You are on page 1of 2

PEOPLE VS. LAUGA FACTS: Appellant Lauga was charged of qualified rape by his daughter.

Testimonies revealed that the victim was left alone at home while his father was having drinking spree at the neighbors place. Her mother decided to leave because appellant has the habit of mauling her mother every time he gets drunk. Her only brother also went out with some neighbors. At around 10pm, appellant woke up the victim, removed his pants and slid inside the blanket covering the victim and removed her pants and underwear. Appellant had warned the victim not to shout for help. He proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her daughter by threatening her with his fist and a knife. Soon after, the victims brother arrived and saw her crying. Appellant claimed he scolded the victim for staying out late. The two decided to leave the house. While on their way to their maternal grandmothers house, victim recounted to her brother what happened to her. They later told the incident to their grandmother and uncle who sought the assistance of Moises Boy Banting. Banting found appellant in his house wearing only his underwear. He was invited to the police station to which he obliged. Appellant admitted to Banting that he indeed raped her daughter because he was unable to control himself. The trial court convicted the accused for qualified rape. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the ruling of the trial court. Hence this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not appellants extrajudicial confession without counsel admissible in evidence? HELD: Negative. Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the case of the "bantay bayan," are recognized by the local government unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the legality of the actions taken by Moises Boy Banting, and the specific scope of duties and responsibilities delegated to a "bantay bayan," particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial investigation, any inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned. Even if the extrajudicial confessions were not admitted as evidence, it does not warrant the acquittal of the accused. The appellants conviction is upheld because of the strong evidence showing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. People vs. Edward Endino and Gerry Galgarin (accused-appellant) GR 133026,February 20, 2001 FACTS: Edward Endino, with the aid of his uncle Gerry Galgarin, were charged with the murder of Dennis Aquino who was Endino's rival for the love of Aquino's girlfriend Clara Agagas. The suspects fled after killing Aquino. However, through the combined efforts of the Antipolo and Palawan police forces, Galgarin was arrested and taken into custody in the Antipolo Police Station. He was to be transferred to Palawan for him to be tried there. On their way to the airport, they stopped at the ABS CBN TV station where Galgarin had an interview with the media. In the interview, he admitted that it was his nephew Endino who shot Aquino and he was only an accomplice in the crime. This interview was aired on TV Patrol. However, during the trial, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and disowned his interview with TV Patrol . He claimed that he was coerced by police officers to admit to the crime.

ISSUE: Whether the accused-appellant's videotaped confession is admissible as evidence in court. HELD: YES. The interview did not form part of the custodial investigation. Moreover, it was made spontaneously and voluntarily by the accused-appellant. There was no evidence that he was indeed coerced or threatened by the police to do the interview. Nevertheless, the Court still left a word of caution against presumptions that confessions to the media are always voluntary and permissible as evidence in court. The constitutional safeguards for the rights of the accused should never be disregarded. Therefore, people must ascertain whether such confessions are made under duress or with the influence of police officers. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANTIAGO PERALTA y POLIDARIO (at large),ARMANDO DATUIN JR. y GRANADOS (at large), ULYSSES GARCIA y TUPAS,MIGUELITO DE LEON y LUCIANO, LIBRANDO FLORES y CRUZ and ANTONIO LOYOLAy SALISI,accused, ULYSSES GARCIA y TUPAS, MIGUELITO DE LEON y LUCIANO,LIBRANDO FLORES y CRUZ and ANTONIO LOYOLA y SALISI GR 145176, March 30,2004 FACTS: The accused were all convicted of qualified theft for stealing punctured BSP notes amounting to Php194,190. On the basis of the complaint filed, one of the accused, Ulysses Garcia, was apprehended while waiting for a passenger bus to the BSP. It was said that, during the custodial investigation, Garcia admitted authorship of the crime and named his cohorts as accomplices. Acting on his admission, the police officers invited the other accused for questioning. On the other hand, Garcia claims that he was arrested without a warrant and tortured by his interrogators to admit to doing the crime. However, the trial court still convicted the accused on the basis of the confessions obtained from them and three perforated notes confiscated from Garcia at the time of his arrest. ISSUES: (1) Whether the warrantless arrest and subsequent search and seizure were lawful.(2) Whether the confession of the accused and evidence confiscated from Garcia may be admissible as evidence against them. HELD: (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 stand by and watch while the accused is being questioned by police officers.