Filoteo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan | 263 SCRA 222 | GR No. 79543 | Oct.

16, 1996
KEYWORDS: Petitioner’s uncounselled waiver of his right to counsel is admissible as evidence.
Petitioner Jose Filoteo, Jr. (Filoteo), a police investigator of the Western Police District in Metro Manila, was a
suspected mastermind of the armed hijacking of a postal delivery van. Along with 10 other co-accused, he was
charged of wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, stopping the Postal Delivery Truck of the Bureau of Postal while it
was travelling along the MacArthur Highway at the point of their guns, and then taking, robbing and carrying away
with them a Postal Delivery Truck, SSS Medicare and Pension Checks and Vouchers, Treasury Warrants, among
others, in the total amount of P253,728.29.At 11pm of May 29, 1982, Filoteo’s co-accused, Mateo, escorted by a
group of military men, went to petitioner’s house. The group refused to give any reason for their visit but arrested
him and asked him about his Mercedes Benz and the identities of his companions in an alleged hijacking incident.
The Benz was alleged to be the car that the hijackers used to block the delivery truck’s way. Petitioner admitted to
having knowledge of the exact location of the car but denied participation in the crime.
Nobody apprised him of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel.After the police
identified petitioner Filoteo’s Benz, petitioner Filoteo claims that at the SOG headquarters in Camp Crame, he was
repeatedly coaxed to admit participation in the hijacking. As he vehemently denied the accusation against him,
someone blindfolded him from behind, led him outside and loaded him in a car. He was taken to an unidentified
place and made to lie flat on his back. An object was tied to his small finger to electrocute him. While a wet
handkerchief was stuffed in his mouth, someone mounted his chest and applied the water cure (tinutubig) through
his nose. Because these ordeals were simultaneously carried out, petitioner felt unbearable pain. He sought
permission to get in touch with his father-in-law (who was an attorney) but his request was denied. They urged him
to cooperate otherwise something terrible would happen to him.On May 30, 1982, Filoteo was therefore constrained
to sign a prepared statement (that was shown and read to him by the police) because of his excruciating experience.
He however admitted having read the document before affiixing his signature thereto and initialing the corrections
therein. The waiver under Article 125 of the RPC and the certification he executed were allegedly also obtained by
duress. Thereafter, Petitioner Filoteo filed a complaint for grave coercion and maltreatment against Lt. Rosendo
Ferrer and several John Does. Eventually, the Sandiganbayan found the accused and his co-principals guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974. Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan.
W/N the extrajudicial confession, executed by the accused without the presence of his lawyer, is admissible in
evidence against him.
YES. Extrajudicial confessions made without the benefit of counsel while the 1973 Constitution was in force and
effect are admissible since the Constitution, unlike penal laws, are prospective in nature.The petitioner contends that
the Court erred in admitting his extrajudicial confession despite the uncontradicted testimony and documentary
proof that he was made to sign the same through torture, maltreatment, physical compulsion, threats and
intimidation and without the presence and assistance of counsel. He also claims that in executing the extrajudicial
confession, he was denied the right to counsel in the same way that his waiver of the said right was likewise without
the benefit of counsel.
Art. IV, Sec. 20 of the 1973 Constitution provides:
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed of such rights. No force, violence,
threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession
obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence.
1. What is Penal Law?

incommunicado. In other words. Galit. in People vs. on the other hand. the petition is DENIED. The doctrine that an uncounseled waiver of the right to counsel is not to be given legal effect was initially a judge-made one and was first announced on 26 April 1983 in Morales vs. The court specifically ruled that the right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. waivers of the right to counsel during custodial investigation without the benefit of counsel during the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution should. or before April 26. that doctrine affords no comfort to appellant Luvendino for the requirements and restrictions outlined in Morales and Galit have no retroactive effect and do not reach waivers made prior to 26 April 1983 the date of promulgation of Morales. WHEREFORE. the Court vigorously taught: x x x.Petitioner’s contention that Article III. what is being construed here is a constitutional provision specifically contained in the Bill of Rights which is obviously not a penal statute. Luvendino. Accordingly. the principle of prospectivity of statutes. Sec. be admissible. Court of Appeals where the Court ruled that in accordance with Article 8 of the Civil Code which provides that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. Penal laws. x x x. Although a number of cases held that extrajudicial confessions made while the 1973 Constitution was in force and effect. Jr. III. Pursuant to the above doctrine. Thereafter. or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. the specific provision of the 1987 Constitution requiring that a waiver by an accused of his right to counsel during custodial investigation must be made with the assistance of counsel may not be applied retroactively or in cases where the extrajudicial confession was made prior to the effectivity of said Constitution. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. shall apply to judicial decisions. (2) No torture. 1983 when this Court. intimidation. the definitive ruling was enunciated only on April 26. should have been made with the assistance of counsel. or by individuals or groups of individual. . While Article 22 of the RPCprovides that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal. solitary. Secret detention places. a penal law denotes punishment imposed and enforced by the state for a crime or offense against its law. 1983.Art. and Article 4 of the same Code which states that laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided. It is a charter of liberties for the individual and a limitation upon the power of the state. 1982. strictly and properly are those imposing punishment for an offense committed against the state which the executive of the state has the power to pardon. x x x By parity of reasoning. Enrile and reiterated on 20 March 1985 in People vs. threat. through Morales. A bill of rights is a declaration and enumeration of the individual rights and privileges which the Constitution is designed to protect against violations by the government. vs. cannot be sustained . 12 of the 1987 Constitution provide the relevant rights as follows: (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. although in themselves are not laws. While the Morales-Galit doctrine eventually became part of Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution. he must be provided with one. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. petitioner may not claim the benefits of the Morales and Galit rulings because he executed his extrajudicial confession and his waiver to the right to counsel on May 30.. The prospective application of judge-made laws was underscored in Co vs. original or amendatory. Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution should be given retroactive effect for being favorable to him as an accused. violence. issued the guidelines to be observed by law enforcers during custodial investigation. by such argumentation. Enrile. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. are nevertheless evidence of what the law means. force. which.

In the case at bar. ISSUE:  Is there a constitutional right to run for or hold public office? HELD:  No.  Towards this end. the greater the opportunities for logistical confusion.  Obviously. he also hasthe capacity to wage an international campaign since he has practiced law in other countries. It is difficult to interpret the clause as operative in the absence of legislation since its effective means and reach are not properly defined. he possesses all the constitutional and legal qualifications for the office of the president. Some valid limitations specifically on the privilege to seek elective office are found in the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance Candidates. the provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action. Article II of the 1987 Constitution. not to mention the increased allocation of time and resources in preparation for the election." The provisions under the Article are generally considered not self-executing. This is not to mention the candidacies which are palpably ridiculous so as to constitute a one-note joke. Article II of the Constitution is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law.e.  Pamatong filed a Petition For Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court claiming that the COMELEC violated his right to "equal access to opportunities for public service" under Section 26. It neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. most probably posed at the instance of these nuisance candidates. and orderly. There is nothing in the plain language of the provision which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort. however. and there is no plausible reason for according a different treatment to the "equal access" provision. entitled "Declaration of Principles and State Policies.  The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be subjected to limitations. Equality is not sacrificed as long as the burdens engendered by the limitations are meant tobe borne by any one who is minded to file a certificate of candidacy. Inevitably.”  As long as the limitations apply to everybody equally without discrimination. the greater the number of candidates.  The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide intention to run for office is easy to divine.  Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II.Rev. objective. i. April 13. Commission on Elections G. and he has a platform of government. The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any cause of action before the courts. there is no showing that any person is exempt from the limitations or the burdens which they create. The poll body would bebogged by irrelevant minutiae covering every step of the electoral process.. Ely Velez Pamatong Vs. the State takes into account the practical considerations in conducting elections.  The COMELEC supposedly erred in disqualifying him since he is the most qualified among all the presidential candidates. What is recognized in Section 26. heis capable of waging a national campaign since he has numerous national organizations under his leadership. 2004 FACTS:  Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for President.  The "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution.  The organization of an election with bona fide candidates standing is onerous enough. by limiting the number of qualified candidates only to those who can afford to wage a nationwide campaign and/or are nominated by political parties. It would be a senseless sacrifice . the equal access clause is not violated. No. 161872. The State has a compelling interest to ensure that itselectoral exercises are rational.R. To add into the mix candidates with no serious intentions or capabilities to run a viable campaign would actually impair the electoral process. the provision is not intended to compel the State to enact positive measures that would accommodate as many people as possible into public office.  Respondent COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 others as nuisance candidates who could not wage a nationwide campaign and/or are not nominated by a political party or are not supported by a registered political party with a national constituency.

on the part of the State. CLAVE as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and as Presidential Executive Assistant.The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance candidate or not is both legal and factual.384 per annum. The appeal-protest was later sent to the Civil Service Commission. 1975) and which provides that “before deciding a contested appointment. The appointment was approved by the Civil Service Commission. Vice-Chairman. Both were next-in-rank to the vacant position.  Later. whose occupant heads the Medical Research Department in the Biological Research Center of the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST). Doctor Pedro G. explained that the appointment was made after a thorough study and screening of the qualifications of Doctors Anzaldo and Venzon  Doctor Venzon in a letter dated January 23. 807 (which took effect on October 6. R. he appointed Doctor Anzaldo to the contested position with compensation at P18. Effective January 5. she filed in this Court the instant special civil action of certiorari. 36. ELICIDAD ANZALDO.  The resolution was made pursuant to section 19(6) of the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines. 1978 as Science Research Supervisor II and directing the appointment to that position of Doctor Eulalia L. Presidential Decree No. On August 25.”  After the denial of her motion for the reconsideration of that resolution. 1974. Doctor Anzaldo protested against that recommendation.  Doctor Afable. Clave dated March 20. JOSE A. 1978. JACOBO C.  At the time the vacancy occurred. VENZON. the remand of this case for the reception of further evidence is in order. Rollo). “as recommended by the Civil Service Commission” (meaning Chairman Clave himself and Commissioner Melo).The SC remanded to the COMELEC for the reception of further evidence. Melo. What is manifestly anomalous and questionable about that decision of Presidential Executive Assistant Clave is that it is an implementation of Resolution No. Doctor Felicidad Estores-Anzaldo 55. Rollo). 1980. As stated earlier. The basis of the factualdetermination is not before this Court. 1178 dated August 23. 1980. 1980 revoked Doctor Anzaldo’s appointment and ruled that. 1978. vs. The NIST Reorganization Committee found her protest to be valid and meritorious (p.  Doctor Kintanar recommended that Doctor Venzon be appointed to that position.  The contested position became vacant in 1974 when its incumbent. Melo recommended that Doctor Venzon be appointed to the contested position. 1979 signed by Jacobo C.013 per annum. became the Officer-in-Charge of the NIST. This is a controversy over the position of Science Research Supervisor II. revoking her appointment dated January 5. Doctor Venzon should be appointed to the contested position but that Doctor Anzaldo’s appointment to the said position should be considered “valid and effective during the pendency” of Doctor Venzon’s protest (p. became Director of the Biological Research Center. Presidential Executive Assistant Clave denied Doctor Anzaldo’s motion for reconsideration. the position was not filled up. Afable. addressed to Jacobo C. Doctor Anzaldo appealed to the Office of the President of the Philippines.  Chairman Clave of the Civil Service Commission and Commissioner Jose A. Venzon. petitioner. both Doctors Anzaldo and Venzon were holding similar positions in the Medical Research Department: that of Scientist Research Associate IV with an annual compensation of P12. the Office of the President shall consult the Civil Service Commission. seeks to annul the decision of Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo C. appealed to the Office of the President of the Philippines. as Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission. a recommendation which is in conflict with the 1978 appointment of Doctor Anzaldo which was duly attested and approved by the Civil Service Commission. to determine the question on whetherpetitioner Elly Velez Lao Pamatong is a nuisance candidate as contemplated in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code. 48. 1980. MELO. The appeal was forwarded to the NIST. or on January 5. Doctor Quintin Kintanar. . Clave. R. Thus. 34.  In a resolution dated August 14. Presidential Executive Assistant Clave (who was concurrently Chairman of the Civil Service Commission) in his decision of March 20. or on June 30. Clave. 1980. Because of that impasse. respondents. and EULALIA L. as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and concurred in by Commissioner Jose A.

She obtained from the Centro Escolar University the degree of Master of Science in Pharmacy in 1962 and in 1965 the degree of Doctor of Pharmacy.In that resolution. Doctor Venzon finished the medical course in the University of Santo Tomas in 1957. Due process of law means fundamental fairness. should be a person different from the person in the Office of the President who would decide the appeal of the protestant in a contested appointment. It is evident that Doctor Anzaldo was denied due process of law when Presidential Executive Assistant Clave concurred with the recommendation of Chairman Clave of the Civil Service Commission. No costs. 1980 is set aside. When Presidential Executive Assistant Clave said in his decision that he was “inclined to concur in the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission”. that would not be fair to the appellant. Doctor Venzon’s protest should be dismissed. effective July 1. who should be consulted by the Office of the President. recommended that Doctor Venzon be appointed Science Research Supervisor II in place of Doctor Anzaldo. Rollo). in January. The appointing authority. now known as Senior Science Research Specialist. acted in accordance with law and properly exercised his discretion in appointing Doctor Anzaldo to the contested position. Doctor Anzaldo finished the pharmacy course in 1950 in the College of Pharmacy. and petitioner Anzaldo’s promotional appointment to the contested position is declared valid.624 per annum after she was given a merit increase by Doctor Kintanar. Considering that Doctor Anzaldo has competently and satisfactorily discharged the duties of the contested position for more than four (4) years now and that she is qualified for that position. she was appointed to the contested Position of Science Research Supervisor II. 94 SCRA 261. is P 30. She started working in the NIST in 1960. University of the Philippines. as held in the Zambales Chromite case. L-49711. should be adopted by the President of the Philippines. In this case. as to who between Doctor Anzaldo and Doctor Venzon should be appointed Science Research Supervisor II. The Civil Service Decree could not have contemplated that absurd situation for. the decision of respondent Clave dated March 20. what he meant was that he was concurring with Chairman Clave’s recommendation: he was concurring with himself (p. Common sense and propriety dictate that the commissioner in the Civil Service Commission. SO ORDERED. she is a registered medical technologist and supervisor (unassembled). her appointment should be upheld. Court of Appeals. 1979. On the other hand. As already stated. She has been working in that agency for more than twenty-one (21) years. Doctor Anzaldo is senior to her in point of service. November 7. . acting for the Civil Service Commission. Her present salary as Science Research Supervisor II. WHEREFORE. Rollo). affirming his own decision in a mining case as Director of Mines was void because it was rendered with grave abuse of discretion and was a mockery of administrative justice. She started working in the NIST in 1954 and has served in that agency for about twenty-eight (28) years now. Clave. 1978. 259. The case is analogous to Zambales Chromite Mining Co. vs. We hold that respondent Clave committed a grave abuse of discretion in deciding the appeal in favor of Doctor Venzon. the person who acted for the Office of the President is the same person in the Civil Service Commission who was consulted by the Office of the President: Jacobo C. 35. where it was held that the decision of Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources Benjamin M. Gozon. Commissioner Clave and Melo. Aside from her civil service eligibility as a pharmacist. Doctor Afable. It is not fair to Doctor Anzaldo that Presidential Executive Assistant Clave should decide whether his own recommendation as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. 1981 (p.

[16] . Jesus I. had acted arbitrarily. 2382 (The Medical Act of 1959).           Yasuyuki Ota (respondent) is a Japanese national. and that the Board had a ministerial duty of issuing the Certificate of Registration and license to respondent. -versusYASUYUKI OTA. reciprocity was not established. who has continuously resided in thePhilippines for more than 10 years. it was not shown that the conditions for the practice of medicine there are practical and attainable by a foreign applicant. he was allowed to take the Medical Board Examinations in August 1992. in a letter dated March 8. stating among others that should he successfully pass the same. 1993. in refusing to issue in his favor a Certificate of Registration and/or license to practice medicine.[5] After successfully completing a one-year post graduate internship training at the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center. the power of the PRC and the Board to regulate and control the practice of medicine is discretionary and not ministerial. also.) No. he would not practice medicine until he submits proof that reciprocity exists between Japan and the Philippines in admitting foreigners into the practice of medicine.A. he filed an application to take the medical board examinations in order to obtain a medical license. Respondent.[13] The Board and the PRC (petitioners) appealed the case to the CA. married to a Filipina. He graduated from Bicol Christian College of Medicine with a degree of Doctor of Medicine.[15] WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING THAT RESPONDENT HAD ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF RECIPROCITY IN THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE BETWEEN THEPHILIPPINES AND JAPAN. stating that while respondent submitted documents showing that foreigners are allowed to practice medicine in Japan.[12]The RTC then ordered the Board to issue in favor of respondent the corresponding Certificate of Registration and/or license to practice medicine in the Philippines. 1993. the RTC rendered its Decision finding that respondent had adequately proved that the medical laws of Japan allow foreigners like Filipinos to be granted license and be admitted into the practice of medicine under the principle of reciprocity. denied respondent's request for a license to practice medicine in the Philippines on the ground that the Board believes that no genuine reciprocity can be found in the law of Japan as there is no Filipino or foreigner who can possibly practice there. hence. the Board of Medicine (Board) of the PRC. He was required by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) to submit an affidavit of undertaking. which he subsequently passed. hence.[10] In his petition before the RTC. 1994 to implead the PRC through its Chairman. in clear contravention of the provision of Section 20 of Republic Act (R. not compellable by a writ of mandamus.[7] thus. which petition was amended on February 14.BOARD OF MEDICINE.[6] Respondent submitted a duly notarized English translation of the Medical Practitioners Law of Japan duly authenticated by the Consul General of the Philippine Embassy to Japan.[14] The CA denied the appeal and affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Yabes.[11] On October 19. as it was shown that he had substantially complied with the requirements under the law. 2003. depriving him of his legitimate right to practice his profession in the Philippines to his great damage and prejudice. respondent alleged that the Board and the PRC.[8] In spite of all these.[9] Respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus against the Board before the RTC of Manila on June 24.

which provides who may be candidates for the medical board examinations. not compellable by a writ of mandamus. confirmed by the Department of Foreign Affairs.D. No. 2382. The publication showing that there were foreigners practicing medicine inJapan. as the requirements to practice medicine in Japan are practically impossible for a Filipino to comply with.A. The Court denies the petition for lack of merit. [17] Furthermore. No. approve the registration and authorize the issuance of a certificate of registration with or without examination to a foreigner who is registered under the laws of his country. Section (j) of P. 2382 and P. which were not clarified by respondent. it may.D. and (3) that the applicant shall submit competent and conclusive documentary evidence.      Petitioners claim that: respondent has not established by competent and conclusive evidence that reciprocity in the practice of medicine exists between the Philippines and Japan. confirmed by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).e. x x x (Emphasis supplied) It is enough that the laws in the foreign country permit a Filipino to get license and practice therein. showing that his countrys existing laws permit citizens of the Philippines to practice medicine under the same rules and regulations governing citizens thereof. showing that his country's existing laws permit citizens of the Philippines to practice the profession under the rules and regulations governing citizens thereof. While documents state that foreigners are allowed to practice medicine in Japan. they do not similarly show that the conditions for the practice of medicine in said country are practical and attainable by a foreign applicant. No. also did not specifically show that Filipinos were among those listed as practicing said profession. Neither is it stated that it must first be proven that a Filipino has been granted license and allowed to practice his profession in said country before a foreign applicant may be given license to practice in the Philippines.[18]the power of the PRC and the Board to regulate and control the practice of medicine includes the power to regulate admission to the ranks of those authorized to practice medicine.[19] Petitioners pray that the CA Decision be reversed and set aside. There is no reciprocity in this case. under Professional Regulation Commission v. merely requires a foreign citizen to submit competent and conclusive documentary evidence. There are also ambiguities in the Medical Practitioners Law of Japan. 223 is that: [T]he applicant shall submit] competent and conclusive documentary evidence. De Guzman.. confirmed by the DFA. upon recommendation of the board.A. . which respondent presented before the Court. No.D. 223. R. showing that his country's existing laws permit citizens of the Philippines to practice the profession [of medicine] under the [same] rules and regulations governing citizens thereof. (2) that the laws of such foreign state or country allow the citizens of the Philippines to practice the profession on the same basis and grant the same privileges as the subject or citizens of such foreign state or country. provided the following conditions are met: (1) that the requirement for the registration or licensing in said foreign state or country are substantially the same as those required and contemplated by the laws of the Philippines. 2382 and P. i.A. which power is discretionary and not ministerial. 223 also defines the extent of PRC's power to grant licenses. Indeed. No. Consul General Yabes also stated that there had not been a single Filipino who was issued a license to practice medicine by the Japanese Government. the phrase used in both R. No. hence. Requiring respondent to prove first that a Filipino has already been granted license and is actually practicing therein unduly expands the requirements provided for under R. The said provision further states that the PRC is authorized to prescribe additional requirements or grant certain privileges to foreigners seeking registration in the Philippines if the same privileges are granted to or some additional requirements are required of citizens of the Philippines in acquiring the same certificates in his country. Nowhere in said statutes is it stated that the foreign applicant must show that the conditions for the practice of medicine in said country are practical and attainable by Filipinos.

however. He finished his medical degree from Bicol Christian College of Medicine. the provisions of the School Educations Laws. and that it is not the impossibility or the prohibition against Filipinos that would account for the absence of Filipino physicians holding licenses and practicing medicine in Japan. it does not mean that no Filipino will ever be able to be given one. Physician-DentistPharmaceutist Survey. It must also appear that he has fully complied with all the conditions and requirements imposed by the law and the licensing authority. 2004 and Resolution dated October 19. showing that there are a number of foreign physicians practicing medicine in Japan. . the applicant must show that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. 2003. to be granted the privilege to practice medicine. SO ORDERED. the Court explained that: A careful reading of Section 20[37] of the Medical Act of 1959 discloses that the law uses the word shall with respect to the issuance of certificates of registration. the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.[32] He also presented a letter dated January 28. In fine. hence. when an examinee satisfies the requirements for the grant of his physician's license. 1992 with a general average of 81.e.Respondent has satisfactorily complied with the said requirement and the CA has not committed any reversible error in rendering its Decision dated November 16.[33] From said letter.While it is true that respondent failed to give details as to the conditions stated in the Medical Practitioners Law of Japan -.. (1) of Section 22 of the Medical Act of 1959. with scores higher than 80 in 9 of the 12 subjects. there is no doubt as to the competence and qualifications of respondent. presented proof that foreigners are actually practicing in Japan and that Filipinos are not precluded from getting a license to practice there. He completed a one-year post graduate internship training at theJose Reyes Memorial Medical Center. The Court finds that the factual circumstances of De Guzman are different from those of the case at bar. the principle applied therein should be viewed differently in this case.[36] In De Guzman itself. not compellable by mandamus. [35] Indeed. the only matter being questioned by petitioners is the alleged failure of respondent to prove that there is reciprocity between the laws of Japan and the Philippines in admitting foreigners into the practice of medicine. a government hospital. there were doubts about the integrity and validity of the test results of the examinees from a particular school which garnered unusually high scores in the two most difficult subjects. Thus. Thus. and who can actually qualify to take the preparatory test for the National Medical Examination respondent. one can see that the Japanese Government allows foreigners to practice medicine therein provided that the local requirements are complied with. Said doubts called for serious inquiry concerning the applicants satisfactory compliance with the Board requirements. the Board is obliged to administer to him his oath and register him as a physician. the petitioners [PRC] shall sign and issue certificates of registration to those who have satisfactorily complied with the requirements of the Board. In De Guzman. Granting that there is still no Filipino who has been given license to practice medicine in Japan.83. It is given imperative meaning. Respondent presented before the trial court a Japanese Government publication. WHEREFORE. its power to issue licenses is discretionary. but the difficulty of passing the board examination in the Japanese language. Then he passed the Medical Board Examinations which was given on August 8. pursuant to Section 20 and par. 1992 from Consul General Yabes. the criteria of the Minister of Health and Welfare of Japan in determining whether the academic and technical capability of foreign medical graduates are the same as or better than that of graduates of medical schools in Japan. hence. In statutory construction the term shall is a word of command.i. Petitioners next argue that as held in De Guzman. the Court held that the writ ofmandamus may not be granted to secure said privilege without thwarting the legislative will.[34] And as there was no definite showing that the requirements and conditions to be granted license to practice medicine had been satisfactorily met.[38] In this case.

as the lone suspect in the gruesome crime  At around 6:30pm of that day. the prosecution presented its witness who all to circumstantial evidence leading to the moral conclusion that appellant Domantay was guilty of the crime charged  one witness testified that Domantay had too much to drink that afternoon and that he had a bayonet tucked on his waistband then. on the strength of the rural physician’s findings. in the tricycle belonging to Elsa and Jorge Casingal (his aunt and uncle) which the police recovered the next day. Mendoza (1999)  On the afternoon of Oct 17. which was later translated into Pangasinense. another witness testified that she was playing in the same area with the victim when she saw herein appellant move close towards the victim near the bamboo grove where her body was later found. the appellant proceeded with his “confession”  It was admitted by the police. And that this notwithstanding.  The policemen who interrogated Domantay also testified for the prosecution where they attested that herein appellant had confessed to the crime before them during custodial investigation  The policemen further averred that before they commenced his questioning. Noting possible commission of acts of lasciviousness. Pangasinan. a radio reporter named Celso Manuel claims to have also heard herein appellant “confess” to the crime charged against him . in English. The child’s body bore several stab wounds. and finding evidence of rape. 1996. that at no time during the course of his questioning was accusedappellant assisted by counsel. the police charged herein appellant with murder. No lacerations or signs of inflammation of the outer and inner labia and the vaginal walls of the victim’s genitalia were found. confessed to killing Jennifer Domantay  He likewise disclosed that he had hidden the weapon used. And Jennifer had been missing since lunch time that day  Preliminary medical examination conducted by the rural health physician of Malasiqui. showed that Jennifer died of multiple organ failure secondary to 38 stab wounds at the back. a bayonet. the body of six-year old Jennifer Domantay was found sprawled amidst a bamboo grove in Guilig. Malasiqui. Thereafter. said police officers picked up appellant Domantay at the public market and took him to the police station where he. the investigating physician recommended an autopsy by a medico-legal expert of the NBI  Meanwhile. the same being properly receipted to evidence thereafter  Initially. a cousin of the victim’s grandfather. though. Later. Domantay J. Neither was accused-appellant’s confession reduced in writing  Another witness for the prosecution. the same charge was amended to become rape with homicide. upon questioning. although the vaginal canal easily admitted the little finger with minimal resistance. an information for the same charge was formally filed against herein appellant  On trial.People v. the investigation by the Malasiqui police pointed to accused-appellant Bernardino Domantay. after the body of Jennifer was examined by an NBI medico-legal expert. at around 4. etc. appellant was apprised of his constitutional right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel.

already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed in Art. when appellant Domantay was brought to the police station. Art III of the Constitution. this waiver was neither put in writing nor made in the presence of .” This has been subsequently expanded by RA 7438 to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been “invited” for questioning  Further. it found him guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him with the supreme penalty of death – hence this automatic appeal ISSUE: WoN the trial court erred in appreciating the appellant’s extra-judicial confessions even though they were made without assistance of counsel. in the brutal slaying of Jennifer Domantay  he was. however. such that without these vital pieces of evidence. “when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect. when he made his confession before the police. The judgment of the trial court is SET ASIDE and another one is rendered FINDING accused-appellant guilty of homicide RATIO:  Appellant contends that his extra-judicial confession with the police and the reporter are inadmissible as evidence as it violates Sec 12. the trial court erred in finding him guilty of the crime of rape with homicide. and (4) it must be in writing  In the case at bar. and notwithstanding appellant’s defense of denial and alibi. that is. in violation of his constitutional right HELD: NO. Art III applies to the stage of custodial investigation. a series of decisions of this Court has consistently held that for an extra-judicial confession to be admissible. (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. He accordingly obtained said confession by way of a tape-recorded interview while he was assigned to report on the case  On trial. appellant acceded and thereon started his confession of culpability in the rape and slay of Jennifer  The defense contested the admissibility of both the police’s and the reporter’s testimony pertaining to appellant’s extra-judicial confession since they were all done without presence of a competent counsel as provided in the Bill of Rights  The trial court. it must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary. this radio reporter testified that he asked the permission of the chief of police to secure an interview with the appellant. the remaining circumstantial proof would be inadequate to sustain his guild beyond reasonable doubt  this is UNTENABLE  It has been held that the rule espoused in Sec 12. he was already a suspect. However. admitted these testimonies into evidence. (3) it must be express. HOWEVER. he testified that he properly introduced himself to the appellant and offered to have their interview tape-recorded. §12(1) of the Constitution applied to him  As revealed in the records. in fact the only one. III. According to him. therefore. When this was granted. he “orally” waived his right to the assistance of counsel.

counsel. appellant is only guilty of homicide but not rape as there was insufficient evidence to maintain that appellant Domantay raped Jennifer . Perforce. the bayonet confiscated through such uncounselled confession is also inadmissible by being the fruit of a poisonous tree  As to appellant’s confession to the radio reporter. Indeed. confession to the crime during interviews with the media was held to be admissible. there is no showing that the radio reporter was acting for the police or that the interview was conducted under circumstances where it is apparent that accused-appellant confessed to the killing out of fear  The conviction of appellant. is also bolstered by the corpus delicti and other corroborating circumstantial evidence which dovetails materials points in his extra-judicial confession  From the forgoing. said confession with the reporter is admissible as evidence  In view of People v. Andan. However. it is well established that the accused is guilty of killing Jennifer Domantay. despite the fact that the accused gave his answers without the assistance of counsel and that confessions to the newsmen are not covered by Sec 12(1) & (3) of Art III of the Constitution  Also. aside from his admitted confession. having the exclusive prerogative to refuse the interview. on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. the waiver is invalid and his confession is inadmissible. agreed to it and he answered questions freely and spontaneously. appellant Domantay. Hence. For this reason. the same ruling cannot be applied.