You are on page 1of 9

SECTION 12

People v. Tampus FACTS: At around ten o'clock in the morning of January 14, 1976, Celso Saminado, a prisoner in the national penitentiary at Muntinlupa, went to the toilet to answer a call of nature and to fetch water. The accused, Jose Tampus and Rodolfo Avila, prisoners in the same penal institution, followed Saminado to the toilet and, by means of their bladed weapons, assaulted him. Saminado died upon arrival in the prison hospital. After emerging from the toilet, Tampus and Avila surrendered to a prison guard with their knives. They told the guard: "Surrender po kami, sir. Gumanti lang po kami." The officer of the day investigated the incident right away. In his written report submitted on the same day when the tragic occurrence transpired, he stated that, according to his on-the-spot investigation, Avila stabbed Saminado when the latter was armed in the comfort room and his back was turned to Avila, while Tampus stabbed the victim on the chest and neck Two days after the killing, or on January 16, another prison guard investigated Tampus and Avila and obtained their extrajudicial confessions wherein they admitted that they assaulted Saminado. The trial was held at the state penitentiary at the insistence of the Avila. The court found Tampus and Avila guilty for the murder of Saminado. In this review of the death sentence, the counsel de oficio of appellant raises the following issues: ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the confession of Tampus was taken in violation of Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution (now Sec. 12, Art. IV of the 1987 Const)

2. W/N the trial court should have advised defendant Tampus of his right to remain silent after the fiscal had presented the prosecution's evidence and when counsel de oficio called upon Tampus to testify 3. W/N defendant Tampus was denied to his right to public trial because the arraignment and hearing were held at the state penitentiary HELD: 1. No. Even before the investigation for the killing was inititated, Tampus and Avila had already admitted it when, after coming out of the scene of the crime, they surrendered to the first guard whom they encountered, and they revealed to him that they had committed an act of revenge. That spontaneous statement, elicited without any interrogation, was part of the res gestae and at the same time was a voluntary confession of guilt. Not only that. The two accused, by means of that statement given freely on the spur of the moment without any urging or suggestion, waived their right to remain silent and to have the right to counsel. That admission was confirmed by their extrajudicial confession, plea of guilty and testimony in court. Under the circumstances, it is not appropriate for counsel de oficio to rely on the rulings in Escobedo vs. Illinois and Miranda vs. Arizona regarding the rights of the accused to be assisted by counsel and to remain silent during custodial interrogation. It should be stressed that, even without taking into account Tampus' admission of guilt, confession, plea of guilty and testimony, the crime was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of the prosecution. 2. No, considering that Tampus pleaded guilty and had executed an extrajudicial confession. The court during the trial is not duty-bound to apprise the accused that he has the right to remain silent. It is his counsel who should claim that right for him. If he does not claim it and he calls the accused to the witness stand, then he waives that right

3. No. The record does not show that the public was actually excluded from the place where the trial was held or that the accused was prejudiced by the holding of the trial in the national penitentiary. Besides, there is a ruling that the fact that for the convenience of the witnesses a case is tried in Bilibid Prison without any objection on the part of the accused is not a ground for reversal of the judgment of conviction (U.S. vs. Mercado, 4 Phil. 304). The accused may waive his right to have a public trial as shown in the rule that the trial court may motu propio exclude the public from the courtroom when the evidence to be offered is offensive to decency or public morals. The court may also, upon request of the defendant, exclude from the trial every person except the officers of the court and the attorneys for the prosecution and defense. TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting: The extra-judicial confession of the accused is manifestly barred from admission under the Bill of Rights. I have grave doubts as to the alleged waiver by the accused of his constitutional right to counsel and to remain silent given in the middle of his "voluntary" extrajudicial confession during his custodial interrogation by the prison investigator, who at such late stage (in propounding question No. 6, not at the beginning of the interrogation) purportedly took time out to admonish and inform the accused of his rights to counsel and to silence. The fundamental rights of such unfortunate disadvantaged persons as the accused should all the more be clearly protected and observed. At the very least, such alleged waiver must be witnessed by a responsible official of the penitentiary, if not by the municipal judge of the locality. Counsel for the accused's second assigned error is also well taken. After the prosecutor had presented the State's evidence at the hearing for the purpose, and when counsel de oficio then called upon the accused to testify, it became © winz naive

1

deprived of the substantive and constitutional right. During a line-up of 5 detainees including petitioner. On the right to due process. petitioner Christopher Gamboa was arrested for vagrancy. June 27. 1979.The petition is dismissed.On the right to due process.up had not yet been held to answer for a criminaloffense. 1979. the Court finds that petitioner was not. unless he waives the right. at such stage. He had not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. Petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit on the ground that the conduct of the line-up. When the process ha d not yet shifted from theinvestigatory to the accusatory as when police investigation does not elicit a confessionthe accused may not yet avail of the services of his lawyer. i. Since petitioner in the courseof his identification in the police line. 1980.up. by Patrolman ArturoPalencia. Not allowing someone to speak with an attorney. and not advising them of their right to remain silent after they have been arrested and before they have been interrogated is a denial of assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. hence. therefore. and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. What due process abhors is theabsolute lack of opportunity to be heard." Gamboa vs. Illinois Brief Fact Summary. Facts. the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admission s or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation. deprived of this substantive and constitutional right. but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. The temporary restraining order issued is lifted Gamboa vs cruz Facts: Petitioner was arrested for vagrancy without a warrant. What due process abhors is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard Escobedo v. in any way. his counselviolated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. 1988 Facts: On July 19. The court denied said motion. He was convicted of murder and the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed. to counsel. The moment there is a move or even an urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time. At such point or stage. On July 20. he was. He was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to presentevidence to substantiate his defense. If a suspect has been taken into police custody and interrogated by police without their request to see an attorney being honored. Cruz162 SCRA 642. 1980. The police could not have violated petitioner’s rightto counsel and due process as the confrontation between the State and him had not begun. petitioner was not. an information for robberywas filed against him.the trial court's duty (contrary to the majority's ruling) to apprise and admonish him of his constitutional rights to remain silent and against self-incrimination. and in the absence of. the lower court denied the Motion to Acquit. without notice to. He was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense. Hearing was set. Issue. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner’s right to counsel and due process violated Held: No. Synopsis of Rule of Law. as he was duly represented by amember of the Bar. during the line up of five (5) detainees including petitioner Gamboa who was identified by complainant Erlinda B.On August 13. he should then and there be assisted by counsel. The petitioner also was not warned of his right to remain silent before the interrogation.The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation. not deprived of his right to be assisted by counsel because theaccusatory process had not yet set in. only that he chose not to. he was identified by a complainant to be a companion in a robbery. Bernal as one of the companionsin the commission of the crime of robbery. thereafter he was charged. any confession or incriminatory statement obtained in violation thereof is expressly declared "inadmissible in evidence. hence. On August 22. the petitioner asked to speak to his attorney. hence the petition. without w arrant of arrest.Held:Police line. 1979. He was then granted certiorari. After being arrested and taken into police custody as a suspect in the murder of his brother-in-law. at about 7:00 o’clock in the morning. only that he chose not to.On October 23. The police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest. petitioner was not yetentitled at such stage to counsel. His attorney arrived at police headquarters soon after the petitioner did and was not allowed to speak to his client as the officers said they had not completed questioning. hence. as he was duly represented by a counsel.up. On July 23. nor being advised of their right to 2 © winz naive . theinstant petition for certiorari and prohibition. he was arraigned. Issue: Whether or not petitioner’s constitutional rights to counsel and to due processwere violated during the conduct of police line. 1979. petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit predicated on the groundthat the conduct of the line. from said suspect. The petitioner Danny Escobedo asked to speak with his lawyer while in police custody but before being formally charged and was denied. petitioner was not yet entitled.up was not part of the custodial inquest. without notice and in the absence of his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. in any way. for the commission of an offense.e. and instead opted to file aMotion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. Under the above-cited section 20 of the Bill of Rights.

Police told him that.M. There is a great deal of language within it that is very hostile to confessions.” It mentions that a subject asserting their rights should not be something the system is afraid of. A decision in favor of Escobedo would therefore violate the basic plan of federalism. He believed this would effectively render the “voluntariness” test of the Fourteenth Amendment useless. The attorney was repeatedly denied permission to talk to Escobedo. The authority to specify the criminal procedures to be used in State courts is clearly not vested in the Supreme Court. The Sixth Amendment protects the right to effective assistance of counsel. After a one-hour interrogation.S. he thought Cicenia v. The incriminating statements he made must thus not be admitted into evidence. "I didn't kill Manuel. from nine o'clock at night until five o'clock in the morning. and Escobedo was arrested once again. He was told that DiGerlando had accused him of the murder. have they been denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment? Held. For Illinois: The criminal procedures used in the courts of the State of Illinois rest upon the sovereignty of that State. Also. Escobedo told DiGerlando. 357 U. Allowed to confront his accuser. 1964 Historical Background Between 1961 and 1969." but the police kept telling him that his lawyer did not want to see him. he was in custody and couldn't walk out the door. Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented on grounds that this result will place obstacles in the way of legitimate methods of criminal law enforcement. you did it. the suspect was kept standing. Decision and Rationale Discussion. the Supreme Court handed down a series of rulings that extended constitutional standards of due process to all States. By the end of the 1960s. and others thought it only applied to the specific facts here. Here. 1961 (search and seizure restrictions). and without an attorney to represent him. Dissent. "although not formally charged. and forced the American criminal justice system to apply stricter standards regarding the rights of the accused. hands cuffed behind his back. Reverse the petitioner’s conviction and remand the case. on January 20 in connection with the shooting of one of his relatives the night before.remain silent. the Court began to eliminate State court and police practices that it viewed as violations of the due process guarantees in the Constitution. but that it would render interrogation much less effective." Escobedo's lawyer arrived shortly after his client had been taken into custody the second time. Constitutional Issues The case centered on the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination and the 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. because the police investigation focused on the accused as a suspect rather than a less specific investigation. the Court had established a "minimum standard of fairness" which all courts whether federal or State. refusing to allow an accused to speak with his attorney is a denial of this Sixth Amendment right. Justice Potter Stewart believed that the right to assistance of counsel should not arise until indictment or arraignment. Lagay. a friend of Escobedo. Escobedo asked to speak with his lawyer "repeatedly. Throughout the interrogation. A law enforcement system that relies too much on the confession is more subject to abuses than one that depends on evidence obtained through skillful investigation. Escobedo should have a new trial. Illinois provided another landmark in the evolution of the Court's standard. and are part of the powers reserved to Illinois by the 10th Amendment. having made no self-incriminating statements. His conviction was faulty. 504 (1958) demanded a different result. When police later arrested Benedict DiGerlando. “proper investigative efforts are appropriate. and make law enforcement more difficult. At what point must an accused person be afforded counsel in a State prosecution? Was a confession gained without the aid of legal counsel admissible in a State court? Should Escobedo be given a second trial? Did the police act properly or were their actions a violation of Escobedo's rights against self-incrimination? Did the State Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment have a bearing on this case? Arguments For Escobedo: Denying Escobedo the right to consult with an attorney was a clear violation of his right to due process. and the resulting verdict should be overturned. DiGerlando told police that Escobedo had fired the fatal shots. This case is really best understood as the precursor to the warnings that would arise from Escobedo v. Yes. His confession had been coerced and was thus inadmissible." Becoming more emotional. 1963 (the right to legal counsel). This case caused a lot of confusion for scholars. The case of Escobedo v. and that this contrary result would cause problems for fair administration of criminal justice. Justice Byron White expressed the opinion that this result would make statements made to police inadmissible without the accused waiving their right to counsel. Illinois. andGideon. but at other points it says that 3 © winz naive . Circumstances of the Case Danny Escobedo was taken into custody by Chicago police at 2:30 A. The result here recognizes this idea. Escobedo was released. Escobedo made statements concerning his connection with the crime which were later used to convict him of murder in an Illinois court. would be required to meet. Beginning with Mapp. as some believed it had widespread application. who was interrogated all night.

" Provided that all of the above conditions existed. The second Defendant. however. Synopsis of Rule of Law." Secondly.'…*Escobedo+ had become the accused…. he was entitled to counsel. Goldberg also declared that." "Escobedo Rule" holds that individuals have the right to an attorney when an investigation goes beyond a general inquiry and focuses on a particular suspect. Arizona Brief Fact Summary. and although the officers did not notify Mr. the Court would find that "the accused has been denied the 'Assistance of Counsel' in violation of the Sixth Amendment as 'made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment." and must have "begun to focus on a particular suspect…. Government authorities need to inform individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest. Issue. was arrested for two robberies. and he was held in detention for eight hours before he made an 4 .'…No system worth preserving should have to fear that if an accused is permitted to consult with a lawyer. Mr. since Escobedo was "undoubtedly unaware that under Illinois law an admission of 'mere complicity' in the murder plot was legally as damaging as an admission of firing the fatal shots…*t+he 'guiding hand of counsel' was essential to advise [him] of his rights in this…situation." Third. Speaking for the majority. if the police warns the suspect of the right to remain silent and gives an opportunity for the targeted suspect to consult with retained counsel. was arrested for robbery. Miranda was an immigrant. Mr. Stewart was notified of his rights. along with members of his family (although there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by his family) for a series of purse snatches. Goldberg wrote: "This Court has also recognized that 'history amply shows that confessions have often been extorted to save law enforcement officials the trouble and effort of obtaining valid and independent evidence. Michael Vignera (”Mr. " while the police must "not have effectively warned him of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent…. Westover”).'…and *as such+ no statement elicited by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a criminal trial. was arrested for kidnapping and rape. The fourth Defendant. admission to an assistant district attorney. First. Westover was questioned over fourteen hours by local police. Westover of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. The third Defendant. This principle states that a statement by a targeted suspect who is in police custody is not admissible at trial." As such. Vignera orally admitted to the robbery to the first officer after the arrest. It applied only to cases where certain specific conditions were present. a police investigation must have proceeded beyond the point of "a general inquiry into an unsolved crime. Stewart admitted to the crimes. Mr. and ordered that he be given another trial. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote: "When [Escobedo] requested and was denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer. the Court deemed Escobedo's confession inadmissible. and their right to have counsel appointed to represent them if necessary. J. anything admitted by an arrestee in an interrogation will not be admissible in court. Stewart”). The Supreme Court of the United States (”Supreme Court”) consolidated four separate cases with issues regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations. was somewhat limited. Justice Tom Clark (”J. and then was handed to Federal Bureau of Investigation (”FBI”) agents. Dissent.By a 5–4 margin. Vignera”)." Reflecting on past cases. Miranda”). © winz naive Facts. the investigation had ceased to be a general investigation of 'an unsolved crime. Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants? Held. Westover. overturned his conviction. the statement is admissible Miranda v. he will become aware of. Harlan”) also argues that the Due Process Clauses should apply. The first Defendant. Miranda of his rights. However. The government needs to notify arrested individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. The defendants offered incriminating evidence during police interrogations without prior notification of their rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (the “Constitution”). Mr. Carl Calvin Westover (”Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights. The second dissent written by Justice John Harlan (”J. who were able to get signed confessions from Mr." Goldberg then moved on to write a carefully generalized statement of what would become "the Escobedo Rule"— an application of the "exclusionary rule" that bars from court evidence gained from a confession made without an attorney present. these rights. There is not enough evidence to demonstrate a need to apply a new rule as the majority finds here. the suspect must have "requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer. an explanation that anything they say could be used against them in court. The Court's ruling in this case. and exercise. their right to counsel. After nine interrogations. There was no evidence that he was notified of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. specifically: their right to remain silent. Without this notification. Roy Allen Stewart (”Mr. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. The authorities did not notify Mr. Harlan further argues that the Fifth Amendment rule against self-incrimination was never intended to forbid any and all pressures against self-incrimination. the suspect had to have "been taken into police custody" and been subject to "a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements…. There was no evidence that Mr. was arrested. Clark”) argued that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution would apply to interrogations. he signed a confession after two hours of investigation. Ernesto Miranda (”Mr.

He was retried for the crimes of rape and kidnapping without the written evidence and found guilty a second time. White”) argued that there is no historical support for broadening the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to include the rights that the majority extends in their decision. and the government will not be allowed to argue for an exception to the notification rule. appellant allegedly gave an explicit account of what actually transpired in the case at bar. Congress passed a law in 1968 that provided the ability for courts to examine confessions on a case-by-case basis to decide whether they should be allowed. no specific rights were listed on the paper. In fact. any interrogation should cease. Muntinlupa. From there. The Arizona State Supreme Court did not agree that the confession had been coerced. Carlos. Subsequently. Miranda would later sell autographed cards bearing the "Miranda Rights" for $1. He had told her that he would be willing to marry Patricia McGee if she would drop the charges against him. Therefore. However. 1963. accused-appellant. Lt. and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Miranda was found guilty in an Arizona court based largely on the written confession. However. Patricia McGee (not her real name) was kidnapped and raped while walking home after work in Phoenix. he averred that they sold the motorcycle to a certain Danny Teves of Barrio Summit. Arizona: On March 2. Arizona was the creation of the "Miranda Rights. HERSON TAN y VERZO. the individual has the right to stop the interrogation at any time. Moreover. Arizona . plaintiff-appellee. Opponents argued that advising criminals of their rights would hamper police investigations and cause more criminals to walk free. Discussion. because he had also been convicted of robbery which was not affected by the decision. Miranda was killed of a knife would after a bar fight. Rolando Alandy invited appellant in connection with the instant case and with respect to two other robbery cases reported in Lucena City. Significance of Miranda v. Further. Santos. that he has the right to the presence of an attorney. with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union . The paper on which he wrote his confession stated that the information was given voluntarily and that he understood his rights. a to inform her that he will drive Lito Amido and appellant Herson Tan to Barangay Maligaya. He narrated that he and co-accused Amido were responsible for the loss of the motorcycle and the consequent death of Saavedra. and therefore upheld the conviction. Lt.50 each. citing theSixth Amendment. Arizona: The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v.Justice Byron White (”J. Ohio was quite controversial. Delfa. He was arrested and taken to an interrogation room where after three hours he signed a written confession to the crimes. Under Chief Justice Earl Warren. He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years for both crimes to be served concurrently. His body was later found sprawled on a diversion road with fourteen stab wounds."   THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The majority is making new law with their holding. She accused Ernesto Miranda of the crime after picking him out of a lineup. The Majority Opinion written by Warren stated that "without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely. he had no warrant © winz naive 5 . his attorneys. the attorneys for Miranda attempted to argue that his rights had been violated as he had not been given an attorney during the confession. The majority notes that once an individual chooses to remain silent or asks to first see an attorney. At first. The person who was arrested for his murder was read the "Miranda Rights." These were listed in the Majority Opinion: "[A suspect] must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent. however. vs." Miranda was not released from prison. testified that when he invited appellant to their headquarters. The main result of Miranda v. the Court focused on the rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment including that of protection against self-incrimination . FACTS: Tricycle driver Freddie Saavedra went to see his wife. he appealed the case for Miranda. the Lucena PNP immediately dispatched a team to retrieve the same. appealed to the US Supreme Court. Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court actually decided four different cases that all had similar circumstances when they ruled on Miranda. It was the last time that Freddie was seen alive." Interesting Facts:  Miranda was convicted a second time based on the testimony of his common law wife to whom he confessed the crimes. Tan and Amido were charged with the crime of highway robbery with murder  Ernesto Miranda was released from prison after serving only eight years of his sentence. During their conversation. the court ended up siding with Miranda with a 5-4 vote. his attorney felt that his confession should not be admissible due to the fact that he was not warned of his right to have an attorney represent him or that his statement could be used against him. Cpl. With the help of appellant as a guide. Miranda vs Arizona Facts of Miranda v. on cross-examination. that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law. However. Numeriano Aguilar and Pat.

whether exculpatory or inculpatory. it becomes inadmissible in evidence. Philippines. While the Constitution sanctions the waiver of the right to counsel. with intent to kill. plaintiffappellee. regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given. unlawfully and feloniously take. 1989. armed with bladed and pointed weapons. 7438 reenforced the constitutional mandate protecting the rights of persons under custodial investigation. shall be inadmissible in evidence. he informed the latter that he was a suspect. 1994. he admitted that he did not inform appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel. A mere perfunctory reading by the constable of such rights to the accused would thus not suffice.” On arraignment. DECISION ROMERO. particularly the right to remain silent and to counsel. and the police carries out a process of interrogations that tends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate. not only does the fundamental law impose. thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple stab wounds on the different parts of his body. Province of Quezon. (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel." Any statement obtained in violation of the constitution. and taking advantage of their superior strength and in pursuance of their conspiracy.A. HERSON TAN y VERZO. Branch 62. "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed. violence. if it was made without the assistance of counsel. vs. The constitutional rights of appellant. along the Maharlika Highway at Barangay Tinandog. given before a police investigator upon invitation and without the benefit of counsel. the above-named accused. In a decision dated April 21. the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. "This Court values liberty and will always insist on the observance of basic constitutional rights as a condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative and prosecutory powers of government. nor did he reduce the supposed confession to writing. a pertinent provision of which reads: As used in this Act. which directly caused his death. it must. even if the same be initiated by mere invitation. J. were charged with the crime of highway robbery with murder before the Regional Trial Court. with intent to gain. The evidence for the prosecution shows that when appellant was invited for questioning at the police headquarters. 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. steal and carry away from one Freddie Saavedra. in whole or in part. (3) it must be express. Even if the confession contains a grain of truth. he allegedly admitted his participation in the crime. In the belief that they were merely conversing inside the police station. Municipality of Atimonan." THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. of [1] Gumaca. the said accused. assault and stab with the said weapon said Freddie Saavedra. by means of force.000. unlawfully and feloniously attack. the suspect is taken into custody. belonging to the said Freddie Saavedra. knowing and intelligent. the trial court convicted appellant. Quezon Province. however. This will not suffice to convict him. DW 9961 valued at THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30.00) Philippine currency. 6 © winz naive . under an information dated February 8. as a requisite function of the investigating officer. given before a police investigator upon invitation and without the benefit of counsel. is admissible in evidence against him. did then and there wilfully. threats and intimidation. which reads as follows: “That on or about the 5th day of December 1988. conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other. with evident premeditation and treachery. however. and (4) it must be in writing. It is well-settled that the Constitution abhors an uncounselled confession or admission and whatever information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as inadmissible in evidence against the confessant. not only in the instant case. are impregnable from the moment he is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed. Furthermore. The rules on custodial investigation begin to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus a particular suspect. a confession to be admissible must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary. be "voluntary. be admissible in evidence against him? Accused-appellant Herson Tan. but also in two other robbery cases allegedly committed in Lucena City. Contrary to law. a Honda TMX motorcycle with a sidecar bearing Plate No. HELD: No.for his arrest. 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.: May the confession of an accused. to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the aforesaid amount. and must be made in the presence and with the assistance of counsel. ISSUE: Whether or not the confession of the appellant. of said crime. and that on the occasion of said robbery and by reason thereof. R. In the course thereof. accused-appellant. did then and there wilfully. Under the Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence. No. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. along with Lito Amido. without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.

paragraphs (1) and (3) of the Constitution provides: “x x x xxx xxx Sec. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Article III. however. is hereby ordered to release from custody the person of said Lito Amido. but also in two other robbery cases allegedly committed in Lucena City. premised in the foregoing considerations. Muntinlupa for a sum of P4. He recounted that sometime in December 1988. alleged that he had no participation in the offense charged and contended that his only involvement in the matter was the referral of accused Amido to Teves. Carlos. where the latter is a third year high school student.00 as his commission.00.00). Amido presented alibi as his defense. relying on the information that an abandoned sidecar of a tricycle was sighted at Barangay Malinao. He allegedly received P150. (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. Provincial Jail. Amido sought him at his house and told him that the motorcycle he was riding on was being offered for sale. With the help of appellant as a guide. thereafter. Rolando Alandy invited appellant in connection with the instant case and with respect to two other robbery cases reported in Lucena City. During their conversation. this Court finds Herson Tan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Highway Robbery with Murder and hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA. some seven kilometers from the town. Quezon. After admitting that it was purchased from both the accused and upon failure to present any document evidencing the purported sale. SO ORDERED. He alleged that although a tricycle driver by occupation. 1988. at about 7:00 o’clock p. Delfa. the trial court convicted appellant. the Lucena PNP immediately dispatched a team to retrieve the same. In light of the above facts and circumstances. unless he is being detained thereat for some other lawful cause. on the other hand. the appealed decision is set aside and appellant acquitted on the ground that his constitutional rights were violated. Atimonan on the day in question. Delfa. together with the sidecar. at Our Lady of Angels Academy in Atimonan. In the belief that they were merely conversing inside the police station.m.. that Freddie was seen alive. Subsequently. he averred that they sold the motorcycle to a certain Danny Teves of Barrio Summit. Upon proof shown that it was indeed registered under Amido’s name. Lt. Cpl. When the latter failed to return that evening. Section 12. He is further ordered to indemnify the family of the deceased in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30. Carlos Santos proceeded to the scene of the crime and recovered a blue sidecar which they brought back with them to their headquarters. Moreover. tricycle driver Freddie Saavedra went to see his wife. Lucena Philippine National Police (PNP) led by Lt. he could not have participated in the gruesome death of the latter. he was at Barangay Malusak. of December 6. he accompanied the latter to Manila on board the said motorcycle and they approached Antonio Carandang. he admitted that he did not inform appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel. He narrated that he and co-accused Amido were responsible for the loss of the motorcycle and the consequent death of Saavedra. He narrated that the victim was his friend and.The relevant facts established by the prosecution are as follows: On December 5. The latter. nor did he reduce the [2] supposed confession to writing. Forthwith. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. Numeriano Aguilar and Pat. as early as 4:30 o’clock a. they proceeded to the said place and found him sprawled on the ground with fourteen stab wounds in different parts of his body. Lucena City. In the course thereof. a certain Arnel Villarama revealed that the lifeless body of her husband was discovered on the diversion road at Barangay Malinao in Atimonan.m. 1988 inquired on his whereabouts from relatives and friends. appellant allegedly gave an explicit account of what actually transpired in the case at bar. on cross-examination. he must be provided with one. In a decision dated April 21. Meanwhile. busy assisting in the renovation of his mother’s house. Lito Amido is hereby ACQUITTED of the charges against him and the Provincial Warden of Quezon. brought them to a certain Perlita Aguilar and Danilo Teves with whom the sale was finally consummated. It was the last time. he informed the latter that he was a suspect. the dispositive portion of which reads: “WHEREFORE. to the Atimonan Police Station for safekeeping. Appellant. Due to insufficiency of evidence. Teves voluntarily surrendered it to the police who turned it over. Lt. It is well-settled that the Constitution abhors an uncounselled confession or admission and whatever information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as inadmissible in evidence against the confessant. testified that when he invited appellant to their headquarters. 12. 1994. xxx xxx xxx 7 © winz naive . therefore. he had no warrant for his arrest. not only in the instant case.000. Santos. In the course of such inquiry.” [3] Appellant assails the finding of conviction despite failure of the prosecution to positively identify him as the culprit of the crime and to present clear and convincing circumstantial evidence that would overcome his innocence.000. to inform her that he will drive both accused to Barangay Maligaya.

Q Did you notify him of his constitutional right to counsel before you propounded questions to him? A No. and the police carries out a process of interrogations that tends itself to eliciting incriminating [6] statements that the rule begins to operate. particularly the right to remain silent and to counsel. Q Before propounding question or information you sought to elicit from him. 7438). reenforced the constitutional mandate protecting the rights of persons under custodial [5] investigation. [9] Q And it just happened that without applying third degree to him he gave you that information? A Yes. The rules on custodial investigation begin to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus a particular suspect. you also took Herson Tan to your custody in connection with another case that happened in Lucena? A Yes. not only does the fundamental law impose. because we are asking question only to him. regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given. Appellant HERSON TAN y VERZO is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged and his immediate release from confinement is hereby ordered. be “voluntary. sir. There were two (2) cases which were investigated on Herson Tan. The records of this case do not indicate that appellant was assisted by counsel when he made such waiver. as a requisite function of the investigating officer. 1988? A Yes. Under the Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence.” Republic Act No. is that what happened in this case? A Yes. and he was also suspect to the robbery case which was investigated at Lucena Police Station. even if the same be initiated by mere invitation. we are constrained to acquit the appellant. Q Just for curiosity sake. did you tell him that he is one of the suspects in the robbery slain (sic) that took place in Atimonan on December 5. Even if the confession contains a grain of truth. sir. [10] Javar. 8 . if it was made without the assistance of counsel.” 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. sir. sir. it becomes inadmissible in evidence. and (4) it must be in [8] writing. © winz naive Q And you happened to have Herson Tan in your list as suspect in both cases because Herson was previously incarcerated at Lucena City Jail in connection with a certain case. did you inform him of his constitutional right not to testify against himself because he is a suspect in these two (2) cases? A No. 7438 (R. A mere perfunctory reading by the constable of such rights to the [7] accused would thus not suffice. without prejudice to the liability of the ‘inviting’ officer for any violation of law. 1992. The constitutional rights of appellant. Q Now. the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Gumaca. when you brought Herson Tan to the Headquarters. This will not suffice to convict him.” To reiterate. Santos on crossexamination. you invited him in your headquarters. No. the suspect is taken into custody. shall be inadmissible in evidence. of said crime. 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. so in addition to the Atimonan case. “This Court values liberty and will always insist on the observance of basic constitutional rights as a condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative [12] and prosecutory powers of government. in view of the foregoing. Furthermore. it must. approved on May 15. whether exculpatory or inculpatory.A. sir. While the Constitution sanctions the waiver of the right to counsel. and must be made in the presence and with [4] the assistance of counsel. it was ruled therein that any statement obtained in violation of the constitution. sir. (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. is it not? A Yes. in whole or in part. in People v. (3) it must be express. he allegedly admitted his participation in the crime. Quezon (Branch 62) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. ‘custodial investigation’ shall include the practice of issuing an ‘invitation’ to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed. knowing and intelligent. sir. (Underscoring supplied) were just The evidence for the prosecution shows that when appellant was invited for questioning at the police headquarters. thus: “Q Now. a pertinent provision of which reads: “As used in this Act. are impregnable from the moment he is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed. a finding evident from the testimony of Lt. a confession to be admissible must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary. WHEREFORE.(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible against him. because we [11] conversing. however. Considering the circumstances attendant in the conduct of appellant’s investigation which fell short of compliance with constitutional safeguards.” What remains of the evidence for the prosecution is inadequate to warrant a conviction. however.

the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. On 23 April 1993. Atty. and Jonelto Labtan robbed Florentino Bolasito of P30 in cash money. He even received money from the police as payment for his services. Mercado. Pepito Chavez to Feliciano cured the initial lack of counsel. stereo. Orlando Labtan.500. at more or less 10:30 p. The trial court convicted Feliciano on the basis of his sworn statement which he repudiated during the trial. all in all amounting to P10. Furthermore.000. Orlando Labtan had escaped the Maharlika Rehabilitation and Detention Center in Carmen. Atty. Cagayan de Oro City where he was detained while Jonelto Labtan has eluded arrest. 9 © winz naive .00 and to pay the offended party the sum of P35. Philippines. and twitter and to indemnify Ismael Ebon the sum of P2. Held: Feliciano had been denied of his right to have a competent and independent counsel when he was questioned in the Cagayan de Oro City Police Station. Labtan [GR 127493. booster. The two cases were tried together. Feliciano appealed.00. another information dated 20 May 1993 was filed against Feliciano and Orlando Labtan charging them with highway robbery (as per 28 March 1993 incident).00 cash. and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor as the minimum term to 14 years.unless there is any other lawful cause for continued detention. The trial court also found Feliciano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of highway robbery. 8 December 1999] First Division. Issue: Whether the counselling of Atty.000.00 representing funeral expenses and to pay the cost.m. Chavez did not provide the kind of counselling required by the Constitution. Philippines. of 22 April 1993 regarding his involvement in the killing of jeepney driver Florentino Bolasito. pioneer stereo. Puno (J): 4 concur Facts: On 28 March 1993.000. SPO1 Alfonso Cuarez testified that he started questioning Feliciano at 8:00 a. the value of the Seiko Wrist watch divested from him and to pay the cost. Further. 8 months of reclusion temporal in its minimum period as the maximum term and to indemnify Roman S.00. and a Seiko Diver wristwatch owned by Ismael P. at about 2:30 p. an information was filed against Feliciano. Orlando and Jonelto Labtan stabbed Bolasito to death. Only Feliciano pleaded not guilty to the two charges. at Buntong. booster and twitters owned by and belonging to Roman S. Mercado the sum of P8.00. the latter was already a suspect in the killing of jeepney driver Bolasito. Henry Feliciano y Lagura and Orlando Labtan y Daquihon took away. Chavez’s independence as counsel is suspect — he is regularly engaged by the Cagayan de Oro City Police as counsel de officio for suspects who cannot avail the services of counsel. while inside a motor vehicle in the national highway at Barangay Agusan up to the road at Camaman-an. cash amounting to P720.00.m. Feliciano had been subjected to custodial investigation without a counsel. through intimdation or violence. Camaman-an. Ebon. After trial.800. inasmuch as when SPO1 Cuarez investigated Feliciano.m. He did not explain to Feliciano the consequences of his action — that the sworn statement can be used against him and that it is possible that he could be found guilty and sent to jail. Later on. Subsequently. and Jonelto Labtan charging them with robbery with homicide (as per 16 April 1993 incident). more or less. In the course thereof. Orlando Labtan. Cagayan de Oro City. on or about 16 April 1993. representing the value of the P700. all of Cagayan de Oro City. notwithstanding the fact that he had not been apprised of his right to counsel. Branch 25 found Feliciano guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct participation in the crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party (the heirs of Florentino Bolasito) the sum of P50. People vs. SO ORDERED. Feliciano. Costs de oficio..