excuse. the plaintiff in Civil Case No. when Malla was no longer employed with the court. Sumilang. In his proffered explanation.00 was. At any rate.therefore. however.000.[17] In her defense.000.[12] this Court found him guilty of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE. On September 1. the confession that the police obtained from him was inadmissible as evidence against the accused because it did not conform to the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary. Besides. he averred that his wife did not borrow any money from Malla and that he had no knowledge of the irregularities involving members of his own staff. (2) it must be express. It appears from the evidence that court interpreter Malla who was the officer-in-charge from July 1. wife of Judge Sumilang.00 amount deposited before the court and such loan has already been paid. 858. 1992) and reassumed her position on December 16.[15] is specious and unconvincing. the Office of the Court Administrator can hardly be deemed to be the law enforcement authority contemplated in the constitutional provision. One involved a manager’s check deposited in the name of Teodorico Dizon in connection with Civil Case No. In fact. on the other hand. (3) it must be made in the presence of counsel.[6] Later on. His admission that he had no knowledge regarding the anomalies going on in his court underscores his inefficiency and incompetence. Article III of the Constitution[20] were violated when she was “pressured” to sign an affidavit before the Office of the Court Administrator. such as the instant case.[8] Mercado. on August 7. 1992 to November 15. he even narrated how and why he killed the victim. It was during her tenure on August 8. where she admitted her misdeed. When asked to explain where the P240. with grave abuse of confidence. however. did then and there willfully.00 for her personal needs.00 and P40. 1992 to December 15. 1993.[9] Mrs. serve them with outmost responsibility.[19] Malla further claims that her constitutional rights under Section 12. because it was voluntary and spontaneous. She spentP32.000.[1] for misappropriating funds deposited by the plaintiff in Civil Case No.C. 858. took a maternity leave for one (1) month (November 16.[30] Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. (now PNP) and the NBI and such other police agencies in our government.00 to steno-reporter Lagmay. 1986. Felicidad Malla. the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence. several anomalous transactions were discovered. steal and carry away the total amount of P36. Sumilang. 858. It has been clearly established. intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof. Villarica entrusted said check to her. a mere reading of the constitutional rights of the accused is not enough. she concludes that the affidavit is inadmissible in evidence. Dizon. but given in an ordinary manner where the appellant verbally admits to having committed the offense.00 was from the personal account of Malla and not from the P240. there is a disputable presumption that evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced during trial. Worth stressing is the well-entrenched principle that in administrative proceedings. (2) YES. **Spontaneous statements or those not elicited through questioning by law enforcement officers.00 which she received from Villarica.00 for the hospitalization of her husband and the remaining balance for personal purposes. Amiel Garcia and Ricardo Licup were charged with the crime of Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document. Consequently. respondent Judge Augusto Sumilang is hereby found guilty of gross negligence . has no evidentiary value for being selfserving.000. gross negligence and ordered him to pay a fine of P3. This strongly contrasts with and overcomes his outright denial in court. Sumilang. even if the police alleged that the accused waived his right to counsel. **Because the court administrator is not a law enforcement officer. expressly. he is responsible for the conduct and management thereof.000. an investigation conducted by him does not constitute custodial investigation within the contemplation of the constitutional guarantee.00 for his failure to act on a motion to dismiss in an expeditious manner. would demand the delivery of the money upon the termination of the case. and P81. claims that the amount of P40. It clearly demonstrates a lack of control expected of a judge exercising proper office management.00 was borrowed only two weeks before the audit took place. Malla admitted during her testimony that she received the said check from Villarica covering the amount of P240.[16] that she misappropriated for her own use the amount of P240. and efficiency. In People v. when she tried to deposit it with the Municipal Treasurer. accused. Malla testified that her uncle Entero Villarica allowed her to use the money on the condition that she should be ready to produce it when necessary. According to the Court.000.” WHEREFORE.30 by forging the . JUDGE AUGUSTO SUMILANG Respondents Judge Augusto Sumilang. However. denied any involvement in any of the transactions.[22] however. ABELARDO SALONGA Abelardo Salonga. for her part. and as such had access to the preparation of checks in the said Metrobank and Trust Company. Malla. 1994.000. Third.480. and (4) it must be made in writing. Malla admitted that she lent the amount of P87.Respondent Felicidad Malla is found guilty of misappropriating funds . He has the duty to supervise his court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch of business in his court.[18] Malla.000. were charged in a memorandum report by the Office of Court Administrator dated August 16. Edelita Lagmay and Nieva Mercado.000.” (administrative complaint ) In addition. wherein Entero Villarica. integrity. instead of directing him to deposit said amount with the Municipal Treasurer. 1994. 1992.”] The investigation is defined as an “investigation conducted by police authorities which will include investigation conducted by the Municipal Police. and lead modest lives. entitled “Spouses Entero Villarica and Felicidad Domingo v. act with patriotism and justice.000. she used P100. there was no showing that he actually did so voluntarily. A judge must always remember that as the administrator of his court. court employees of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pila. loyalty. A court interpreter should not receive payments made by litigants in relation to their cases in his personal charge. On the other hand. Laguna branch of the Philippine National Bank but she and Judge Sumilang later withdrew it allegedly under the belief that the defendant. this Court emphasizes the Constitutional tenet that “(p)ublic office is a public trust. Last. the authorities must also make sure that the accused understood his rights. in the presence of counsel and in writing. never presented Villarica as her witness to bolster her claim which. Loveria. she executed an affidavit stating that only Lagmay and Mercado borrowed P55. in the Municipality of Makati. are admissible.” Thus.[7] Upon learning that they were being implicated in the anomalous transaction.

By virtue of the alleged anomaly surrounding the issuance of the subject cashiers check.17 (Exhibits J.480. 1987 was addressed by accused Abelardo Salonga to Atty. then back to the manager for his signature and to the other officer for his counter-signature.58 + P241. Abelardo A. A letter dated September 15. UNAUTHORIZED ISSUANCE OF CASHIERS CHECK Except _for the unauthorized issuance of Cashiers Check No. On the day of issuance of the cashiers check. Assistant Manager and Acting Assistant Cashier. In the said letter. However. 013702 payable to a certain Firebreak Sales and Services for P36. Assistant Accountant.480. 1986 under Metrobank Debit (Local) Tickets TR No. In such capacity. K-2. Accused Abelardo Salonga allegedly waived his constitutional rights and submitted himself to the interview. 8 dated October 23. As have been reported. Flaviano M. Asst. 1986. Amiel Garcia and Ricardo Licup are still at large. the supposed payee when in truth and in fact there is no such transaction between Firebrake and Metrobank. the RTC rendered its decision finding Salonga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document. Salonga as of this writing.480. should be equal. Unauthorized Issuance of Cashiers check Test-verification of the daily issuance of cashiers checks by the Loans and Placement Department disclosed the following: 1. 1991. Upon learning that a criminal complaint was filed against him. accused Abelardo Salonga was summoned to appear before Valentino Elevado.500.87 (P60.29) (Exhibits K.signature of officers authorized to sign the said check and have the said check deposited in the account of Firebrake Sales and Services.480. 1-2) corresponding to the subject check.30 which is equivalent to the amount stated in the subject cashiers check. The case was already endorsed to the Department of Internal Affairs by the Controller. P8. However.390. L. the check is then returned to accused Abelardo Salonga for eventual release to the banks client. 6. Salonga. it was found out that the corresponding debit and credit balances appearing in the proof sheet of Loans and Placement Department are balanced. He was given an opportunity to read his statement but only for a limited period of time.30 making it appear genuine and authorized. which allegedly shows that the check was issued bereft of any transaction. Severino Tabios of Metrobank (Exhibit C prosecution). 1986 is P60.00 went to the personal benefit of accused Abelardo Salonga. Upon the other hand. Flaviano M. Pangilinan and Abelardo A. 1986 under CC No.30. 1987. Thus. accused Abelardo Salonga admitted having issued the subject cashiers check without any legitimate transaction.500.00 on January 28.500.112.00 just to finish the case so that he can earn a living and get a new job. lead examiner of Metrobanks Loans and Placement Department. Acting Asst. The matter was brought to the attention of the Division Heads concerned who immediately confronted the responsible officers. accused Abelardo Salonga admitted his negligence in connection with the subject check because of the threats employed by the investigators and that he has never been employed nor has he any interest whatsoever with Firebreak Sales and Services. Giving full credence to the evidence of the prosecution. His co-accused. 3. said accused offered to pay the bank the amount of P8.30. the supporting accounting ticket debiting Accounts payable was short by P36. Severino Tobias of Metrobank Head Office wherein the former signified his intention to compromise the case (Exhibits C to C-3). the perpetrators on this particular scheme are Messrs. Garcia (Exhibits 1. accused Abelardo Salongas alleged statement was typewritten but he was neither asked any questions nor did the investigators talk to him. According to Abelardo Salonga. Before accused Abelardo Salonga may prepare and issue a cashiers check. Then the prepared check will be back to the Accounting Section for examination.30. Manuel. respectively. In the letter which accused Abelardo Salonga sent to Atty.30 on October 23. He allegedly affixed his signature involuntarily on the typewritten statement after the investigators threatened him and hit him on the nape. attributed to simple negligence the loss of the check which was admittedly in his custody and also repudiated his extra-judicial confession. The signatures of the authorized signatories appearing on the subject cashiers check have an apparent dissimilarity with their genuine signature particularly that of Mrs. 1987 under O. 1986 as reflected in the proof sheet of Metrobanks Loans and Placement Department is P97. 1-1. No. Two persons from the Internal Affairs Department invited him to an investigation. he first learned that he was being accused of the present charge after the audit of his department was concluded. The investigators never informed him of his right to counsel and neither did they believe this claim of innocence. Flaviano Pangilinan. we found out that the transactions involving Accounts payable account are in order per verification conducted from October to December 1986. he must first be instructed by his manager to do so.480. Antonia Manuel and Arthur Christy Mariano both testified that the signature of the former appearing on the subject check and on Metrobank Debit (Local) Ticket TR No. The evidence for the defense was summarized by the trial court as follows: Defense: x x x x Abelardo Salonga testified that from 1973 to 1987. the trial court convicted accused-appellant of the crime charged . All items lodged under said account were properly accounted for. At the back portion of the Cashiers check. which two amounts under normal circumstances. respectively).631. Mr. 7. 65696 while no payment was received from Mr. thereby causing the preparation and use of a simulated check described as Check No. On January 7. K-1.R. Both admitted their participation on the irregularity/unauthorized issuance of said cashiers check. On July 19. 1993. The difference of the two aforesaid amounts totaled P36. In the course of the interview. The Cashiers check in question was properly recorded in the register maintained at the FX/Loans Accounting Section.30 the xerox copy of which is shown as EXHIBIT A. L-2. On January 20. Pangilinan made a payment of P17. the total amount of accounts payable by said department for October 23.480. Department of Internal Affairs of Metrobank. J-1. conducted a spot audit of the Loans and Placement Department of Metrobank. we were not able to establish the name/owner of the account at BPI. After allegedly appraising Abelardo Salonga of his constitutional right to remain silent and to counsel. to accused Amiel Garcia as accused who was then encountering financial difficulties. Salonga was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Arthur Christy Mariano. Branch. That out of the amount of the check. an interview in a question and answer from was conducted. the amount of the cashiers check while the credit accounting ticket for the Cashiers and Gift Checks account reflects the correct total of issuances for the day but the signature of the Authorized Signature space is forged 5. is a forgery after comparison thereof with the genuine signature of Antonia Manuel appearing on the cashiers checks also issued by the Loans and Placement Department of Metrobank Arthur Mariano declared that while the amount of accounts payable for October 23. 4. through which they succeeded in its encashment. he was in charge of managing money market placements and payments of maturing money placement investments. to the damage and prejudice of Metrobank and Trust Company in the total amount of P36. Antonia L. L-1. Pangilinan. There was a cashiers check issued on October 23. 013702 in the amount of P36. 1986 which was prepared by accused Amiel S. 8 both dated October 23. accused Abelardo Salonga sought the assistance of a lawyer and wrote a letter to the Personnel Head of Metrobank. the unauthorized issuance/dissimilarity of the signatures could not be readily detected. J-2). Manager of Loans and Placement Department. It passed to the usual clearing procedure except for the signature verification of the authorized signatories. enabling them to gain for themselves the total sum of P36. accused-appellant relied on denial as his defense.480. Mr. Salonga. During the investigation. 2. it was traced that the same was deposited to Account No. he was employed by Metrobank as an acting assistant cashier. 3021-3900-53 maintained at BPI-Ayala Ave. Manager of FX/Loans Accounting Section. 013702 for P36. Cashier and Custodian of the unissued cashiers check at the Loans & Placement Department and Mr.

An information filed on 05 September 1983 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. by any person on his behalf. vs.D. Paterno Banawel.00. in the course of the interview. Romeo J.30). in whole or in part. accused-appellant admitted having issued the subject cashiers check without any legitimate transaction. and) (b) Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt has not been adequately. for the crime of violation of Section 4 Article II in relation to Section 2 (e) (i) of Republic Act 6425. At five o'clock that afternoon. thus — WHEREFORE. In the course of the interview. Applying said provision of the 1973 Constitution. 6425.D. it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest. Pat. Clearly. When Hon. 44. when Arthur Christy Mariano of the spot audit group discovered that there was a discrepancy in the proof sheet brought about by the issuance of a cashiers check made payable to Firebrake Sales and Services in the amount of (P36. however. in convicting the accused-appellant. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. At seven o'clock in the evening of the same day. Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. this time conducted by police officers Sgt. Assistant Accountant. or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means by telephone if possible . deliver. and no stenographic notes were apparently taken during the testimony of defense witness Leonardo Quiambao. discrepancies were discovered in the transcripts. Pat. In this case. positively and convincingly established. a "buy-bust" operation. AUGUSTO MANZANO Y REYES (with) Violation of Section 4. the accused was summoned to appear before the Assistant Accountant of MetroBank and. relied.500. in main. respondent. Philippines. Indeed. accused-appellant was summoned to appear before Valentino Elevado. HELD: The confession was admissible. as amended by P. Gaudencio Quebuyen and defense witness Leonardo Quiambao and the cross-examination of Pat. accused admitted having issued the subject cashier’s checks without any legitimate transaction. without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 1675. committed as follows: That on or about September 2.480. as amended and hereby sentences him to the penalty ofRECLUSION PERPETUA. the accused claims that — THE LOWER COURT (HAS) GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOLLOWING: (a) Inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the accused's rights under the Constitution (.00 per tea bag. finding the accused guilty of the crime charged and sentencing him. The trial court. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. Upon motion of the accused's counsel. Jr. custodial investigation refers to questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. He was interviewed by a bank officer. . Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down. HELD: admissibility of accused-appellants extra-judicial confession/admission we reject accused-appellants argument that his so-called extra-judicial confession/admission is inadmissible in evidence on the ground that the waiver of his right to counsel was made without the assistance of counsel in violation of Section 20. It is well-settled that the legal formalities required by the fundamental law of the land apply only to those extrajudicial confessions obtained during custodial investigation. charges — . did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell and deliver for monetary consideration seven (7) teat-bag size plastic containing marijuana flowering tops at P5. Rolando Anza. petitioner. Eriberto . a "trial-buy" operation was conducted by the law enforcement operatives. with accessory penalties of the law and to pay a fine of P25. thus — The Drug Enforcement Section of the Western Police District received information that the accused was engaged in the sale of marijuana. the written confession was held admissible in evidence in as much as the interview did not constitute custodial investigation. On 02 October 1987. His right to counsel only existed when he is under custodial investigation. and that any statement he might make could be used against him. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Bernabe Yokingco and Pat. to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail of Manila. It bears stressing that Elevado is not a police officer or law enforcer but a private person who was a bank officer. To his dismay. Fernandez. a civilian poseurbuyer was able to purchase from the accused dried flowering tops of suspected marijuana with cigarette rolling papers contained in three (3) teabag sized plastic bags. **Where. AUGUSTO MANZANO y REYES. Each bag sold for P5. Oscar C. the said accused. Paterno Banawel. he promptly ordered the Court Stenographic Reporters to submit their transcripts of stenographic notes. the court a quo. Gaudencio Quebuyen. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that that this is accomplished. on the evidence for the prosecution. the Court in Morales. if any. .any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. which is a prohibited drug. following the formal submission of evidence. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer. not a police officer. He also admitted that out of the amount of the check. shall be inadmissible in evidence. distribute or transport to another any prohibited drug. 1983. Article II in relation to section 2 (i) Article I of Republic Act No. He was not under custodial investigation during his interview. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. a relative.or by letter or messenger. and to pay the costs of the suit. the transcriptions submitted by one Mercedes Velasquez were incomprehensible. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. Accused-appellants extra-judicial confession was properly admitted and considered by the trial court considering that when accused-appellant gave his statement he was not under custodial investigation. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. `B') OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ABELARDO SALONGA WHICH WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL. in the City of Manila. not being authorized by law to sell. rendered judgment. The marijuana subject matter of this case is hereby declared forfeited in favor of the government. Additional documentary evidence was likewise admitted. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. P8. On 02 September 1983.00.00 went to his personal benefit. as principal. guilty beyond reasonable doubt. to his co-accused Amiel Garcia who was then encountering financial difficulties. as further amended by P. vs. His admissions were reduced into writing and offered as Exhibit B by the prosecution.Issue:WON, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE ALLEGED EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION/ADMISSION (EXH.000. judgment is hereby rendered finding the Accused Augusto Manzano y Reyes. the incumbent judge ordered the retaking of the testimonies of Pat. The Accused shall be credited for the entire period of his detention during the pendency of this case provided that he undertook in writing. No arrest was made. Callejo assumed the post of Judge Fernandez. after an audit. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution which mandates-. Pat. Enrile laid down the guidelines to be observed strictly by law enforcers during custodial investigation: At the time a person is arrested. the constitutional right to counsel as enunciated in the aforecited case may be invoked only by a person under custodial investigation for an offense. and to be informed of such right. The trial of the case was originally presided over by Hon. In this appeal. Salonga contends that his confession is inadmissible as evidence as it violated his constitutional right to counsel. however. Department of Internal Affairs of Metrobank for questioning.

the name of a sixth police officer kept on cropping up — that of Patrolman Borlongan. has been left to conjecture. the informer gave the pre-arranged signal (by scratching her head). The booking sheet is no more than a record of arrest & a statement on how the arrest was made.00 marked bill was recovered from the latter when he was arrested. 7 The other question is whether or not the prosecution has been able to prove the fact of sale and delivery of the prohibited drug by the accused. and it has no probative value as an extrajudicial statement of the person being detained. a matter that must likewise be established beyond reasonable doubt." 2 The booking sheet is no more than a record of arrest and a statement on how the arrest is made. however. Then. the prosecution regrettably has likewise exhibited a lukewarm stance. was chased by police officers. . with Rebecca Avila Reyes. 6425.00-marked bills. The prosecution sought to prove that the accused left the place of the transaction for a few minutes and entered an alleyway to get the marijuana tea bags from an unknown supplier. **SC held that when an arrested person signs a booking sheet and an arrest report at the police station. Forthwith. the results. attested to by the forensic chemist. Instead of taking that cue for it to excel on its own. The signing by the accused of the booking sheet and the arrest report is not a part of custodial investigation. harassment. the poseur-buyer gave the accused four (4) P5. that the use of poseur-buyer is to be employed with solicitude being. the prosecution has missed putting on record any evidence to indicate that the tea bags. On the other hand. This Court has already emphasized that "(w)hen an arrested person signs a booking sheet and arrest report at a police station. it behooves the law enforcement agencies it its investigatorial work. were not explained. Yet. every time. 14 the accused was seen with a companion who. The three other P5. has appeared to have been laid out quite haphazardly. 19 and the courts in its evaluation of the merits of the case. .Alameda.00-marked bills were not accounted for. and (2) That he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug. indeed. The accused left. This conflicting versions given by the prosecution itself. Article I of Republic Act No." the offense that is charged in the information. with or without consideration. a civilian informer. he does not admit the commission of an offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance. the buy-bust operation. while it was asserted by the prosecution that the informer gave the accused four P5. supposedly delivered to the poseurbuyer. defines the term "deliver. he returned and handed over to the poseur-buyer four (4) plastic bags. Patrolman Quebuyen 10 testified that three bags were taken from the accused during the buy-bust operation. appear to yield more questions than answers to a number of concerns that has bewildered the Court. would be far more dreadful than letting a guilty person go unpunished for a crime he may have perpetrated. It is simply a police report. In the prosecution of an accused for an illegal sale of prohibited drugs "what is (initially) material is . containing marijuana flowering tops and pieces of white rolling paper. 17 we also did caution. 6 The chemistry report. The buy-bust team was supposed to be composed of six members: five members of the police force and a civilian informer. however. Too much. 16 Yet. . only one P5. the prosecution in its presentation and submission of the evidence. let alone when no less than a capital punishment is imposed. on its part. he does not (thereby) admit the commission of an offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance. moments later. to Patrolman Anza. Accused-appellant firstly anchors his assigned error on the fact that he has been "investigated. No attempt was made to find out who this person was. however. 9 A tedious and conscientious effort has been made to evaluate the evidence presented by the prosecution. 20 The prosecution. The team promptly moved in and arrested the accused. extortion and abuse. Patrolman Quebuyen 13 testified that only the accused was arrested and that defense witness Leonardo Quiambao (who claimed to have likewise been arrested together with the accused) was not present at the place of the incident. While buy-bust operations have been recognized as a valid means of apprehending peddlers of drugs. 8 In any criminal prosecution. as poseur buyer. The team was so positioned as to have a clear view of the transaction that was to take place near an electric post. A final remark on the buy-bust operation that simply cannot escape one's attention. as ". . in fact. the decision of the trial court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the accused is hereby ACQUITTED of the offense charged. interrogated and made to sign an accomplished booking sheet and arrest report without the benefit of counsel. Unfortunately. the prosecution did not even bother t have her take the witness stand. The prosecution witnesses could not agree on the number of marijuana tea bags taken from the accused." Given all the above. deserves serious considerations. Not long after. and it has no probative value as an extrajudicial statement of the person being detained. 18 Considering the severity of the penalty imposed. to exercise no less that the extreme care and professionalism demanded in these cases if we are to attain a good degree of success in our drive to curb the drug menace. 3 The signing by the accused of the booking sheet and arrest report is not a part of the custodial investigation which would otherwise require the presence of counsel to ensure the protection of the accused's constitutional rights. must rely on the strength of its own evidence and must not simply depend on the weakness of the defense. however." 5 The laboratory tests and the chemical microscopic examination. it is readily discernible that the testimony of the poseurbuyer would have been most vital to the prosecution's case." 1 The contention is without merit. Patrolman Banawel 11 claimed that four marijuana bags were sold by the accused to the informer. . Second.00 marked bills. again. assuming that it did not take place in this particular instance. the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. First. According. Third. definitely reveal the contents of the plastic bags to be marijuana. conducted by NBI Forensic Chemist Neva Gamosa. was set into motion. Even the information itself has failed to allege this fact. 15 Section (2) (f). WHEREFORE. as amended. 4 The appellant's plea of innocence on the basis of reasonable doubt. and by any means. 12No effort was made to clarify who this Patrolman Borlongan is. It is simply a police report. had been known by the accused to contain dangerous drugs. viz: (1) That the accused has sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another. either before or after the accused was apprehended. easily susceptible to mistake. has undoubtly established the corpus delicti of the crime. it would be imperative to establish the elements of the offense. More importantly. a person's act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another personally or otherwise. The rule is clear : The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. tea-bag size. as it is. The slightest possibility of an innocent man being convicted for an offense he has never committed.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful