You are on page 1of 88

XII.

CONTRACT CLAUSE
Whether the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 can
1. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK EMPLOYEES be given retroactive application to the Columbio FTAA
UNION- NUBE v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK (Note: The Columbio FTAA was entered into by the
Philippine Government and WMC Philippines on 22
2. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. v. March 1995, undoubtedly before the Philippine Mining
WMC RESOURCES INTL. PTY. LTD., WMC Act of 1995 took effect on 14 April 1995).
PHILIPPINES, INC. and SAGITTARIUS MINES,
INC. Ruling:
G.R. No. 162331, November 20, 2006, CHICO-
NAZARIO, NO. It is engrained in jurisprudence that the
constitutional prohibition on the impairment of the
obligation of contract does not prohibit every change in
A law which changes the terms of a legal contract existing laws, and to fall within the prohibition, the
between parties, either in the time or mode of change must not only impair the obligation of the existing
performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses contract, but the impairment must be substantial. Section
with those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction 40 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 requiring the
something different from that provided in its terms, is a approval of the President with respect to assignment or
law which impairs the obligation of a contract and is transfer of FTAAs, if made applicable retroactively to the
therefore null and void. Columbio FTAA, would be tantamount to an impairment
of the obligations under said contract as it would
Facts: effectively restrict the right of the parties thereto to assign
or transfer their interests in the said FTAA. By imposing
In 1995, the Philippine Government and WMC a new condition apart from those already contained in the
Philippines executed a Financial and Technical agreement, before the parties to the Columbio FTAA may
Assistance Agreement (denominated as Columbio FTAA) assign or transfer its rights and interest in the said
for the purpose of large scale exploration, development, agreement, Section 40 of the Philippine Mining Act of
and commercial exploration of possible mineral resources 1995, if made to apply to the Columbio FTAA, will
in the provinces South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Davao effectively modify the terms of the original contract and
del Sur, and North Cotabato in accordance with Executive thus impair the obligations of the parties thereto and
Order No. 279 and Department Administrative Order No. restrict the exercise of their vested rights under the
63, Series of 1991. The Columbio FTAA is covered in original agreement. Such modification to the Columbio
part by 156 mining claims held under various Mineral FTAA, particularly in the conditions imposed for its valid
Production Sharing Agreements (MPSA) by Southcot transfer is equivalent to an impairment of said contract
Mining Corporation, Tampakan Mining Corporation, and violative of the Constitution.
Sagittarius Mines, Inc. (collectively called the Tampakan
Companies), in accordance with the Tampakan Option
Agreement entered into by WMC Philippines and the
Tampakan Companies for purposes of exploration of the
mining claims in Tampakan, South Cotabato. The Option
Agreement, among other things, provides for the grant of
the right of first refusal to the Tampakan Companies in
case WMC Philippines desires to dispose of its rights and
interests in the mining claims covering the area subject of
the agreement.

WMC Philippines sold its interests over the


Columbio FTAA in favor of Sagittarius Mines, Inc. This
sale was approved by the DENR Secretary. Aggrieved by
the sale, Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co, appealed the
DENR Secretarys decision to the Office of the President.
Lepanto invoked Sec. 40 of the Philippine Mining Act,
which requires approval of the President with respect to
assignment or transfers of FTAAs.

Issue:
fees granted to indigent litigants. The Court added that
XIII. POVERTY AND LEGAL PROTECTION extending the exemption to a juridical person on the
ground that it works for indigent and underprivileged
1. RE: QUERY OF MR. ROGER C. PRIORESCHI people may be prone to abuse (even with the imposition
RE EXEMPTION FROM LEGAL AND FILING of rigid documentation requirements), particularly by
FEES OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD FOUNDATION, corporations and entities bent on circumventing the rule
INC on payment of the fees and that the scrutiny of compliance
A. M. NO. 09-6-9-SC, August 19, 2009, Bersamin, J. with the documentation requirements may prove too time-
consuming and wasteful for the courts.
The free access clause of the Constitution applies 2ND VERSION
only to a natural person who suffers from poverty.
In Re: Query of Mr. Roger Prioreschi
Facts:
Facts:
In his letter addressed to the Chief Justice, Mr.
Roger C. Prioreschi, administrator of the Good Shepherd In his letter dated May 22, 2009 addressed to the Chief
Justice, Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi, administrator of the
Foundation, Inc., questioned OCA Circular No. 42-2005
and Rule 141 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines that Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., questioned OCA
reserve the privilege of exemption from docket and filing Circular No. 42-2005 and Rule 141 of the Rules of Court
of the Philippines that reserve the privilege of exemption
fees to indigent persons. He questioned why the rules
excluded foundations or associations that work with and from docket and filing fees to indigent persons. He
for the most indigent persons, as in the case of the Good questioned why the rules excluded foundations or
Shepherd Foundation, Inc. which had been reaching out associations that work with and for the most Indigent
since 1985 to the poorest among the poor, the newly born persons, as in the case of the Good Shepherd Foundation,
and abandoned babies, children who never saw the smile Inc. which had been reaching out since 1985 to the
of their mother, old people who cannot afford a few pesos poorest among the poor, the newly born and abandoned
to pay for common prescriptions, broken families who babies, children who never saw the smile of their mother,
returned to a normal life, whom the Philippine old people who cannot afford a few pesos to pay for
Government and the Filipino society could not reach to or common prescriptions, broken families who returned to a
had rejected or abandoned. normal life, whom the Philippine Government and the
Filipino society could not reach to or had rejected or
abandoned.
Issue:
To answer the query of Mr. Prioreschi, the Supreme Court
Whether Good Shepherd Foundation is exempted held that it could not grant to foundations like the Good
from payment of legal fees granted to indigent litigants. Shepherd Foundation, Inc. the same exemption from
payment of legal fees granted to indigent litigants even if
Ruling: the foundations are working for indigent and
underprivileged people. The basis for the exemption from
NO. The basis for the exemption from legal and legal and filing fees is the free access clause, embodied in
filing fees is the free access clause, embodied in Sec. 11, Sec. 11, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, which provides
Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that free that free access to the courts and quasi judicial bodies
access to the courts and quasi judicial bodies and adequate and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by person by reason of poverty.
reason of poverty.
Held:
In implementation of the right of free access
under the Constitution, the Supreme Court promulgated In implementation of the right of free access under the
rules, specifically, Sec. 21, Rule 3, Rules of Court, and Constitution, the Supreme Court promulgated rules,
Sec. 19, Rule 141, Rules of Court. The Court held that the specifically, Sec. 21, Rule 3, Rules of Court, and Sec. 19,
clear intent and precise language of the provisions Rule 141, Rules of Court.
indicated that only a natural party litigant may be regarded
as an indigent litigant. The Good Shepherd Foundation, The Court held that the clear intent and precise language
Inc., being a corporation invested by the State with a of the aforequoted provisions of the Rules of Court
juridical personality separate and distinct from that of its indicated that only a natural party litigant may be regarded
members, is a juridical person. As a juridical person, it as an indigent litigant. The Good Shepherd Foundation,
cannot be accorded the exemption from legal and filing Inc., being a corporation invested by the State with a
juridical personality separate and distinct from that of its
members, is a juridical person. Among others, it has the
power to acquire and possess property of all kinds as well
as incur obligations and bring civil or criminal actions, in
conformity with the laws and regulations of their
organization. As a juridical person, it cannot be accorded
the exemption from legal and filing fees granted to
indigent litigants.

The Court stated that the free access clause of the


Constitution applies only to a natural person who suffers
from poverty. It added that extending the exemption to a
juridical person on the ground that it works for indigent
and underprivileged people may be prone to abuse
(even with the imposition of rigid documentation
requirements), particularly by corporations and entities
bent on circumventing the rule on payment of the fees and
that the scrutiny of compliance with the documentation
requirements may prove too time-consuming and
wasteful for the courts
XIV. RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS thought Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U.S. 504 (1958) demanded
a different result.
A. General Considerations Justice Potter Stewart believed that the right to assistance
of counsel should not arise until indictment or
1. ESCOBEDO VS ILLINOIS
arraignment, and that this contrary result would cause
Brief Fact Summary. The petitioner Danny Escobedo problems for fair administration of criminal justice.
asked to speak with his lawyer while in police custody but Justice Byron White expressed the opinion that this result
before being formally charged and was denied. would make statements made to police inadmissible
without the accused waiving their right to counsel. He
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Not allowing someone to speak believed this would effectively render the voluntariness
with an attorney, and not advising them of their right to test of the Fourteenth Amendment useless, and make law
remain silent after they have been arrested and before they enforcement more difficult.
have been interrogated is a denial of assistance of counsel
under the Sixth Amendment.
Discussion. This case caused a lot of confusion for
scholars, as some believed it had widespread application,
Facts. After being arrested and taken into police custody and others thought it only applied to the specific facts
as a suspect in the murder of his brother-in-law, the here. There is a great deal of language within it that is very
petitioner asked to speak to his attorney. His attorney hostile to confessions, but at other points it says that
arrived at police headquarters soon after the petitioner did proper investigative efforts are appropriate. It mentions
and was not allowed to speak to his client as the officers that a subject asserting their rights should not be
said they had not completed questioning. The petitioner something the system is afraid of, but that it would render
also was not warned of his right to remain silent before interrogation much less effective. This case is really best
the interrogation. He was convicted of murder and the understood as the precursor to the warnings that would
Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed. He was then granted arise from.
certiorari.
2ND VERSION
Issue. If a suspect has been taken into police custody and Facts:
interrogated by police without their request to see an
attorney being honored, nor being advised of their right to Petitioner, a 22-year-old of Mexican extraction, was
remain silent, have they been denied effective assistance arrested with his sister and taken to police headquarters
of counsel under the Sixth Amendment? for interrogation in connection with the fatal shooting,
about 11 days before, of his brother-in-law. He had been
Held. Yes. Reverse the petitioners conviction and arrested shortly after the shooting, but had made no
remand the case. statement, and was released after his lawyer obtained a
The Sixth Amendment protects the right to effective writ of habeas corpus from a state court. Petitioner made
assistance of counsel. Here, because the police several requests to see his lawyer, who, though present in
investigation focused on the accused as a suspect rather the building, and despite persistent efforts, was refused
than a less specific investigation, refusing to allow an access to his client. Petitioner was not advised by the
accused to speak with his attorney is a denial of this Sixth police of his right to remain silent and, after persistent
Amendment right. The incriminating statements he made questioning by the police, made a damaging statement to
must thus not be admitted into evidence. an Assistant State's Attorney which was admitted at the
A law enforcement system that relies too much on the trial. Convicted of murder, he appealed to the State
confession is more subject to abuses than one that depends Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction.
on evidence obtained through skillful investigation. The
result here recognizes this idea. 2nd Version of Facts: Danny Escobedo's brother-in-law
was killed on January 19, 1960. Escobedo was arrested
Dissent. Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented on the next morning and interrogated for several hours. He
grounds that this result will place obstacles in the way of refused to give a statement to the police and was released.
legitimate methods of criminal law enforcement. Also, he Another suspect in police custody gave a statement to the
police indicating that Escobedo killed his brother-in-law at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases,
because he was mistreating Escobedo's sister. the questioning elicited oral admissions and, in three of
them, signed statements that were admitted at trial.
On January 30, 1960, Escobedo was arrested again. The
police told him about the statement that the other suspect Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda was arrested at his home
made. The police and prosecutors informed Escobedo that and taken in custody to a police station where he was
though he wasn't formally charged, he was in custody and identified by the complaining witness. He was then
could not leave. They kept him handcuffed and interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which
questioned him for fourteen and a half hours and refused resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral
his repeated request to speak with his attorney. Escobedo's and written confessions were presented to the jury.
attorney went to the police station and asked to speak with Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was
Escobedo, and he too was denied. sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On
appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Mirandas
A Spanish-speaking officer was left alone with Escobedo constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the
and allegedly told him that if he blamed the other suspect confession.
for the murder, then he would be free to go. Escobedo
confronted the suspect at the police department and Vignera v. New York: Vignera was picked up by New
blamed him for the murder. Though he never confessed, York police in connection with the robbery of a dress shop
this was the first of several statements that Escobedo that had occurred three days prior. He was first taken to
made about having knowledge of the crime. Escobedo the 17th Detective Squad headquarters. He was then taken
was charged with murder, and the statements that he made to the 66th Detective Squad, where he orally admitted the
to the police were used against him. Based on those robbery and was placed under formal arrest. He was then
statements, he was convicted. Escobedo appealed based taken to the 70th Precinct for detention, where he was
on the fact that he was denied the right to counsel. questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence
of a hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and
Held: Under the circumstances of this case, where a answers. At trial, the oral confession and the transcript
police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an were presented to the jury. Vignera was found guilty of
unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular first degree robbery and sentenced to 30-60 years
suspect in police custody who has been refused an imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed without
opportunity to consult with his counsel and who has not opinion by the Appellate Division and the Court of
been warned of his constitutional right to keep silent, the Appeals.
accused has been denied the assistance of counsel in
violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and Westover v. United States: Westover was arrested by
no statement extracted by the police during the local police in Kansas City as a suspect in two Kansas
interrogation may be used against him at a trial. Crooker City robberies and taken to a local police station. A report
v. California, 357 U.S. 433, and Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 was also received from the FBI that Westover was wanted
U.S. 504, distinguished, and, to the extent that they may on a felony charge in California. Westover was
be inconsistent with the instant case, they are not interrogated the night of the arrest and the next morning
controlling. Pp. 479-492 by local police. Then, FBI agents continued the
interrogation at the station. After two-and-a-half hours of
2) MIRANDA V ARIZONA interrogation by the FBI, Westover signed separate
confessions, which had been prepared by one of the agents
FACTS:
during the interrogation, to each of the two robberies in
The Supreme Courts decision in Miranda v. California. These statements were introduced at trial.
Arizona addressed four different cases involving Westover was convicted of the California robberies and
custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on each count. The
defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the
or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut Ninth Circuit.
off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the
defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights
California v. Stewart: In the course of investigating a warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to
series of purse-snatch robberies in which one of the remain silent, that anything he says can be used against
victims died of injuries inflicted by her assailant, Stewart him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence
was identified as the endorser of checks stolen in one of of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one
the robberies. Steward was arrested at his home. Police will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so
also arrested Stewarts wife and three other people who desires.
were visiting him. Stewart was placed in a cell, and, over
the next five days, was interrogated on nine different The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme
occasions. During the ninth interrogation session, Stewart Court of Arizona in Miranda, reversed the judgment of
stated that he had robbed the deceased, but had not meant the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera, reversed the
to hurt her. At that time, police released the four other judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
people arrested with Stewart because there was no in Westover, and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme
evidence to connect any of them with the crime. At trial, Court of California in Stewart.
Stewarts statements were introduced. Stewart was Argued: Feb. 28, March 1 and 2, 1966
convicted of robbery and first-degree murder and
sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of California Decided: June 13, 1966
reversed, holding that Stewart should have been advised
of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Vote: 5-4

ISSUES Majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren and


joined by Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas.
Whether statements obtained from an individual who is
subjected to custodial police interrogation are admissible Dissenting opinion written by Justice Harlan and joined
against him in a criminal trial and whether procedures by Justices Stewart and White.
which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege
Dissenting in part opinion written by Justice Clark.
under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be
compelled to incriminate himself are necessary. 3) DICKERSON V US

SUPREME COURT HOLDING FACTS OF THE CASE

The Court held that there can be no doubt that the Fifth During questioning about a robbery he was connected to,
Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal Charles Dickerson made statements to authorities
court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all admitting that he was the getaway driver in a series of
settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in bank robberies. Dickerson was then placed under arrest.
any significant way from being compelled to incriminate The timing of his statement is disputed. The FBI and local
themselves. As such, the prosecution may not use detectives testified that Dickerson was advised of his
statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming Miranda rights, established in Miranda v. Arizona, and
from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it waived them before he made his statement. Dickerson
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to said he was not read his Miranda warnings until after he
secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By gave his statement. After his indictment for bank robbery,
custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by Dickerson filed a motion to suppress the statement that he
law enforcement officers after a person has been taken made on the ground that he had not received Miranda
into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of warnings before being interrogated. The government
action in any significant way. argued that even if the Miranda warnings were not read,
the statement was voluntary and therefore admissible
The Court further held that without proper safeguards the
under 18 USC Section 3501, which provides that "a
process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected
confession shall be admissible in evidence if it is
or accused of crime contains inherently compelling
voluntarily given." The District Court granted Dickerson's
pressures which work to undermine the individuals will
motion, finding that he had not been read his Miranda
to resist and to compel him to speak where he would
rights or signed a waiver until after he made his statement,
otherwise do so freely. Therefore, a defendant must be
but the court did not address section 3501. In reversing, second time. This prompted Miss De la Riva, who was
the Court of Appeals acknowledged that Dickerson had justifiably annoyed, to ask: "Ano ba?" Forthwith, Pineda
not received Miranda warnings, but held that section 3501 stopped the car which he was driving, jumped out of it and
was satisfied because his statement was voluntary. The rushed towards her. f events that she Undaunted, Pineda
court held that "Congress enacted section 3501 with the opened the door of Miss De la Riva's car and grabbed the
express purpose of legislatively overruling Miranda and lady's left arm. The girl held on tenaciously to her car's
restoring voluntariness as the test for admitting steering wheel and, together with her maid, started to
confessions in federal court." scream. Her strength, however, proved no match to that of
Pineda, who succeeded in pulling her out of her car.
QUESTION Seeing her mistress' predicament, the maid jumped out of
the car and took hold of Miss De la Riva's right arm in an
May Congress legislatively overrule Miranda v. Arizona
and its warnings that govern the admissibility of effort to free her from Pineda's grip. The latter, however,
statements made during custodial interrogation? was able to drag Miss De la Riva toward the Pontiac
convertible car, whose motor was all the while running.
CONCLUSION She was later brought to Swanky hotel where the accused
Jaime Jose, Edgardo AquinoBasilio Pineda, Jr. And
No. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William Rogelio Caal raped her. Later that night she was then
H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Miranda governs the release by the accused and threaten her that they will
admissibility of statements made during custodial throw acid on her face if she tell anyone what happened.
interrogation in both state and federal courts. "Miranda When maggie got home she disclose to her mother that
has become embedded in routine police practice to the she was raped. Then her mother told her to doughed
point where the warnings have become part of our herself not to get infected or pregnant. It was four days
national culture," wrote Rehnquist. "Miranda announced later when they reported the incident to the police.
a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede
legislatively. We decline to overrule Miranda ourselves,"
concluded the Chief Justice. Dissenting, Justice Antonin
Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, blasted the ISSUE: whether or not the the rights of the accused was
Court's ruling, writing that the majority opinion gave violated
needless protection to "foolish (but not compelled)
confessions."
HELD: No, Jose and Caal seek the exclusion of their
4) PEOPLE V JOSE extra-judicial statements from the mass of evidence on the
This case is now before us by virtue of the appeal grounds that they were secured from them by force and
interposed by Basilio Pineda, Jr., Edgardo Aquino, and intimidation, and that the incriminating details therein
Jaime Jose, and for automatic review as regards Rogelio were supplied by the police investigators. We are not
Caal. However, for practical purposes all of them shall convinced that the statements were involuntarily given, or
hereafter be referred to as appellants. Facts: It was that at that the details recited therein were concocted by the
about 4:30 o'clock in the morning of June 26, 1967, Miss authorities. The statements were given in the presence of
De la Riva, homeward bound from the ABS Studio on several people and subscribed and sworn to before the
Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, was driving her bantam car City Fiscal of Quezon City, to whom neither of the
accompanied by her maid Helen Calderon, who was also aforesaid appellants intimated the use of inordinate
at the front seat. She was already near her destination methods by the police. They are replete with details which
when a Pontiac two-door convertible car with four men could hardly be known to the police; and although it is
came abreast of her car and tried to bump it. She stepped suggested that the authorities could have secured such
details from their various informers, no evidence at all
on her brakes to avoid a collision, and then pressed on the
gas and swerved her car to the left, at which moment she was presented to establish the truth of such allegation.
was already in front of her house gate; but because the While in their statements Jose and Caal admitted having
driver of the other car (Basilio Pineda, Jr.) also waited - together with the two other appellants - for Miss
accelerated his speed, the two cars almost collided for the De la Riva at the ABS Studi, each of them attempted in
the same statements to exculpate himself: appellant Jose from the arraignment to the promulgation of the
stated that only Pineda and Aquino criminally abused the judgment." The only instanes where an accused is entitled
complainant; while appellant Caal would make it appear to counsel before arraignment, if he so requests, are
that the complainant willingly allowed him to have sexual during the second stage of the preliminary investigation
intercourse with her. Had the statements been prepared by (Rule 112, Section 11) and after the arrest (Rule 113,
the authorities, they would hardly have contained matters Section 18). The rule in the United States need not be
which were apparently designed to exculpate the affiants. unquestioningly adhered to in this jurisdiction, not only
It is significant, too, that the said two appellants did not because it has no binding effect here, but also because in
see it fit to inform any of their friends or relatives of the interpreting a provision of the Constitution the meaning
alleged use of force and intimidation by the police. Dr. attached thereto at the time of the adoption thereof should
Mariano Nario of the Quezon City Police Department, be considered. And even there the said rule is not yet quite
who examined appellant Caal after the latter made his settled, as can be deduced from the absence of unanimity
statement, found no trace of injury on any part of the said in the voting by the members of the United States
appellant's body in spite of the claims that he was boxed Supreme Court in all the three above-cited cases.
on the stomach and that one of his arms was burned with
a cigarette lighter. In the circumstances, and considering, 5) MAGTOTO VS. MANGUERA
further, that the police officers who took down their FACTS: Extrajudicial confessions were taken prior to the
statements categorially denied on the witness stand that grant of the constitution of custodial rights of the accused.
the two appellants were tortured, or that any detail in the The courts did not grant this rights to the accused on
statements was supplied by them or by anyone other than grounds that such rights do not retroact.
the affiants themselves, We see no reason to depart from
ISSUE: Whether or not, the constitutional mandate
the trial court's well-considered conclusion that the
should be given a retroactivity effect
statements were voluntarily given. However, even
disregarding the in-custody statements of Jose and Caal, RULING: No, it should not be given a retroactive effect
We find that the mass of evidence for the prosecution on
Constitutional Provision in Question: No person shall be
record will suffice to secure the conviction of the two. The
compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person
admissibility of his extrajudicial statements is likewise under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
being questioned by Jose on the other ground that he was have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be
not assisted by counsel during the custodial informed of such right. No force, violence, threat,
interrogations. He cites the decisions of the Supreme intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free
Court of the United States in Messiah vs. U.S. (377 U.S. will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained
in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in
201), Escobedo vs. Illinois (378 U.S. 478) and Miranda
evidence,
vs. Arizona (384 U.S. 436). The provision of the
Constitution of the Philippines in point is Article III (Bill Specifically, the portion thereof which declares
of Rights), Section 1, par. 17 of which provides: "In all inadmissible a confession obtained from a person under
criminal prosecutions the accused shall . . . enjoy the right investigation for the commission of an offense who has
to be heard by himself and counsel . . ." While the said not been informed of his right (to remain silent and) to
counsel.
provision is identical to that in the Constitution of the
United States, in this jurisdiction the term criminal We hold that this specific portion of this constitutional
prosecutions was interpreted by this Court, in U.S. vs. mandate has and should be given a prospective and not a
Beecham, 23 Phil., 258 (1912), in connection with a retrospective effect. Consequently, a confession obtained
similar provision in the Philippine Bill of Rights (Section from a person under investigation for the commission of
an offense, who has not been informed of his right (to
5 of Act of Congress of July 1, 1902) to mean proceedings
silence and) to counsel, is inadmissible in evidence if the
before the trial court from arraignment to rendition of the same had been obtained after the effectivity of the New
judgment. Implementing the said constitutional provision, Constitution on January 17, 1973. Conversely, such
We have provided in Section 1, Rule 115 of the Rules of confession is admissible in evidence against the accused,
Court that "In all criminal prosecutions the defendant if the same had been obtained before the effectivity of the
shall be entitled . . . ( b) to be present and defend in person New Constitution, even if presented after January 17,
and by attorney at every stage of the proceedings, that is, 1973, and even if he had not been informed of his right to
counsel, since no law gave the accused the right to be so 29, 1903, 2 Phil. 458). But with the repeal of said
informed before that date. provision of law by the Administrative Code in 1916, the
burden of proof was changed. Now, a confession is
Section 20, Article IV of the New Constitution granted, admissible in evidence without previous proof of its
for the first time, to a person under investigation for the voluntariness on the theory that it is presumed to be
commission of an offense, the right to counsel and to be voluntary until the contrary is proved
informed of such right. And the last sentence thereof
which, in effect, means that any confession obtained in And once the accused succeeds in proving that his
violation of this right shall be inadmissible in evidence, extrajudicial confession was made involuntarily, it stands
can and should be given effect only when the right already discredited in the eyes of the law and is as a thing which
existed and had been violated. Consequently, because the never existed. It is incompetent as evidence and must be
confessions of the accused in G.R. Nos. L-37201-02, rejected.
37424 and 38929 were taken before the effectivity of the
New Constitution in accordance with the rules then in Miranda vs. Arizona : To summarize, we hold that when
force, no right had been violated as to render them an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived
inadmissible in evidence although they were not informed of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way
of "their right to remain silent and to counsel," "and to be and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-
informed of such right," because, We repeat, no such right incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must
existed at the time. be employed to protect the privilege *[384 U.S. 479]* and
unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify
Inadmissible evidence rule cannot be gainsaid to be found the person of his right of silence and to assure that the
in Art. 125 par. 2 of RPC because it only confers to the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the
accused the right to be informed of the cause as to why he following measures are required. He must be warned prior
is detained and the assistance of counsel upon his request to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent,
that anything he says can be used against him in a court
None of these statutes requires that police investigators of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney,
inform the detained person of his "right" to counsel. They and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be
only allow him to request to be given counsel. It is not for appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
this Court to add a requirement and carry on where both Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to
Congress and the President stopped. him throughout the interrogation. After such warning
have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the
The history behind the new right granted to a detained individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these
person by Section 20, Article IV of the New constitution rights and agree to answer questions or make statement.
to counsel and to be informed of said right under pain of But unless and until such warning and waiver are
a confession taken in violation thereof being rendered demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence
inadmissible in evidence, clearly shows the intention to obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against
give this constitutional guaranty not a retroactive, but a him.
prospective, effect so as to cover only confessions taken
after the effectivity of the New Constitution. However, this is not applied in our jurisdiction as seen in
the case of People vs. Jose
Furthermore, Extrajudicial confessions of the accused in
a criminal case are universally recognized as admissible The Constitutional Convention at the time it deliberated
in evidence against him, based on the presumption that no on Section 20, Article IV of the New Constitution was
one would declare anything against himself unless such aware of the Escobedo and Miranda rule which had been
declarations were true. Accordingly, it has been held that rejected in the case of Jose. That is the reason why the
a confession constitutes an evidence of a high order since Miranda-Escobedo rule was expressly included as a new
it is supported by the strong presumption that no person right granted to a detained person in the present provision
of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly of Section 20, Article IV of the New Constitution.
confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and
conscience. When Delegate de Guzman (A) submitted the draft of this
Section 20, Article IV to the October 26, 1972 meeting of
The fundamental rule is that a confession, to be the 17-man committee of the Steering Council, Delegate
admissible, must be voluntary. And the first rule in this Leviste (O) expressly made of record that "we are
connection was that before the confession could be adopting here the rulings of US Supreme Court in the
admitted in evidence, the prosecution must first show to Miranda-Escobedo cases." And We cannot agree with the
the satisfaction of the Court that the same was freely and insinuation in the dissenting opinion of Justice Castro that
voluntarily made, as provided for in Section 4 of Act 619
of the Philippine Commission (U.S. vs. Pascual, August
the Delegates did not know of the existence of the second ISSUE: Whether or not their constitutional rights while
paragraph of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code. being detained is violated

Hence, We repeat, this historical background of Section RULING: No, such rights was not violated
20, Article IV of the New Constitution, in Our considered
opinion, clearly shows that the new right granted therein Regarding their warrantless arrest: Valid
to a detained person to counsel and to be informed of such
right under pain of his confession being declared An arrest may be made with or without a warrant.
inadmissible in evidence, has and should be given a
prospective and not a retroactive effect. It did not exist
before its incorporation in our New Constitution, as We SEC. 3. The right of the people to be secure in their
held in the Jose and Paras cases persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
Furthermore, to give a retroactive effect to this purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or
constitutional guarantee to counsel would have a great warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
unsettling effect on the administration of justice in this to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible
country. It may lead to the acquittal of guilty individuals officer as may be authorized by law, after examination
and thus cause injustice to the People and the offended under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
parties in many criminal cases where confessions were witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
obtained before the effectivity of the New Constitution place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
and in accordance with the rules then in force although seized.
without assistance of counsel. The Constitutional
Convention could not have intended such a a disastrous Our Constitution clearly defines the persons who may
consequence in the administration of justice. For if the issue a warrant of arrest and limits them to a "judge, or
cause of justice suffers when an innocent person is such other responsible officer as may be authorized by
convicted, it equally suffers when a guilty one is law." It also lays down in unmistakable terms the
acquitted. procedure required before a search warrant or warrant of
arrest may issue.
Lastly, retroactivity effect of penal laws are not applicable
to the case at bar A Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order is a warrant
of arrest issued by the President of the Philippines. Its
First, because of the inclusion We have arrived at that the issuance must therefore comply with the requirements of
constitutional provision in question has a prospective and the Constitution, in the same manner and to the same
not a retrospective effect, based on the reasons We have extent, as a warrant of arrest issued by a judge issuance
given; second, because the "penal laws" mentioned in must therefore comply with the requirements of the
Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code refer to substantive Constitution, in the same manner and to the same extent,
penal laws, while the constitutional provision in question as a warrant of arrest by a judge.
is basically a procedural rule of evidence involving the
incompetency and inadmissibility of confessions and The Memorandum to the President dated April 21, 1982
therefore cannot be included in the term "penal laws;" and from Gen. Fabian C. Ver, Chief of Staff of the Armed
third, because constitutional provisions as a rule should be Forces of the Philippines, wherein he reported the arrest
given a prospective effect. of petitioners, the subversive documents seized from them
and the results of the ensuing tactical interrogation, with
6) MORALES JR. VS. ENRILE a recommendation for the issuance of a Presidential Arrest
FACTS: In April 1982, Morales and some others were and Commitment Order, was approved by the President
arrested while driving a motor vehicle in Laong-Laan St, only on April 23, 1982. Indeed, therefore, petitioners were
QC. They were charged in CFI Rizal for rebellion arrested without a warrant. However, months before their
punishable under the RPC. Morales alleged that they were arrest, petitioners were already under surveillance on
arrested without any warrant of arrest; that their suspicion of committing rebellion. From the results of the
constitutional rights were violated, among them the right said surveillance, the evidence then at hand, and the
to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to a speedy documents seized from them at the time of their arrest, it
and public trial, and the right to bail. Respondents would appear that they had committed or were actually
countered that the group of Morales were already under committing the offense of rebellion. Their arrest without
surveillance for some time before they were arrested and a warrant for the said offense is therefore clearly justified.
that the warrantless arrest done is valid and at the same Right to Bail: Cannot post bail due to suspension of writ
time the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was already of habeas corpus and crime charged is rebellion
suspended.
In all criminal prosecutions the accused is presumed and a certain "Pabling" accidentally met each other at
innocent. Because of this presumption and inasmuch as Marikina, Rizal, and in their conversation, the three
every man has a natural desire to be free, our Constitution agreed to rob Natividad Fernando; that it was further
laid down the right to bail in these words: agreed among them to enter the premises of the victim's
house at the back yard by climbing over the fence; that
SEC. 18. All persons, except those charged with once inside the premises, they will search every room,
capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, especially the aparador and filing cabinets, with the sole
before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties. aim of looking for cash money and other valuables.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
Early dawn of August 23, 1977 when the three were able
Although martial law was terminated on January 17, to gain entrance into the house of the victim; as the three
1981, by virtue of Proclamation No. 2045 of the President could not find anything valuable inside the first room that
of the Philippines, the privilege of the writ of habeas they entered, Juling Dulay destroyed the screen of the
corpus continues to be suspended in the two autonomous door of the victim, Natividad Fernando; that upon
regions in Mindanao and in all other places with respect entering the room of the victim, the three accused decided
to certain offenses to kill first the victim, Natividad Fernando, before
searching the room for valuables; that Juling Dulay, who
Normally, rebellion being a non-capital offense is was then holding the bolo, began hacking the victim, who
bailable. But because the privilege of the writ of habeas was then sleeping, and accused Galit heard a moaning
corpus remains suspended "with respect to persons at sound from the victim; that after the victim was killed, the
present detained as well as other who may hereafter be three accused began searching the room for valuables.
similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or
rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit Before the trial: The prisoner was arrested for killing the
such crimes, and for all other crimes and offenses victim oil the occasion of a robbery. He had been detained
committed by them in furtherance of or on the occasion and interrogated almost continuously for five days, to no
thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith," avail. He consistently maintained his innocence. There
the natural consequence is that the right to bail for the was no evidence to link him to the crime. Obviously,
commission of anyone of the said offenses is also something drastic had to be done. A confession was
suspended. To hold otherwise would defeat the very absolutely necessary. So the investigating officers began
purpose of the suspension. Therefore, where the offense to maul him and to torture him physically. Still the
for which the detainee was arrested is anyone of the said prisoner insisted on his innocence. His will had to be
offenses he has no right to bail even after the charges are broken. A confession must be obtained. So they continued
filed in court. to maltreat and beat him. 'They covered his face with a rag
and pushed his face into a toilet bowl full of human waste.
The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or The prisoner could not take any more. His body could no
proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses longer endure the pain inflicted on him and the indignities
committed in furtherance thereof or in connection he had to suffer. His will had been broken. He admitted
therewith constitute direct attacks on the life of the State. what the investigating officers wanted him to admit and
Just as an individual has right to self-defense when his life he signed the confession they prepared. Later, against his
is endangered, so does the State. The suspension of the will, he posed for pictures as directed by his investigators,
privilege of the writ is to enable the State to hold in purporting it to be a reenactment.
preventive imprisonment pending investigation and trial Trial court found him guilty for the crime charged and
those persons who plot against it and commit acts that sentenced him with the capital punishment of death
endanger the State's very existence. For this measure of
self-defense to be effective, the right to bail must also be ISSUE: Whether or not his rights as an accused is violated
deemed suspended with respect to these offenses.
RULING: Yes, his rights were violated
7) PEOPLE VS. GALIT
After a review of the records, We find that the evidence
FACTS: Accused was charged with the special complex presented by the prosecution does not support a
crime of robbery with homicide conviction. In fact, the findings of the trial court relative
to the acts attributed to the accused are not supported by
Prosecution witness Florentino Valentino testified that he competent evidence. The principal prosecution witness,
heard accused Francisco Galit and his wife having an Florentino Valentino merely testified that he and the
argument in connection with the robbery and killing of the accused were living together in one house in Marikina,
victim, Natividad Fernando. It appears that on August 18, Rizal, on August 23, 1977, because the mother of his wife
1977, accused Galit and two others, namely, Juling Dulay is the wife of the accused; that when he returned home at
about 4:00 o'clock in the morning from the police station
of Marikina, Rizal, the accused and his wife were
quarreling (nagtatalo); that he heard that the accused was
leaving the house because he and his companions had
robbed "Aling Nene", the owner of a poultry farm and
piggery in Montalban, Rizal; that the wife of the accused
was imploring him not to leave, but the latter was
insistent; that he saw the accused carrying a bag
containing about two handfuls (dakot) of coins which he
had taken from Aling Nene; that upon learning of what
the accused had done, he went to the Montalban police the
next day and reported to the police chief about what he
had heard; and that a week later, Montalban policemen
went to their house and arrested the accused.

There were no eyewitnesses, no property recovered from


the accused, no state witnesses, and not even fingerprints
of the accused at the scene of the crime. The only evidence
against the accused is his alleged confession. It behooves
Us therefore to give it a close scrutiny.

Upon informing him of his rights prior to the arrest the


court ruled that: Such a long question followed by a
monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the requirements of
the law that the accused be informed of his rights under
the Constitution and our laws. Instead there should be
several short and clear questions and every right explained
in simple words in a dialect or language known to the
person under investigation. Accused is from Samar and
there is no showing that he understands Tagalog.
Moreover, at the time of his arrest, accused was not
permitted to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or a
friend. In fact, his sisters and other relatives did not know
that he had been brought to the NBI for investigation and
it was only about two weeks after he had executed the
salaysay that his relatives were allowed to visit him. His
statement does not even contain any waiver of right to
counsel and yet during the investigation he was not
assisted by one. At the supposed reenactment, again
accused was not assisted by counsel of his choice. These
constitute gross violations of his rights.
B. SUSPECTS, ARREST AND APPLICATION just demanding an explanation from the man. Din was
surprised when Tandoc unexpectedly slapped one of the
8) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- two men. A brawl ensued, with Tandoc clashing with the
appellee, vs. SAMUEL MARRA y ZARATE, ALLAN two men while Din exchanged blows with the man who
TAN, alias "Allan Yao," PETER DOE, PAUL DOE
made the dirty finger sign. After the fisticuffs, their three
and TOM DOE, accused. SAMUEL MARRA y
ZARATE, accused-appellant. opponents ran away in a westward direction.

Custodial investigation involves any questioning


initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has Tandoc and Din then decided to walk back to the hotel.
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way. It is only after When they were about to enter the place, they noticed that
the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an the men with whom they just had a fight were running
unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular towards them. Sensing danger, they ran inside the annex
suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police building of the hotel and immediately secured the lock of
carries out a process of interrogations that lends itself to the sliding outer door. After ten to fifteen minutes,
eliciting incriminating statements that the rule (Sec. 12, thinking that the men were no longer in the vicinity, they
Article III of the Constitution) begins to operate.
left the room. Din saw Appellant, who at that time was
wearing a security guard's uniform, shoot Tandoc with a
FACTS: revolver. Tandoc was shot in the middle of the chest and
he fell down. Then, Din saw four to five men scamper
In an information filed before the Regional Trial Court, away from the scene
Branch 43, Dagupan City, Samuel Marra y Zarate, John
Doe, Peter Doe, Paul Doe and Tom Doe were charged
with the crime of murder for the fatal shooting of one
Din and his wife then brought Tandoc to the Villaflor
Nelson Tandoc on March 7, 1992.
Hospital. The victim was taken to the emergency room
Duly assisted by counsel, appellant pleaded not guilty but he expired an hour later.
upon arraignment on May 15, 1992. 5 After trial on the
merits, judgment was rendered by the court below on
October 8, 1992 finding appellant guilty beyond SPO3 Reynaldo de Vera of the Dagupan City Police
reasonable doubt of the crime charged, attended by the Station received a report about a shooting incident at the
aggravating circumstance of nighttime, and sentencing annex building of the Lucky Hotel. He proceeded to the
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. crime scene along with two other police officers. Upon
their arrival, they were informed by the wife of Jimmy
Din that the victim had been brought to the Villaflor
The prosecution's eyewitness, Jimmy Din, positively Hospital. They proceeded to the hospital where Din
identified appellant as the triggerman in the killing of informed them that he could recognize the man who killed
Nelson Tandoc. Din recounted that, he and his friend, Tandoc and that the killer was, at that time, wearing the
Nelson Tandoc, were conversing with each other in front polo shirt of a security guard's uniform.
of Lucky Hotel which was owned by the witness' father.

He noticed a man pass by on the opposite side of the


Seeing the security guard of a nearby bus company, they
street. The man made a dirty sign with his finger and Din
inquired from him if he knew of any unusual incident that
informed Tandoc thereof. The man repeated his offensive
happened in the vicinity. The guard said that he saw the
act and called them by waving his hands. Infuriated, they
guard of "Linda's Ihaw-Ihaw," together with some
followed the man until the latter stopped. They demanded
companions, chasing two persons running. He further
an explanation from the man but they were not given any.
added that the man was wearing a polo shirt of a security
At that instant, two men arrived and one of them inquired guard's uniform.
what was going on. Tandoc informed him that they were
Asked where that particular guard might be, he pointed to RULING
a man eating inside the eatery nearby. They approached
the man and inquired whether he was the security guard In the case at bar, appellant was not under custodial
of "Linda's Ihaw-Ihaw," which the latter answered in the investigation when he made the admission. There was no
affirmative. After a series of questions, they learned that coercion whatsoever to compel him to make such a
he was Samuel Marra. and that the firearm issued to him statement. Indeed, he could have refused to answer
was in his house. Upon their request to see the firearm, questions from the very start when the policemen
they proceeded to Marra's residence. requested that they all go to his residence. The police
inquiry had not yet reached a level wherein they
considered him as a particular suspect. They were just
probing into a number of possibilities, having been merely
When they arrived, Marra took a .38 caliber revolver from informed that the suspect was wearing what could be a
inside an aparador and handed it to De Vera. De Vera also security guard's uniform. Thus, there was no violation of
found five live bullets and one spent shell. Smelling Section 12, Article III of the Constitution or the
gunpowder from the barrel of the gun, De Vera asked constitutional procedure on custodial investigation.
Marra when he last fired the gun but the latter denied ever
having done so. Marra at first denied the accusation but In addition, the law provides that the declaration of an
when informed that someone saw him do it, he said that accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged or
he did so in self-defense, firing at the victim only once. of any offense necessarily included therein may be given
Marra also admitted that prior to the incident, he chased in evidence against him and, in certain circumstances, this
the victim and Din. The officers then took Marra to the admission may be considered as part of the res gestae or
police station where he was detained. the facts that may be admitted as evidence.

However, while we agree that the crime committed by


appellant was murder qualified by treachery, we reject the
During the investigation, De Vera also found out that finding that the same was aggravated by nighttime. No
Marra had not firearm license. evidence was presented by the prosecution to show that
Understandably, appellant gave a different version of the nocturnity was specially sought by appellant or taken
incident. Marra declared in court that he used to work as advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the
a security guard at "Linda's Ihaw-Ihaw. At around four crime or to ensure his immunity from capture.
o'clock down of the following day, he went home to
change his clothes. He proceeded to the Five Star Bus 9) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs JOSE TING
Terminal which was adjacent to "Linda's Ihaw-Ihaw." He LAN UY, JR. (Acquitted),
saw Neneng, the cashier of said eatery, and together they
ordered. Later, he was approached by four policemen who
The right of the accused to counsel begins to be available
inquired if he was a security guard. He answered in the
only when the person is already in custody.
affirmative. He was also asked about his sidearm. When
he answered that it was at his residence, they all went to FACTS
his house to look for it. After he handed over the firearm For allegedly diverting and collecting funds of the
to the policemen, he was brought to the city hall where he National Power Corporation (NPC) intended for the
was detained. purchase of US Dollars from the United Coconut Planters
Bank (UCPB), Jose Ting Lan Uy, Jr., Ernesto
Gamus,[1] Jaime Ochoa and Raul Gutierrez were indicted
ISSUE before the Sandiganbayan for the complex crime of
Malversation through Falsification of Commercial
Whether or not there was violation of rights of suspects Documents.
under custodial investigation when policemen asked the
appellant questions prior to his arrest
Upon arraignment, Gamus, Uy and Ochoa pleaded not 10) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
guilty to the charge, while Gutierrez has remained at Appellee,
large. vs.
DOMINGO REYES y PAJE, ALVIN ARNALDO y
AVENA and JOSELITO FLORES y
VICTORIO, Accused-Appellants.
Trial on the merits thereafter ensued. On May 28, 2002,
the Sandiganbayan rendered its Decision, which states A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed
that Jaime B. Ochoa is hereby found GUILTY beyond engaged by the accused when he does not raise any
objection to the counsels appointment during the course
reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation thru
of the investigation, and the accused thereafter subscribes
falsification of Commercial Document. to the veracity of the statement before the swearing
officer.

However, accused JOSE TING LAN UY, Jr. is hereby FACTS


ACQUITTED of Malversation of Public Funds thru
Falsification of Commercial Document. However, On 11 August 1999, an Information4 was filed before the
because of preponderance of evidence, he is CIVILLY RTC charging appellants with the special complex crime
LIABLE for the damages. of kidnapping for ransom with homicide.

Aggrieved, Ochoa interposed this appeal alleging that he


should be acquitted since his conviction was based on his
sworn statement, transcript of stenographic notes which the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and
are incompetent evidence. He contends that his sworn mutually helping one another and grouping themselves
statement was taken without the benefit of counsel, in together with Juanito Pataray y Cayaban, Federico
violation of his constitutional right under Section 12, Pataray y Cabayan and Rommel Libarnes y Acejo, who
Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
are still at large, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
ISSUE and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation and
with use of firearms, carry away and deprive Robert Yao,
Whether there was a violation of the invoked Yao San, Chua Ong Ping Sim, Raymond Yao, Ronald
constitutional right. Matthew Yao, Lennie Yao, Charlene Yao, Jona
Abagatnan ang Josephine Ortea against their will and
RULING consent on board their Mazda MVP van for the purpose
of extorting money in the amount of Five Million Pesos
The rights enumerated by the constitutional provision (P5,000,000.00), that during the detention of Chua Ong
invoked by accused-appellant are not available before Ping Sim and Raymong Yao, said accused with intent to
government investigators enter the picture. Neither does kill, willfully and unlawfully strangled Chua Ong Ping
the constitutional provision on custodial investigation Sim and Raymond Yao to death to the damage and
extends to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through prejudice of their heirs in such amount as may be awarded
questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary to them by this Honorable Court.
manner whereby the accused orally admits having
committed the crime, nor to a person undergoing an audit
examination because an audit examiner is not a law During their arraignment,5 appellants, assisted by a
enforcement officer. Thus, the flaw in appellants counsel de oficio, pleaded "Not guilty" to the charge. Trial
argument in this regard becomes immediately apparent on the merits thereafter followed.
vis--vis the foregoing legal yardsticks, considering that his
statement was taken during the administrative
investigation of NPCs audit team and before he was taken
into custody. As such, the inquest was still a general The prosecution presented as witnesses. Their
inquiry into an unsolved offense at the time and there was, testimonies, taken together, attest to the following:
as yet, no specific suspect.
The Yao family owns and operates a poultry farm in appellants. Robert also told Yao San that Chua Ong Ping
Barangay Santo Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Sim and Raymond were still held by appellants and their
cohorts
the Yao family, on board a Mazda MVP van, arrived at
the their poultry farm in Barangay Sto. Cristo, San Jose appellants called Yao San through a cellular phone and
del Monte, Bulacan. Yao San alighted from the van to demanded the ransom of P5 million for Chua Ong Ping
open the gate of the farm. At this juncture, appellant Sim and Raymond. Yao San acceded to appellants
Reyes and a certain Juanito Pataray (Pataray) approached, demand
poked their guns at Yao San, and dragged him inside the
van. Appellant Reyes and Pataray also boarded the van. appellants again called Yao San via a cellular phone and
Thereupon, appellants Arnaldo and Flores, with two male threatened to kill Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond
companions, all armed with guns, arrived and because of newspaper and radio reports regarding the
immediately boarded the van. Appellant Flores took the incident. Appellants then instructed Yao San to appear
drivers seat and drove the van. Appellants Reyes and and bring with him the ransom of P5 million. Yao San
Arnaldo and their cohorts then blindfolded each member arrived at the designated place of the pay-off at 4:00 p.m.,
of the Yao family inside the van with packaging tape. but none of the appellants or their cohorts showed up. Yao
San waited for appellants call, but none came. Thus, Yao
After about 30 minutes of traveling on the road, the van San left.
stopped. Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and Jona
Abagatnan (Abagatnan) stepped out of the van with the corpses of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were
appellants Reyes and Arnaldo, Pataray and one of their found at the La Mesa Dam, Novaliches, Quezon City.
male companions.7 Appellant Flores, with the other male Both died of asphyxia by strangulation.
companion, drove the van with the remaining members of Appellant Arnaldo surrendered to the Presidential Anti-
the Yao family inside the vehicle.
Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF). He identified
Later, the van stopped again. Appellant Flores and his appellants Reyes and Flores, Pataray and a certain Tata
male companion told Yao San to produce the amount of and Akey as his co-participants in the incident. Appellant
five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) as ransom in exchange Arnaldo also described the physical features of his cohorts
for the release of Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and revealed their whereabouts.
and Abagatnan. Upon sensing that the kidnappers had For its part, the defense presented the testimonies of
already left, Yao San drove the van towards the poultry appellants, Marina Reyes, Irene Flores Celestino,
farm and sought the help of relatives Wilfredo Celestino, Jr., Rachel C. Ramos, and Isidro
Arnaldo. Appellants denied any liability and interposed
alibis and the defense of frame-up.
appellants and their cohorts tried to contact Yao San
regarding the ransom demanded, but the latter could not After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision dated 26
be reached. Thus, appellants instructed Abagatnan to look February 2002 convicting appellants of the special
for Yao San in the poultry farm. complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide
and sentencing each of them to suffer the supreme penalty
Appellants Reyes and Arnaldo and one male companion of death. Appellants were also ordered to pay jointly and
escorted Abagatnan in proceeding to the poultry farm. severally the Yao family.
Upon arriving therein, Abagatnan searched for Yao San,
but the latter could not be found so they went back to the
safe-house.11 WHEREFORE, finding herein three (3) accused
In the safe-house, appellants told Robert that they would DOMINGO REYES y PAJE, ALVIN ARNALDO y
release him so he could help Abagatnan in locating Yao AVENA, and JOSELITO FLORES y VICTORIO guilty
San. Robert then ran towards the poultry farm. Upon as principals beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
arriving at the poultry farm, Robert found Yao San and KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WITH (DOUBLE)
informed him about the ransom demanded by the HOMICIDE as charged, they are hereby sentenced each
to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH as mandated by
law, to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Godinez behind him and Broniola behind
deceased Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond Yao Godinez. Godinez carried the money in a money bag
which he hung over his left shoulder.[5]

As the three were nearing the hacienda, the accused,


ISSUE armed with guns, block their path and ordered them to
Whether there was a violation of the constitutional rights stop. Godinez recognized the armed men because Nenito
of the appellants Melvida and Emerlindo Sequio used to work in the
hacienda while Vicente Tumangans parents were
Godinezs neighbors.[6]

RULING Serafin drove on, but as the motorcycle went past the
accused, he and Godinez heard a gunshot.[7] Godinez
NO. Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 noticed that Broniola had fallen off the
Constitution provides that an accused is entitled to have motorcycle. Serafin leapt from the motorcycle and ran
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. The phrase "preferably of his own choice" does away. The motorcycle toppled over Godinez, pinning him
not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a to the ground. Accused Tumangan, with gun in hand,
person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude approached Godinex, took the money from the money
other equally competent and independent attorneys from bag, and fled. Godinez ran home, leaving Broniola
handling the defense. A lawyer provided by the behind.[8] Meanwhile, Serafin had proceeded to the house
investigators is deemed engaged by the accused when he of the Broniolas which was near the crime scene, and
does not raise any objection to the counsels appointment
informed Broniolas wife of the incident.[9]
during the course of the investigation, and the accused
thereafter subscribes to the veracity of the statement SPO Elpidio Luna, received a report from another
before the swearing officer. Appellants Arnaldo and
Flores did not object to the appointment of Atty. Uminga policeman about a robbery. Together with other
and Atty. Rous as their lawyers, respectively, during their policemen and some Cafgus, Luna went to the crime
custodial investigation. Hence, appellants Arnaldo and scene he found an abandoned motorcycle. People around
Flores are deemed to have engaged the services of Atty. the site informed Luna that the culprit had already
Uminga and Atty. Rous, respectively fled. Luna noticed that the bushes were compressed and
found a piece of paper utilized as toilet paper with a stool
on it [which] was somewhat newly delivered. The paper
11) PEOPLE VS SEQUIO
was a bio-data sheetwith the name Melvida, Nenito and
FACTS the entry for the fathers name filled in with Elpidio
Melvida.
Accused-appellants Ermelito Sequio, Vicente Tumangan
and Nenito Melvida appeal from the decision of 24 One bystander volunteered to take Luna to Elpidio
February 1994 (promulgated on 1 March 1994) of the Melvidas house where, however, Elpidio told Luna that
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 21, in Nenito Melvida was not there but was at his (Nenitos)
Criminal Case No. CBU-22486, finding them guilty of the brothers house. Elpidio took Luna to the said house where
crime of robbery with homicide as charged in an Luna saw the accused Nenito Melvida playing cards with
information. other persons. Luna asked Melvida to go with him to the
barangay captains house.
on April 24, 1991, Eugenio Godinez, overseer since 1952
of Hacienda Jose Ancajas in Medellin, Cebu, and Pedro The barangay captain was not home, so Luna took
Broniola, the haciendas bookkeeper, went to the Medellin Melvida to the police station instead. Melvida was kept at
Rural Bank, located three kilometers from the hacienda, the station the whole evening of 24 April 1991 for
to withdraw P50,557.17 to pay for the wages of the investigation conducted, first, by Luna, then, by his fellow
hacienda workers. The banks cashier instructed Jimmy policemen Sgt. Pablo Ygot, Cpl. Alfredo Mondigo and
Serafin, janitor and motorcycle driver of the bank, to drive Eliseo Tepait, as Luna had to take his supper. Melvida
Godinez and Broniola back to the hacienda on one of the was allowed to go home the next day, but only after the
banks motorcycles. Serafin drove the motorcycle with police had filed criminal charges against him and he had
posted bail. Melvida was not assisted by counsel during and P9,000.00, no evidence was adduced how and from
the police investigation, although Luna assured the trial whom it was recovered. Police officer Mariano Remulta
judge that the Municipal Mayor of Medellin, who is a merely declared that the P26,526.00 was entrusted to him
lawyer, was present, While Luna claimed he asked the by the station commander who told him that the amount
Mayor to act as Melvidas counsel, he admitted that his was recovered in connection with the highway robbery
request did not appear in the record of the case.[42]
investigation. Lunas investigation of Melvida was not
reduced into writing.[13] Since the recovery of P9,000.00 from Melvida was due to
his admission in the course of the custodial interrogation
In the course of Lunas investigation, Melvida admitted made in violation of paragraph (1) of Section 12, Article
that he kept his share the loot in his house. Melvida then III of the Constitution and thus inadmissible in evidence
was brought to his house where he got P9,000.00, in one pursuant to paragraph (3) of the said section then
hundred peso bills, placed inside a shoe which he the P9,000.00 cannot also be admitted in evidence as a
delivered to the policemen.[14] fruit of the poisonous tree.The rule is settled that once
the primary source (the tree) is shown to have been
During the investigation, Melvida admitted that his unlawfully obtained -- as the admission of Melvida in this
(Melvidas) companions during the robbery were Vicente case -- any secondary or derivative evidence (the fruit)
Tumangan and Ermelindo Sequio, who were staying in derived from it - - the P9,000.00 obtained from Melvida
the house of Juanito Hones. Immediately, Mondigo and as a consequence of his admission - - is also inadmissible.
policeman Proniely Artiquela proceeded to the house of
Hones where they saw Tumangan and Sequio on the The statement of the trial court may, be considered mere
porch. Noticing something bulging on the waist of surplusage since, in the final analysis, it did not take into
Tumangan, Mondigo and Artiquela approached account against the accused whatever admission they
Tumangan and asked him what was that bulging at his made during police interrogation. We need to elaborate,
waist. Tumangan did not answer. So, Mondigo patted the however, why such admissions are inadmissible in
bulge which turned out to be a .38 caliber Squires evidence.
Bingham revolver with holster and four bullets.[16] When
asked if he had a license for the firearm, Tumangan Regardless of Lunas claim to the contrary, accused Nenito
answered in the negative. Mondigo and Artiquela then Melvida was arrested. An arrest is the taking of a person
brought Tumangan and Sequio to the police into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for
station. Tumangan was then investigated in the presence the commission of an offense,and it is made by an actual
of the Municipal mayor. Tumangan admitted that he was restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission
one of the holdupppers.[17] to the custody of the person making the arrest. Melvidas
voluntarily going with Luna upon invitation was a
ISSUE: submission to Lunas custody, and Luna believed that
Melvida was a suspect in the robbery charged herein,
Fourth assignment of error is when it failed to consider hence, Melvida was being held to answer for the
the non-observance of the constitution in the investigation commission of the said offense.
with the accused by the police, as when the court says the
court, however, must express its dismay over the Since he was arrested without a warrant, the inquiry must
questionable methods by the police officers concerned now be whether a valid warrantless arrest was
mocked the constitution, which they themselves have effected. Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
sworn to honor and revere, when they did not remind the provides:
accused of their right to remain silent and to be assisted
by counsel Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful . -- A
peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
RULING arrest a person:

What was recovered from accused Melvida (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
was P9,000.00 which, he admitted, was his share of the committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
loot.[41] As to the difference between P22,526.00 commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and 12) PEOPLE VS CHAVEZ
he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it; FACTS

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has In the information dated November 8, 2006, Mark Jason
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is Chavez y Bitancor (Chavez) was charged with the crime
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his of robbery with homicide:
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred That on or about October 28, 2006, in the City of Manila,
from one confinement to another. Philippines, the said accused, did then and there wilfully,
The first and last conditions enumerated above are not unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and means
applicable in this case; and under the facts herein, neither of force, violence and intimidation upon the person of
does the second condition apply. Lunas basis for arresting ELMER DUQUE y OROS, by then and there, with intent
Melvida was the bio-data sheet with Melvidas name on it to kill, stabbing the latter repeatedly with a kitchen knife,
found at the crime scene. By no means can this indicate thereby inflicting upon him mortal stab wounds which
that Melvida committed the offense charged. It does not were the direct and immediate cause of his death
even connote that Melvida was at the crime scene for the thereafter, and on the saidoccasion or by reason thereof,
bio-data sheet could have been obtained by anyone and accused took, robbed and carried away the following:
left at the crime scene long before or after the crime was One (1) Unit Nokia Cellphone; One (1) Unit Motorola
committed. Luna, thus, had no personal knowledge of
Cellphone; Six (6) pcs. Ladies Ring; Two (2) pcs.
facts indicating Melvidas guilt; at best, he had an Necklace; One (1) pc. Bracelet All of undetermined value
unreasonable suspicion. Melvidas arrest was thus illegal. and undetermined amount of money, all belonging to said
After his unlawful arrest, Melvida underwent custodial ELMER DUQUE y OROS @ BARBIE to the damage and
investigation. The custodial investigation commenced prejudice of the said owner/or his heirs, in the said
when the police pinpointed Melvida as one of the authors undetermined amount in Philippines currency.
of the crime or had focused on him as a suspect
On October 28, 2006, Peamante arrived home at around
thereof.[46] This brought into operation paragraph (1) of 2:45 a.m., coming from work.When he was about to go
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution guaranteeing the inside his house at 1326 Tuazon Street, Sampaloc,
accuseds rights to remain silent and to counsel. And his Manila, he saw a person wearing a black, long-sleeved
right to be informed of these rights.[47] The said paragraph shirt and black pants and holding something while leaving
provides: the house/parlor of Elmer Duque (Barbie).
SEC. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the There was a light at the left side of the house/parlor of
commission of an offense shall have the right to be Barbie, his favorite haircutter, so Peamante stated that he
informed of his right to remain silent and to have was able to see the face of Chavez and the clothes he was
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own wearing.6
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel
he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be Sometime after 10:00 a.m., the Scene of the Crime Office
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (SOCO) team arrived, led by PCI Cayrel. The team noted
that the lobby and the parlor were in disarray, and they
There was no showing that Melvida was ever informed of found Barbies dead body inside.12 They took
these rights, and Luna admitted that Melvida was not photographs and collected fingerprints and other pieces of
assigned by counsel during the evidence such as the 155 pieces of hair strands found
investigation. Indisputably, the police officers concerned clutched in Barbies left hand.
flouted these constitutional rights of Melvida and
Tumangan and deliberately disregarded the rule regarding At around 11:00 a.m., Peamantes landlady woke him up
an investigators duties prior to and during custodial and told him that Barbie was found dead at 9:00 a.m. He
interrogation laid down in Morales vs. Enrile[48] and then informed his landlady that he saw Chavez leaving
reiterated in a catena of subsequent cases. Barbies house at 2:45 a.m.15
Dr. Salen conducted an autopsy on the body and found him."74 Thus, when a person has possession of a stolen
that the time of death was approximately 12 hours prior to property, hecan be disputably presumed as the author of
examination.16 There were 22 injuries on Barbies body the theft.75
21 were stab wounds in various parts of the body
caused by a sharp bladed instrument, and one incised Barbies missing cellular phones were turned over to the
wound was caused by a sharp object.17 Four (4) of the stab police by Chavezs mother, and this was never denied by
wounds were considered fatal.18 the defense.Chavez failed to explain his possession of
these cellular phones.The Court of Appeals discussed that
The next day, the police invited Peamante to the Manila "a cellular phone has become a necessary accessory, no
Police Station to give a statement. Peamante described person would part with the same for a long period of time,
to SPO3 Casimiro the physical appearance of the person especially in this case as it involves an expensive cellular
he saw leaving Barbies parlor.19 phone unit, as testified by Barbies kababayan, witness
Raymond Seno[f]a."78
Accompanied by his mother, Chavez voluntarily
surrendered to SPO3 Casimiro at the police However, with Chavez and Barbies close relationship
station.20 Chavez was then 22 years old.21 His mother told having been established, there is still a possibilitythat
the police that she wanted to help her son who might be these cellphones were lent to Chavez by Barbie.
involved in Barbies death.
The integrity of these cellphones was also compromised
SPO3 Casimiro informed them ofthe consequences in when SPO3 Casimiro testified during cross-examination
executing a written statement without the assistance of a that the police made no markings on the cellphones, and
lawyer. However, Chavezs mother still gave her their SIM cards were removed.
statement, subscribed by Administrative Officer Alex
Francisco.23She also surrendered two cellular phones The other missing items were no longer found, and no
owned by Barbie and a baseball cap owned by Chavez.24 evidence was presented to conclude that these weretaken
by Chavez. The statement of Chavezs mother mentioned
The next day, Peamante was again summoned by SPO3 that her son pawned one of Barbies necklaces is mere
Casimiro to identify from a line-up the person he saw hearsay.
leaving Barbies house/parlor that early morning of
October 28, 2006.25 Peamante immediately pointed to It is contrary to human nature for a mother to voluntarily
and identified Chavez and thereafter executed his written surrender her own son and confess that her son committed
statement.26 There were no issues raised in relation to the a heinous crime.
line-up. Chavez was 22 years old, no longer a minor, when he
On the other hand, Chavez explained that he was athome voluntarily went to the police station on November 5,
on October 27, 2006, exchanging text messages 2006 for investigation,83 and his mother accompanied
withBarbie on whether they could talk regarding their him. SPO3 Casimiro testified that the reason she
misunderstanding.27 According to Chavez, Barbie surrendered Chavez was because "she wanted to help her
suspected that he was having a relationship with Barbies son"84 and "perhaps the accused felt that [the investigating
boyfriend, Maki.28 When Barbie did not reply to his text police] are getting nearer to him.
message, Chavez decided to go to Barbies house at Chavezs mother "turned-over (2) units of Cellular-
around 1:00 a.m. of October 28, 2006.29 Barbie allowed phones and averred that her son Mark Jason told her that
him to enter the house, and he went home after. said cellphones belong[ed] to victim Barbie. . . [that]
RULING NOY was wounded in the incident and that the fatal
weapon was put in a manhole infront[sic] of their
There is a disputable presumption that "a person found in residence."87 The records are silent on whether Chavez
possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent objected to his mothers statements. The records also do
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; not show why the police proceeded to get his mothers
otherwise, thatthing which a person possesses, or testimony as opposed to getting Chavezs testimony on
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by his voluntary surrender.
At most, the lower court found thatChavezs mother was task of scrutinizing individual cases to try to determine,
informed by the investigating officer at the police station after the fact, whether particular confessions were
of the consequences in executing a written statement voluntary. Those purposes are implicated as much by in-
withoutthe assistance of a lawyer.88 She proceeded to give custody questioning of persons suspected of
her statement dated November 7, 2006 on her sons misdemeanours as they are by questioning of persons
confession of the crime despite the warning. suspected of felonies.95 (Emphasis supplied)

The booking sheet and arrest report states that "when [the Republic Act No. 743896 expanded the definition of
accused was] appraised [sic] of his constitutional rights custodial investigation to "include the practice ofissuing
and nature of charges imputed against him, accused opted an invitation to a person who is investigated in
to remain silent."91 This booking sheet and arrest report is connection with an offense he is suspected to have
also dated November 7, 2006, or two days after Chavez, committed, without prejudice to the liability of the
accompanied by his mother, had voluntarily gone to the inviting officer for any violation of law."97
police station.
This means that even those who voluntarily surrendered
The right to counsel upon being questioned for the before a police officer must be apprised of their Miranda
commission of a crime is part of the Miranda rights, which rights. For one, the same pressures of a custodial setting
require that: exist in this scenario. Chavez is also being questioned by
an investigating officer ina police station. As an additional
. . . (a) any person under custodial investigation has the pressure, he may have been compelled to surrender by his
right to remain silent; (b) anything he says can and will be mother who accompanied him to the police station.
used against him in a court of law; (c) he has the right
totalk to an attorney before being questioned and to have This court, thus, finds that the circumstantial evidence
his counsel present when being questioned; and (d) if he sufficiently proves beyond reasonable doubt that Chavez
cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any is guilty of the crime of homicide, and not the special
questioning if he so desires.92 complex crime of robbery with homicide.

The Miranda rightswere incorporated in our Constitution Finally, this court laments thatobject evidence retrieved
but were modified to include the statement thatany waiver from the scene of the crime were not properly handled,
of the right to counsel must be made "in writing and in the and no results coming from the forensic examinations
presence of counsel."93 were presented to the court. There was no examination of
the fingerprints found on the kitchen knife retrieved from
The invocation of these rights applies during custodial the manhole near the house of Chavez.100 There were no
investigation, which begins "when the police results of the DNA examination done on the hair strands
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an found with the knife and those in the clutches of the
unsolved crime but has begun tofocus on a particular victim. Neither was there a comparison made between
suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the these strands of hair and Chavezs. There was no report
interrogation and propounds questions to the person to regarding any finding of traces of blood on the kitchen
elicit incriminating statements."94 knife recovered, and no matching with the blood of the
It may appear that the Miranda rightsonly apply when one victim or Chavezs. The results of this case would have
is "taken into custody by the police," such as during an been rendered with more confidence at the trial court level
arrest. These rights are intended to protect ordinary had all these been done. In many cases, eyewitness
citizens from the pressures of a custodial setting: testimony may not be as reliable or would have been
belied had object evidence been properly handled and
The purposes of the safeguards prescribed by Miranda are presented.
to ensure that the police do not coerce or trick captive
suspects into confessing, to relieve the "inherently We deal with the life of a personhere. Everyones life
compelling pressures" "generated by the custodial setting whether it be the victims or the accuseds is valuable.
The Constitution and our laws hold these lives in high
itself," "which work to undermine the individuals will to
resist," and as much as possible to free courts from the esteem. Therefore, investigations such as these should
have been attended with greaterprofessionalism and more
dedicated attention to detail by our law enforcers. The Sorela allegedly confessed having been with
quality of every conviction depends on the evidence Deosdedit Bagon in the evening after some marketing.
gathered, analyzed, and presented before the courts. The They were met by Romulo Villarojo and Leonardo
Cademas, Sorela's co-accused, who led them to a secluded
publics confidence on our criminal justice system
place in the ricefields.
depends on the quality of the convictions we promulgate
against the accused. All those who participate in our It was then that Villarojo allegedly attacked Bagon
criminal justice system should realize this and take this to with a bolo, hacking him at several parts of the body until
heart. he, Bagon, was dead. Moments later, Sorela fled, running
into thick cogon grasses where he suffered facial and
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is bodily scratches.
MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Mark Jason Chavez y
Bitancor alias "Noy" is hereby declared GUILTYbeyond 4. The police soon picked up Villarojo and Cademas.
reasonable doubt of the separate and distinct crime of Together with Sorela, they were turned over to the
HOMICIDE. Inasmuch as the commission of the crime custody of Captain Encabo.
was not attended by any aggravating or mitigating
5. The police thereafter made the three re-enact the
circumstances, accused-appellant Chavez is hereby crime. Patrolman Dionisio Capito directed Sorela to lead
SENTENCEDto suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging them to the grounds where Deosdedit Bagon was
from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as supposed to have been buried. But it was Villarojo who
minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of escorted them to a watery spot somewhere in the
reclusion temporal, as maximum ricefields, where the sack-covered, decomposing cadaver
of Bagon lay in a shallow grave.
13) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, VS. ANACLETO Q. OLVIS, 6. The body was transported to the municipal hall
ACQUITTED, ROMULO VILLAROJO, the following day. It was displayed, morbidly, in front of
LEONARDO CADEMAS AND DOMINADOR the building where Mrs. Catalina Bagon, widow of the
SORELA deceased, and her four children viewed it. (It was
photographed)
G.R. No. 71092, September 30, 1987
7. The "ceremonies" continued in the parish church
where the body of the victim was transferred. It was laid
FACTS:
on the altar, in full public view. (It was also photographed)
1. Deosdedit Bagon had been in fact missing since
two days before. He was last seen by his wife in the 8. But it was only later on that the body itself was
afternoon on his way home. She did not, however, find uncovered from the sack that had concealed it.
him there when she arrived in the evening. Thereupon, it was readied for autopsy.

2. It was Captain Encabo himself who led a search 9. Initial findings of investigators disclosed that the
party to mount an inquiry. Captain Encabo's men chanced threesome of Solera, Villarojo, and Cademas executed
upon an unnamed volunteer, who informed them that Deosdedit Bagon on orders of Anacleto Olvis, then
Deosdedit Bagon was last seen together with Dominador municipal mayor, for a reward of P3,000.00 each.
Sorela, one of the accused. Encabo then instructed one of
his patrolmen to pick up Sorela. 10. While in custody, the three executed five separate
written confessions each.
3. Sorela bore several scratches on his face, neck, and
arms when the police found him. According to him, he The first confessions were taken on September 9,
sustained those wounds while clearing his ricefield. 1975 in the local Philippine Constabulary headquarters. -
Apparently unconvinced, Captain Encabo had Sorela take accused pointed to the then accused Anacleto Olvis as
them to the ricefield where he sustained his injuries. But principal by inducement, who allegedly promised them a
half way there, Sorela allegedly broke down, and, in what reward of P3,000.00 each.
would apparently crack the case for the police, admitted
having participated in the killing of the missing Bagon. The second were made before the Polanco police.
On September 18, 1975, the three accused reiterated appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee
the same confessions before the National Bureau of himself or by anyone on his behalf.)(people vs galit)
Investigation Dipolog City sub-office. - they categorically
denied Olvis' involvement in the killing. The defendant, may waive effectuation of those
rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily,
On September 21, 1975 and September 25, 1975, knowingly and intelligently. - No effective waiver of the
they executed two confessions more, again before the right to counsel during interrogation can be recognized
Philippine Constabulary and the police of Polanco - where unless specifically made after the warnings we here
the said accused again pointed to the then accused delineate have been given.
Anacleto Olvis as principal by inducement, who allegedly
promised them a reward of P3,000.00 each. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any
stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an
11. Based on these subsequent statements, the trial attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning.
rendered separate verdicts on the three accused on the one
hand, and Anacleto Olvis on the other. Olvis was Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in
acquitted, while the three were all sentenced to die for the any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the
crime of murder. police may not question him.

Contentions: The mere fact that he may have answered some


questions or volunteered some statements on his own does
The accused-appellants subsequenty repudiated their not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any
alleged confessions in open court alleging threats by the further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney
Polanco investigators of physical harm if they refused to and thereafter consent to be questioned.
"cooperate" in the solution of the case. They likewise
alleged that they were instructed by the Polanco police
investigators to implicate Anacleto Olvis in the case. They
insisted on their innocence. The accused Romulo Like the Decierdo confessions, the confessions in the
Villarojo averred, specifically, that it was the deceased case at bar suffer from a Constitutional infirmity. In their
who had sought to kill him, for which he acted in self- supposed statements dated September 9, 14, and 21, 1975,
defense. the accused-appellants were not assisted by counsel when
they "waived" their rights to counsel. As we said in
ISSUE: Decierdo, the lack of counsel "makes those statements, in
contemplation of law, involuntary,' even if it were
Whether or not the confessions are admissible as otherwise voluntary, technically."
evidence in court
RE-ENACTMENT
RULING:
Forced re-enactments, like uncounselled and coerced
The three accused- appellants' extrajudicial confessions come within the ban against self-
confessions are inadmissible in evidence. incrimination. The 1973 Constitution, the Charter
prevailing at the time of the proceedings below, says: "No
The rule with respect to extrajudicial confessions person shall be compelled to be a witness against
were laid down in People v. Decierdo,: himself."

Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned This constitutional privilege has been defined as a
that protection against testimonial compulsion, but this has
since been extended to any evidence "communicative in
(1) he has a right to remain silent, nature" acquired under circumstances of duress.
Essentially, the right is meant to "avoid and prohibit
(2) that any statement he does make may be used as positively the repetition and recurrence of the certainly
evidence against him, and inhuman procedure of compelling a person, in a criminal
or any other case, to furnish the missing evidence
(3) that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, necessary for his conviction."
either retained or appointed. (presence of counsel engaged
by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or
This should be distinguished, parenthetically, from was filed, and only after they had gone to court on an
mechanical acts the accused is made to execute not meant application for habeas corpus. For if the authorities truly
to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical had a case in their hands, we are puzzled why they, the
attributes determinable by simple observation. accused, had to be made to suffer preventive
imprisonment for quite an enormous length of time.
This includes requiring the accused to submit to a test
to extract virus from his body, or compelling him to ADJUDICATION
expectorate morphine from his mouth, or making her
submit to a pregnancy test or a footprinting test, or The accused-appellants Leonardo Cademas and
requiring him to take part in a police lineup in certain Dominador Sorela are ACQUITTED on the ground of
cases. In each case, the accused does not speak his guilt. reasonable doubt. The accused-appellant Romulo
It is not a prerequisite therefore that he be provided with Villarojo is found guilty of homicide.
the guiding hand of counsel.

But a forced re-enactment is quite another thing. 14) PEOPLE VS. CAYAGO
Here, the accused is not merely required to exhibit some
physical characteristics; by and large, he is made to admit 312 SCRA 623 (1999)
criminal responsibility against his will. It is a police
procedure just as condemnable as an uncounselled
confession. FACTS:
For killing his own wife through strangulation and
Accordingly, we hold that all evidence based on such with evident premeditation, appellant was indicted for
a re-enactment to be in violation of the Constitution and parricide. He was tried and subsequently sentenced to die
hence, incompetent evidence. and ordered to pay damages to the victims heirs. The
lower court judge, after making a twelve page summary
Sorela's admission while with Captain Encabo of the testimonies of the witnesses, arrived at a conclusion
that appellant is guilty of parricide, in just one short
What is to be borne in mind is that Sorela was paragraph, which reads:
himself under custody. Any statement he might have
made thereafter is therefore subject to the Constitutional After considering the prosecution and the defense
guaranty. evidence, the Court is convinced that the version of the
defense is not credible. In his redirect examination, he
By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning admitted that his wife was reported missing as embodied
initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has in his first sworn statement, which had been marked in
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his evidence as Exhibit K. Said sworn statement is entirely
freedom of action in any significant way. wrong because his wife was not missing as mentioned by
the accused, but killed her. In the said first statement to
Chavez v. Court of Appeals tells us: the police, he merely wanted to mislead the police by
concocting a lie that his wife is missing, when in truth and
Compulsion as it is understood here does not in fact, he had killed her and left her at the comfort room
necessarily connote the use of violence; it may be the of the abandoned barangay hall, already lifeless.
product of unintentional statements. Pressure which
operates to overbear his will, disable him from making a Culled from the evidence on record are the following
free and rational choice, or impair his capacity for rational facts which was condensed in the Appellees Brief, to wit:
judgment would in our opinion be sufficient. So is moral
coercion "tending to force testimony from the unwilling At about 1:25 oclock in the afternoon of August 2,
lips of the defendant." 1995, SPO2 Belino Zinampan, Jr. was at the police
headquarters at Pasig City where he received the report of
In such a case, he should have been provided with Rolando Cayago that he saw the decomposing body of his
counsel. wife at the abandoned barangay hall of Santolan, Pasig
City.
DELAY
Zinampan, SPO2 Antonio Paulite, a police
Indeed, the three accused-appellants had languished photographer and Cayago proceeded to the said
in jail for one year and two months before the information abandoned barangay hall to verify the report.
Thereat, the group saw the dead and decomposing In his testimony, appellant claims that he embraced
body of a woman. Zinampan requested Cayago to identify his wife so tight but did not notice she had stopped
the body and on recognizing the shoes worn by the breathing due to the tightness of the embrace.
deceased, let out a loud cry and thereafter lost
consciousness for about five minutes. He admitted that in an attempt to confuse authorities
as to the true cause of his wifes death, appellant removed
Thereafter, Cayago, in answer to Zinampans all her clothing including her panty and bra to make it
question, answered that he does not know who killed his appear that she was raped. This shows the probability that
wife. Zinampan and Cayago then returned to the police the victim sustained injuries in her vaginal opening and
headquarters where the latters statement was taken by the lacerations in her uterus, as found in the autopsy report.
former.
ISSUE: W/N Appellants statement is inadmissible
At the time Cayagos statement was being taken, because it was given without affording him the right to
Police Sr. Inspector Pajota noticed Cayagos several counsel.
inconsistent statements. Pajota subsequently instructed
Zinampan, SPO2 Paulite and SPO2 Delos Reyes to RULING: NO.
further interrogate Cayago and, who, thereafter concluded
that Cayago was reluctant and inconsistent in answering Appellants contention that the statement he gave to the
our simple questions. Pajota then advised Cayago to police is inadmissible in evidence because it was given
undergo a polygraph examination at Camp Crame.
without affording him the right to counsel guaranteed by
the Constitution has no merit.
On August 3, 1995, when Cayago was about to be
brought to Camp Crame for a polygraph test, he requested
It is undisputed that appellant was not arrested because the
permission to go to the nearby church. Cayago requested
that he be accompanied by SPO2 Delos Reyes, who authorities were not yet aware of the crime. It was he
agreed. himself who reported the incident to the police after he
went to the abandoned barangay hall two days later and
Thereat, Cayago admitted to SPO2 Delos Reyes that discovered that his wifes body was still there.
he killed his wife Myra Cayago and was willing to give
his statement relative to said killing. SPO2 Delos Reyes Appellant himself admitted that since he did not know
and Cayago returned to the police station and upon such what to do after seeing his wifes relatives whom he
information, Sr. Inspector Pajota instructed Zinampan to feared for reprisal, he decided to report the matter to the
secure a lawyer to assist Cayago. Zinampan then Pasig police. The right to counsel is afforded by Section
requested Atty. Reynario Campanilla, who agreed to
12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution only to
assist Cayago. Atty. Campanilla conferred with Cayago at
the Office of the Investigation Division. person(s) under investigation for the commission of an
offense. On their way to Camp Crame, appellant asked
After apprising Cayago of his constitutional rights, that he be accompanied by an officer to the Pasig Church.
Cayago admitted that he killed his wife. Atty. Campanilla There, he volunteered information to the officer on the
then advised Cayago to personally write down his whereabouts of his wife and stated that he is willing to put
confession which Cayago did for about an hour in the his statement in writing. Custodial rights of a person are
presence of Atty. Campanilla. Thereafter, with the aid of
not available whenever he volunteers statements without
a tape recorder, requested Cayago to read his admission.
being asked. He was not investigated by the authorities.
After informing Cayago of his constitutional rights In fact, after appellant admitted to the police officer that
against self-incrimination, SPO2 Delos Reyes started
taking down Cayagos extra-judicial confession again in he killed his wife, the officer told him that he will be
the presence of Atty. Campanilla and who signed said provided with a lawyer to assist him. In any case, during
statement together with Cayago. the subsequent events the investigation in the precinct -
appellant was assisted by a lawyer, namely, Atty.
In the case at bar, it is clear that appellant Campanilla.
strangulated his wife resulting to her death. This is
supported by appellants own testimony, his confession to At the trial, the latter testified that he talked to appellant,
the police and the medical findings corroborating that she advised him of his constitutional rights and was present
died of asphyxia by strangulation. when the latter wrote his extrajudicial statement admitting
that he killed his wife. Atty. Campanilla even asked for that the victim is appellant's lawful wife and that he
appellants identification card to verify whether the strangulated her resulting to her death. The Court found
signature he will sign in his statement is his own. no merit in appellant's contention that his extrajudicial
statement was inadmissible in evidence.
WHEREFORE, appellants conviction for parricide is The right to counsel is afforded only to person(s)
AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that the under investigation for the commission of an
penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. He is also offense. Appellant volunteered the information to the
ORDERED TO PAY P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the officer as to the whereabouts of his wife. Custodial rights
children of the victim, in addition to the award of of a person are not available whenever he volunteers
P26,000.00 as actual damages. The award of moral statements without being asked.
damages is deleted for lack of evidence. The Court, however, did not agree with the
imposition of the death penalty. Parricide is punishable
with reclusion perpetua to death. The higher penalty of
death may be imposed only if there is an aggravating
SYNOPSIS (PEOPLE VS. CAYAGO) circumstance that concurs in the commission of the
crime.
The Court found no sufficient evidence to prove that
Appellant and his wife went to his aunt at about 11
appellant took advantage of nighttime and uninhabited
oclock in the evening to borrow money, but was ashamed
place to consummate the crime. Thus, pursuant to Article
to wake her up because it was already to late in the night.
63 of the revised Penal Code, when the penalty provided
Unable to get the money, his wife started pushing him
for by law are two indivisible penalties and there is neither
asking him to produce the money. He then invited her to
mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the lower
the abandoned barangay hall to talk. There she kept on
penalty shall be imposed. Forthwith, the death penalty
pushing him. He embraced her so tight that she suddenly
imposed by the court a quo was reduced to the indivisible
died.
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Two days later appellant reported the incident to the
police after he went to the abandoned barangay hall and
discovered that his wife's body was still there. When CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS;
appellant was about to be brought to Camp Crame for RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED; CUSTODIAL
polygraph test, he asked that he be accompanied by an RIGHTS; NOT AVAILABLE WHENEVER
officer to the nearby church. There, he admitted to the ACCUSED VOLUNTEERS STATEMENTS
police officer that he killed his wife and was willing to WITHOUT BEING ASKED.- Appellants contention
give his statement relative to the said killing. that the statement he gave to the police is inadmissible in
evidence because it was given without affording him the
During the investigation, appellant was assisted by
right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution has no
a lawyer who advised him of his constitutional rights. The
merit.
lawyer was present when appellant wrote his extrajudicial
statement admitting that he killed his wife. Thereafter, It is undisputed that appellant was not arrested
appellant was indicted for parricide for killing his own because the authorities were not yet aware of the crime. It
wife through strangulation and with evident was he himself who reported the incident to the police
premeditation. after he went to the abandoned barangay hall two days
later and discovered that his wifes body was still there.
He was tried and subsequently found guilty of the
crime charged.Appellant was sentenced to the penalty of Appellant himself admitted that since he did not
death and ordered to pay actual and moral damages to the know what to do after seeing his wifes relatives whom he
victim's heirs. The Solicitor General recommended the feared for reprisal, he decided to report the matter to the
affirmance of the sentence arguing that the aggravating Pasig police.
circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place
concurred in the killing. Appellant, on the other hand, The right to counsel is afforded by Section 12(1),
alleged that the statement he gave to the police was Article III of the 1987 Constitution only to person(s)
inadmissible because it was given without affording him under investigation for the commission of an offense.
the right to counsel. On their way to Camp Crame, appellant asked that
The Supreme Court affirmed appellant's conviction he be accompanied by an officer to the Pasig Church.
for parricide with modification as to the penalty imposed There, he volunteered information to the officer on the
and as to the award of damages. It was clearly established
whereabouts of his wife and stated that he is willing to put Whether the respondent judge is correct in
his statement in writing. making inadmissible as evidence the admission and
statement of accused.
Custodial rights of a person are not available
whenever he volunteers statements without being asked.
Ruling:
He was not investigated by the authorities.
In fact, after appellant admitted to the police officer NO. It is clear that Felipe Ramos was not in any sense
that he killed his wife, the officer told him that he will be under custodial interrogation, as the term should be
provided with a lawyer to assist him. In any case, during properly understood, prior to and during the
the subsequent events - the investigation in the precinct - administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in
appellant was assisted by a lawyer, namely, Atty.
ticket sales in which he appeared to have had a hand. The
Campanilla.
constitutional rights of a person under custodial
At the trial, the latter testified that he talked to interrogation under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
appellant, advised him of his constitutional rights and was Constitution did not therefore come into play, were of no
present when the latter wrote his extrajudicial statement
relevance to the inquiry. It is also clear, too, that Ramos
admitting that he killed his wife.
had voluntarily answered questions posed to him on the
Atty. Campanilla even asked for appellants first day of the administrative investigation and agreed
identification card to verify whether the signature he will that the proceedings should be recorded. The answer to
sign in his statement is his own.
the questions posed to him was a free and even
spontaneous act on his part. They may not be excluded on
the ground that the so-called "Miranda rights" had not
15) PEOPLE VS AYSON
been accorded to Ramos
Custodial interrogation means questioning
initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way.

Facts:

Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the


Philippine Airlines, assigned at its Baguio City station. It
was alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the
sales of plane tickets, the PAL management notified him
of an investigation to be conducted. That investigation
was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct
and Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement
signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees'
Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. The
findings of the Audit team were given to him and he
refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets. Two months
after, a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos.
Ramos pleaded not guilty. Evidence by the prosecution
contained Ramos written admission and statement, to
which defendants argued that the confession was taken
without the accused being represented by a lawyer.
Respondent Judge did not admit those stating that accused
was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain
silent and to have counsel. A motion for reconsideration
filed by the prosecutors was denied. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
C. COUNSEL COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT Patungan, the sister of the deceased, who testified that her
sister-in-law, the accused Marietta Patungan, had an affair
16) PEOPLE VS PATUNGAN with one of the helpers in the flower shop, who is her own
cousin Jun Acebuche. Thus, witness stated that she saw
FACTS the two eating together from the same plate and that she
At about 10:00 p.m. of May 22, 1994, Antonio caught them holding hands. One time she saw Jun kiss
Altarejos and his girlfriend Antonia Eluzon with a few Marietta. Her brother allegedly found out about the affair
other friends were having a drinking spree beside the and dismissed Jun from work but he forgave Marietta for
chapel along Laura Calderon St., Purok 2, Barangay Old the sake of their children.[8]
Balara, Quezon City. Antonio and Antonia noticed the
van of their neighbor Alejandro Patungan parked in front The mother of the victim testified to establish the amount
of the chapel and saw two men seated inside, one is the
of funeral expenses incurred at P80,000.00, which amount
accused Elmerto Pulga at the drivers seat and the other is
the accused Edgar Acebuche.[1] Sometime that the defense admitted.[9]
evening Elmerto Pulga drove the van away from the
chapel and towards a vacant lot near Commonwealth For the defense, accused Marietta Patungan admitted in
Avenue to allow another car to park right in front of the court that she was with her husband at early dawn of May
chapel. After the drinking spree, at about 3:00 to 3:30 23, 1994 and were on their way to buy flowers for their
a.m., the following morning, the lovers Antonio and flower shop but she went back to their house to get a
Antonia went to the basketball court to talk. Moments betamax tape and that her husband proceeded without
later they saw Alejandro Patungan and his wife Marietta her.[10] On August 9, 1994 she was invited by the police
come out of their house and walk toward the
for questioning and that she was in fact questioned about
road. Marietta however, went back to their house while
Alejandro proceeded without her.[2] her complicity in her husbands death at the police station
without the assistance of counsel.[11] The other accused
At about 3:45 p.m. of May 24, 1994, the Edgar Acebuche denied participation in the murder of the
decomposing body of Alejandro Patungan was found
victim and stated that sometime on August 8, 1994 he
inside his van parked along Don Quixote St. Sampaloc,
Manila. The body was bloated and in the state of went to his cousin Mariettas flower shop in Cubao to look
decomposition. The face was dark colored, eyeballs, for a job when the police mistook him for Jun Acebuche
bulging, tongue half protruding and thick upper and lower and arrested him. He was also subjected to custodial
lips. Bullae formation in the chest, abdomen and investigation without the assistance of counsel.[12]
extremities with greenish discoloration in the inguinal
regions spreading towards the abdomen. The abdomen In court, accused Elmerto Pulga repudiated his extra-
was distended with gas judicial confession and stated that he was coerced by the
On August 16, 1994 an Information was filed against police to admit participation in the murder of Alejandro
Marietta Patungan for parricide and against Elmerto Pulga Patungan and to implicate his sister Marietta as
and Edgar Acebuche for murder mastermind and cousin Edgar as co-conspirator. He
narrated that he was arrested at around 9 a.m., August 9,
In addition to the testimonies of Antonio and Antonia, the 1994 and that he was detained and tortured by
prosecution presented the extra-judicial confession of the electrocution by the police until the following day, August
accused Elmerto Pulga, the testimonies of the police 10, 1994, when he agreed to sign a prepared
officers who took the statement, of the lawyer from the document. On August 11, 1994 he was brought to the IBP
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Quezon City Chapter, office where he met Atty. Rudio who signed the prepared
Atty. Pedro Rudio, who allegedly assisted the accused extra-judicial confession as counsel for the accused.[13] A
Elmerto Pulga during the custodial investigation and of motion to withdraw the plea of not guilty to the offense
the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy. The charged to a plea of guilty to a lesser offense i.e.,
extra-judicial confession[6] of accused Elmerto Pulga homicide, was filed by counsel for the accused. The trial
dated August 11, 1994 linked Marietta to the killing of her court denied the motion and treated it instead as a motion
husband. to recall the accused Elmerto Pulga for further
testimony.[14] On recall, accused Elmerto Pulga,
To establish the alleged motive in the killing of
admitted stabbing the deceased three times until he fell
Alejandro, the prosecution also presented Adelaida
unconscious, after which he lost control of himself and
stabbed the victim some more. He found a rope and pulled start thereof[17] The presence of counsel is intended to
the victim by the neck to the back of the van. He stated secure the voluntariness of the extra-judicial
that he alone was responsible for the death of his brother- confession.[18] The presence of a lawyer alone, will not
in-law. suffice to fulfill the requirement of the constitutional
provision. The assistance of counsel must be independent
the trial court upheld the validity of the extra-judicial and competent that is, providing full protection to the
confession and rendered judgment convicting the three constitutional rights of the accused.[19] A lawyer who
accused guilty of the crime charged. simply goes through the motion of reciting the rights of
the accused, or acts as a witness to a pre-prepared
ISSUE
document containing the extra-judicial confession of the
W/N extra-judicial confession of appellant Elmerto Pulga accused or holds an interest contrary to that of the
is admissible in evidence for having been obtained accused does not qualify as independent and competent
without effective assistance of counsel counsel.[20]

RULING To establish the validity of Pulgas extra-judicial


confession, the police investigator PO3 Jovencio
It is inadmissible. Villacorte testified that appellant Pulga voluntarily
surrendered to the police and told them the whole story of
Considering the totality of the evidence, it appears that the
how his younger sister appellant Marietta Patungan
principal evidence presented by the prosecution to
masterminded the murder of her husband to be able to
establish the alleged conspiracy among the appellants to
marry her lover, and how he and his cousin appellant
commit murder is the extra-judicial confession of accused
Edgar Acebuche accomplished Mariettas
Elmerto Pulga. The rest of the evidence presented is at [21]
bidding. Atty. Pedro Rudio of the IBP, Quezon City
most circumstantial to establish motive and the presence
Chapter, who supposedly assisted Pulga during the taking
of the appellants at or near the place of the commission of
of the extra-judicial confession, testified that Pulga
the crime.
expressed his consent to be assisted by said counsel and
Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution provides: signified that his confession is voluntary. Atty. Rudio
stated that he even raised Pulgas shirt to check if he had
Sec. 12(1) Any person under investigation for the been subjected to physical violence and found none.
commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have Contrary to PO3 Villacortes assertion that Pulga was
competent and independent counsel preferably his own taken into custody on August 10, 1994, the police officer
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, who actually took all three appellants into custody, SPO2
he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be Orlando Gacute, testified that the appellants were all
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. invited to the police station on August 9, 1994 and that
they were all subjected to custodial investigation without
(1) No torture, force violence threat, intimidation or any counsel.[24] This means that the appellants, and appellant
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used Pulga, in particular, were in police custody and subjected
against him. Secret detention places, solitary, to custodial investigation for two and a half days without
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are the assistance of counsel before he decided to
prohibited. confess. Villacorte himself admitted that Pulga at first did
not want to confess and pointed to another suspect as the
(2) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
perpetrator of the crime. This statement negates the
this or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
polices claim of voluntary surrender and places in serious
against him.
doubt the voluntariness of Pulgas extra-judicial
An extra-judicial confession to be admissible in evidence confession.
must be express and voluntarily executed in writing with
Pulga testified that he was arrested on August 9, 1994. He
the assistance of an independent and competent
narrated in court that during custodial investigation he
counsel[16] and a person under custodial investigation
was blindfolded with hands tied behind him and was
must be continuously assisted by counsel from the very
electrocuted by the police investigators while he was four meters apart.[29] The mere presence of a lawyer is not
either sitting on a steel bar or had a piece of wet cloth sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement
placed on his feet, to compel him to admit commission of of assistance of counsel. Assistance of counsel must be
the crime charged. He simply cried and could not do effective, vigilant and independent.[30] A counsel who
anything else but to accede to his tormentors demand. He could just hear the investigation going on while working
stated that he signed a pre-prepared document at the on another case hardly satisfies the minimum
precinct before he was taken to the IBP office near the requirements of effective assistance of counsel. Not only
Sulo Restaurant in Quezon City on August 11, 1994.[25]He was Pulga subjected to custodial investigation without
explained that he narrated his ordeal only for the first time counsel, he was likewise denied effective assistance of
in court because he could not complain to the IBP lawyer, counsel during the actual taking of his extra-judicial
the fiscal nor to the medical officer out of fear of his police confession.
investigators and when he was taken to a medical officer
for examination, the police escort answered the questions For the reasons above stated, We find that the extra-
for him. None of his relatives visited him in jail and he judicial confession of appellant Elmerto Pulga is
only saw his lawyer in court.[26] Until he was brought to inadmissible in evidence for having been obtained
court he had no one to confide to and he was at the mercy without effective assistance of counsel.
of the police investigators while he was detained at the
Quezon City Jail.[27] As a detention prisoner he was
always escorted by the police when he was before the IBP 17. PEOPLE V. SUELA, 373 SCRA 163 (2002)
lawyer, the fiscal and the medical officer and Pulga did
In this Decision, the Court visits and applies existing
not find the opportunity to complain to the authorities. To
jurisprudence on the right to competent and independent
our mind, appellant Pulgas fear of his police escorts is
counsel of persons under custodial investigation. It also
well founded and his delay in revealing what he
reiterates the long-standing judicial policy that procedural
underwent during custodial investigation does not cast
laws which are favorable to the accused shall be given
doubt on its veracity, as the prosecution suggests.
retroactive effect. Inasmuch as the aggravating
We also note from the above testimonies that it was only circumstance of disguise was not alleged in the
after appellant Pulga verbally confessed at the police Information, it cannot now be appreciated to increase the
precinct, without the assistance of counsel, when he was penalty to death, notwithstanding the fact that the new rule
brought to the IBP office allegedly for the actual requiring such allegation was promulgated only after the
transcription of his confession in writing in the presence crime was committed and after the trial court had already
of a lawyer. It would appear to us that whatever statement rendered its Decision.
Pulga allegedly gave to the police for transcription in the
The Case
presence of counsel is the product of two and a half days
of coercive and uncounselled custodial investigation. We For automatic review by this Court is the Decision
are inclined to believe that when he was brought to the dated January 26, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court
IBP office his body and his will were in no position to of Quezon City, (Branch 95), finding appellants guilty
raise any objection much less to complain to the IBP beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and
lawyer about what he has gone through. The situation was simple robbery. The decretal portion of the Decision
not at all alleviated by the counsel who was supposed to reads as follows:
assist Pulga at the taking of the extra-judicial
confession. Said lawyer admitted that he was working on WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in the
an appeal in another case two to three meters away from following:
the police investigator who was then taking Pulgas
statement. He stated that he was not totally concentrated 1. In Crim. Cases Nos. Q-96-64616 and Q-96-65071, the
on the appealed case because he could still hear the Court finds the accused Nerio Suela y Hembra and
investigation being conducted then.[28] Villacorte testified Edgar Suela y Hembra and Edgardo Batocan GUILTY
that while he was taking Pulgas statement the IBP lawyer beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with
was working on something else using two other tables Homicide defined in and penalized by paragraph I, Article
294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659,
and, there being one aggravating circumstance of disguise All the three (3) accused are ordered to pay the costs.
(par. 14, Art. 14, Revised Penal Code) and no mitigating
circumstance to offset the same, each of them is hereby IT IS SO ORDERED.[2]
sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and are ordered
The Information[3] against Nerio Suela and
to indemnify the heirs of the late
Edgar Suela in Criminal Case No. Q-96-64616 reads as
Geronimo Gabilo y Hostallero the amount of P50,000.00,
follows:
as death indemnity; P20,000.00 as exemplary
damages; P125,250.00, as actual and compensatory
That on or about the 26th day of July 1995,
damages; and P2,8[8]0,000.00, as loss of earnings based
in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused,
on the formula (2/3 x (80-44) or 24 years life expectancy
conspiring, confederating with another person whose true
by P120,000.00 reasonable average net annual earnings.
name, identity and whereabouts have not as yet been
ascertained and mutually helping one another, by means
The three accused are further ordered to return to
of force upon things, did then and there wilfully,
Director Nilo Rosas the three (3) cameras
unlawfully and feloniously rob one GERONIMO
worth P25,000.00; assorted jewelry worth P120,000.00
GABILO Y HOSTALLERO in the following manner, to
and cash money in the amount of P500,000.00. If the
wit: on the date and place aforementioned said accused
three (3) cameras and the assorted jewelry can no longer
managed to enter the house of complainant located at No.
be returned, the three (3) accused are hereby ordered to
95 B-5 A. Melchor St., Xavierville Subd., Loyola
instead pay the value thereof in the total amount
Heights, this City, by barging into the door of said house
of P145,000.00;
and once inside took, robbed and carried away the
following, to wit:
2. In Crim. Case No. Q-96-64618, the Court finds the
accused Edgar Suela y Hembra GUILTY beyond
one (1) 14 Sony Trinitron
reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Robbery defined
colored TV P 12,000.00
in and penalized by paragraph 5, Article 294, of the
three (3) cameras 25,000.00
Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the
assorted jewelries 120,000.00
indeterminate penalty of from six (6) months and one (1)
cash money 500,000.00
day of prision correccional minimum, as the minimum
penalty to four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day
all in the total amount of P657,000.00, Philippine
of prision correccional maximum, as the maximum
Currency, and on the occasion of said Robbery, the said
penalty; and,
accused pursuant to their conspiracy, with intent to kill,
attacked, assaulted and employed personal violence upon
3. In Crim. Cases Nos. Q-96-64617 and Q-96-65072, the
the person of said GERONIMO GABILO Y
Court finds the accused Nerio Suela y Hembra,
HOSTALLERO, by stabbing him, thereby inflicting upon
Edgar Suela y Hembra and Edgardo Batocan NOT
him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and
GUILTY of the Crime of Carnapping as defined in and
immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and
penalized by Rep. Act. 6539, as amended by Rep. Act
prejudice of the heirs of said
7659, and hereby ACQUITS them for failure of the
Geronimo Gabilo y Hostallero, in the total amount
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
aforementioned.
reasonable doubt.
The Information[4] against Edgardo Batocan in
The Sony TV set (Exh. E) and the Citizen gold wrist Criminal Case No. Q-96-65071 reads as follows:
watch (Exh. T-1) are hereby ordered returned to
Director Nilo Rosas upon the final disposition of the That on or about the 26th day of July, 1995,
cases. in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating with NERIO SUELA Y
The motorcycle (Exh. FF) under the name of the HEMBRA and EDGAR SUELA Y HEMBRA who are
accused Edgardo Batocan shall be kept by the Court until being charged with the same offense at Regional Trial
the final disposition of the cases. Court Branch 79 and docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-
64616, and mutually helping one another, by means of When arraigned on September 24, 1996, appellants,
force upon things, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty.[6] In due
and feloniously rob one NILO ROSAS Y LANETE in the course, they were tried and found guilty by the court a
following manner, to wit: on the date and quo.
place afor[e]mentioned said accused entered the house of
complainant located at 95 Melchor St. Xavierville Subd.,
Loyola Heights, this City, by barging into the door of said Ruling of the Trial Court
house and inside took, robbed and carried away the
The court a quo ruled that appellants had been
following, to wit:
assisted by competent and independent counsel during the
execution of their extrajudicial confessions. It gave
one (1) 14 Sony Trinitron
credence to the testimonies of Atty. Sansano and the
colored TV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
police officers and thus admitted in evidence the said
- - - - P12,000.00
confessions.
three (3) cameras - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - 25,000.00 The letter of Nerio Suela addressed to Director
assorted jewelries - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rosas asking for forgiveness, as well as the discovery of
- - - - - 120,000.00 the stolen TV set and knife in the formers house, further
cash money - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 500,000.00 convinced the trial court of appellants guilt. Finding the
presence of one aggravating circumstance (disguise) with
all in the total amount of P657,000.00, Philippine no mitigating circumstance to offset it, the trial court
Currency, to the damage and prejudice of Nilo Rosas sentenced them to death.
y Lanete in the aforementioned amount of P657,000.00,
Hence, this automatic review before us.[9]
and on the occasion of said Robbery, the said accused
pursuant to their conspiracy, with intent to kill, attacked,
assaulted and employed personal violence upon the
Assignment of Errors
person of said GERONIMO GABILO Y HOSTALLERO,
by stabbing him, thereby inflicting upon him serious and In his Brief, Appellant Edgardo Batocan ascribes to
mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate the trial court the following alleged errors:[10]
cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice
I. The trial court gravely erred in
of the heirs of said Geronimo Gabilo y Hostallero.
considering Edgardo Batocans extra
The Information[5] against Edgar Suela in Criminal judicial confession as admissible evidence
Case No. Q-96-64618 reads as follows: against him.
II. The trial court erred in admitting and
That on or about the 18th day of January 1996,
appreciating the wristwatch as evidence
in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, with intent
against Edgardo Batocan.
to gain, and by means of intimidation against person, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously III.The trial court erred in convicting
rob/extort one NILO ROSAS Y LANETE in the manner Appellant Batocan of robbery with
as follows: on the date and place aforementioned, the said homicide.
accused called up by phone the Executive Secretary of
Appellants Nerio and Edgar Suela, on the other
said complainant and demanded the amount
hand, fault the trial court with the following supposed
of P200,000.00, Philippine Currency, in exchange for the
errors:[11]
information regarding the robbery case and slaying of
Geronimo Gabilo on July 26, 1995, as in fact said I. The court a quo erred in considering
accused, took, robbed and carried away the aforesaid the extr[a]-judicial confessions of
amount of P200,000.00, Philippine Currency, to the Edgar Suela and Nerio Suel[a] are
damage and prejudice of the said offended party. admissible against them;
II. The court a quo erred in considering the letter In People v. Labtan,[12] we explained that [t]he right
of Nerio Suela to Director Nilo Rosas as to counsel is a fundamental right and contemplates not a
evidence against him; mere presence of the lawyer beside the
accused. Furthermore, an effective and vigilant counsel
III. The court a quo erred in convicting
necessarily and logically [requires] that the lawyer be
Edgar Suela for simple robbery under Art.
present and able to advise and assist his client from the
294, no. 5, of the Revised Penal Code.
time the confessant answers the first question asked by the
IV. The court a quo erred in convicting investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial
Edgar Suela and Nerio Suela [of] robbery confession. Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain that
with homicide. the confession is made voluntarily and that the person
under investigation fully understands the nature and the
Basically, the assigned errors boil down to four: (1)
consequence of his extrajudicial confession in relation to
whether the extrajudicial confessions of appellants are
his constitutional rights. A contrary rule would
admissible in evidence; (2) whether the wristwatch and
undoubtedly be antagonistic to the constitutional rights to
the letter (of NerioSuela) are admissible in evidence; (3)
remain silent, to counsel and to be presumed innocent.[13]
whether appellants can be convicted of robbery with
homicide; and (4) whether Edgar Suela is guilty of True, counsel does not necessarily have to dissuade
robbery for demanding P200,000 as payment for the person under investigation from confessing. But his
information on the robbery-slay case. bounden duty is to properly and fully advise his clients on
the nature and consequences of an extrajudicial
confession.
The Courts Ruling
In People v. Deniega,[14] the Court explained:
The appeal is partly meritorious.
The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial
investigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer merely
First Issue: Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions gives perfunctory advice as opposed to a meaningful
advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing
Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution
questioning. If the advice given is so cursory as to be
provides:
useless, voluntariness is impaired. If the lawyers role is
reduced to being that of a mere witness to the signing of a
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of
pre-prepared document albeit indicating therein
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right
compliance with the accuseds constitutional rights, the
to remain silent and to have competent and independent
constitutional standard guaranteed by Article III, Section
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
12(1) is not met. The process above-described fulfills the
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
prophylactic purpose of the constitutional provision by
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and
avoiding the 'pernicious practice of extorting false or
in the presence of counsel.
coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the
person undergoing interrogation for the commission of
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
the offense' and ensuring that the accuseds waiver of his
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
right to self incrimination during the investigation is an
against him. Secret detention places,
informed one in all aspects.
solitary, incomunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited. The modifier competent and independent in the 1987
Constitution is not an empty rhetoric. It stresses the need
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of to accord the accused, under the uniquely stressful
this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in conditions of a custodial investigation, an informed
evidence against him. judgment on the choices explained to him by a diligent
and capable lawyer.[15]
x x x x x x x x x.
With respect Edgardo Batocan, we hold that his Moreover, when he interviewed appellants, he did
extrajudicial confession was obtained in violation of his not even bother to find out the gist of their proposed
constitutional rights. This appellant did not finish first statements in order to be able to inform them properly of
year high school.[16] Yet Atty. Rous, who is touted by the the nature and consequences of their extrajudicial
prosecution as a competent and independent counsel, confessions. Clearly and sadly, appellants were not
interviewed Batocan -- before the latter gave his accorded competent and independent counsel whom they
confession -- for only around five minutes.[17] After this could rely on to look after their interests.
initial interview, Atty. Rous just listened nonchalantly to
the questions propounded by the police and to the answers In People v. dela Cruz, we stated that a confession made
given by Batocan. Counsel was not even sure that he had in an atmosphere characterized by deficiencies in
explained to appellant the consequences of his informing the accused of all rights to which he is entitled
extrajudicial confession. Furthermore, would be rendered valueless and inadmissible, perforated,
Atty. Rous attention was divided while attending the as it is, by non-compliance with the procedural and
custodial investigation as he was also looking over substantive safeguards to which an accused is entitled
another paper work on his desk.[18] under the Bill of Rights and as now further implemented
and ramified by statutory law.[22]
In view of these proven circumstances, we are not
convinced that counsel had fully explained to Batocan his Where the prosecution failed to discharge the States
constitutional rights and what they entailed or the nature burden of proving with clear and convincing evidence that
and the consequences of an extrajudicial confession -- the accused had enjoyed effective and vigilant counsel
explanations that would have enabled him to make an before he extrajudicially admitted his guilt, the
informed judgment on whether to confess; and if so, on extrajudicial confession cannot be given any probative
what matters. There is no showing that value.[23]
Atty. Rous properly explained the choices or options open
The extrajudicial confessions of all three appellants
to appellant, a duty expected of any counsel under the
are thus inadmissible in evidence.
circumstances. In sum, he did not turn out to be the
competent and independent counsel envisioned by the
Constitution.
Second Issue: Admissibility of Wristwatch and Letter
We now go to the extrajudicial confessions of Edgar
and Nerio Suela. Atty. Sansano supposedly stood as
counsel for the Suela brothers during their custodial Wristwatch
investigation. He testified on how he discharged his duties
Edgardo Batocan allegedly confessed in Leyte that
as follows:
the stolen Citizen wristwatch had been given to his
Evidently, Atty. Sansano did not understand the girlfriend. When he rendered this confession, he did not
exact nature of appellants rights to counsel and to remain execute any written waiver of his right to remain silent or
silent during their custodial investigations. He viewed a of his right to counsel. Any admission wrung from the
refusal to answer as an obstruction in the accused in violation of his constitutional rights is
investigation. This shows that he was incapable or inadmissible in evidence against him.[24]Therefore, his
unwilling to advise appellants that remaining silent was a alleged statement as to the location of the wristwatch is
right they could freely exercise without fear of any inadmissible.
untoward consequence. As counsel, he could have
Furthermore, the prosecutions claim that the
stopped his clients from answering the propounded
wristwatch was recovered from his girlfriend is hearsay
questions and advised them of their right to remain silent,
and hence, has limited probative value.[25] The
if they preferred to do so.That the process of investigation
prosecution did not present anyone who had actually
could have been obstructed should not have concerned
witnessed the alleged recovery of the wristwatch from the
him because his duty was to his clients and not to the
girl. S/Insp. Benjamin Labadia recounted the incident in
prosecution or to the police investigators.
this plainly insufficient manner:
Q: Alright Mr. Witness, you said that a wrist Nerio Suela also contends that his January 31,
watch was also a part of the loot and 1996 letter to Director Rosas is inadmissible in
that Batocan told your team that it was in evidence. The letter reads as follows:
the custody of his sweetheart. When so
informed that this wrist watch was in the Jan-31-96
custody of his sweetheart, what did the
police operatives do? Dearest Sir DIR. NILO ROSAS

A: The police operatives together Sir matagal kona sana ito ipagtapat sa iyo dahil tuwing k
with Edgardo Batocan went to the place
itay nakikita na lumoloha ka parang hindi ako maka hing
and when they came back, I did not go with
a ng sisikip and aking dibdib. Tuwing tayoy nasa simbah
them, the wrist watch was already in the
an homihinge ako ng tawad sapanginoon ang nagawa ko
possession of the Quezon City Police
ng ito nararamdaman ko na parabang hinde niya tinatang
operative, Sir.
gap.
Q: Did you actually see, Mr. Witness when the
team proceeded to the place where the Sir napakalaki ng nagawa kong kasalanan sa iyo at sana
sweetheart of bigyan mo
accused Edgardo Batocan was staying, pa ako ng isang pagkakataon pagsisihan ko lahat ang pag
give this wrist watch to the Quezon City kakasala sa iyo babagohin ko na ang buhay ko magliling
Police operatives? kod ako sa diyos.

A: I said, Sir. I did not accompany them.[26] Sir nandito ako sa likod ng bakal na rihas halos lahat ng
As for the wristwatch itself, we agree with appellant oras ng dadasal ako bigyan mo
that its seizure, if it was really taken pa ako ng isang pagkakataon patawaring mo ako.
from Batocans girlfriend, was irregular. As succinctly
explained in Batocans Brief: Sir alam ng diyos na hindi ako ang kriminal may kinala
man lang ako inamin ko na lang. Para naman magkaroon
x x x. Clearly, the watch was taken without a search ng lonas yong problima mo hindi narin ako makatiis hin
warrant and not as an incident of a valid arrest. The di pa makatolog. Lalo na nakikita kitana ng hihirap ang i
seizure was irregular. There is also no evidence on record nyong katawan lalo na ang in kalooban sana sir bigyan
that it was taken under any of the exempting mo
circumstances where a warrantless seizure is pa ako ng isang pagkakataon patawarin mo ako isa rin ak
permissible. It was not shown if the girlfriend voluntarily o na anak ng diyos na naligaw ng langdas ngayon pinags
and validly consented to the taking x x x. Lacking such isihan ko lahatang nagawa kong kasalanan sir ayaw ko p
evidence, no presumption of regularity can be assumed. ang mamatay maliliit ang aking mga anak mahal ako ng
aking asawa.
Where the search was conducted with irregularity, i.e.
without a warrant, the Court cannot appreciate consent Sir. Edgardo Batokan ang pumatay kay Sir
based merely on the presumption of regularity of the JERRY sangayon nandoon siya sa Jaro Leyte Bo.
performance of duty. (People vs. Encinada, 280 SCRA San Agostin. Sir hinde ko maggawang pomatay ng tao s
72). omama lang ako dahil baka kayo ang patayin nang doonl
ang ako sa may pito.
The wristwatch is clearly a fruit of a fruit of a poisonous Yung kapatid ko namana siya ang may baril siya and nan
tree. As such, it should not have been admitted and otok si Edgardo Batokan siya ang komoha ng pira tapos
appreciated against the accused.[27] omalis na kami ako ang ng drive ng kotse. Tapos inewan
namin sa Rictotapos ng hiwalay hiwa na kame yon tike.
Dian ng kapatid ko.
Letter
Sir patawarin mo na ako hinde naman akong masamang t These pieces of evidence sufficiently prove beyond
ao na pasama lang ako. reasonable doubt the commission of the crime of robbery
with homicide.
Sana po &
WHEREFORE, the appeal is
sir babaan mo naman ang aking sintinesia ayaw ko pang
hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED and the appealed
mamatay.
Decision MODIFIED. We AFFIRM the judgment insofar
Nerio Suela as it refers to Criminal Case Nos. Q-96-64616 and Q-96-
(signed) 65071 but REDUCE the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
Quezon City Jail The award of civil indemnities is also AFFIRMED. In
Criminal Case No. Q-96-64618 for simple robbery,
Sir. Sagotin mo naman Edgar Suela y Hembra is ACQUITTED.
itong sulat ko,
No pronouncement as to costs.
(
signed)[28] SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
This letter was properly identified. Nerio was no
C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
longer under custodial investigation when he wrote it. In
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago,
open court, he admitted having written it. Thus, contrary
De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio,
to his contention, the fact that he was not assisted by
JJ., concur.
counsel when he wrote it will not make the letter
inadmissible in evidence. Constitutional procedures on
custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous
18. PEOPLE V. JANUARIO, 276 SCRA 608 (1997)
statement, not elicited through questioning by the
authorities.[29] Hence, the letter is admissible in evidence. History:
Edgardo Batocans confession to Rosas who is not a The 1987 Constitution was crafted and ordained at a
police officer is admissible in evidence.[38] The Rules state historic time when our nation was reeling from ghastly
that the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt memories of atrocities, excesses and outright violations of
of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily our peoples rights to life, liberty and property. Hence, our
included therein, may be given in evidence against bill of rights was worded to emphasize the sanctity of
him.[39] Batocans verbal declarations are not covered by human liberty and specifically to protect persons
Sections 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the undergoing custodial investigations from ignorant,
Constitution,[40] because they were not extracted while he overzealous and/or incompetent peace officers.
was under custodial investigation.
The Constitution so dearly values freedom and
In People v. Tawat,[41] the Court declared: voluntariness that, inter alia, it unequivocally guarantees
a person undergoing investigation for the commission of
The rule is that any person, otherwise competent as a an offense not only the services of counsel, but a lawyer
witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify who is not merely (a) competent but also (b) independent
as to the substance of what he heard is he heard and and (c) preferably of his own choice as well.
understood all of it. An oral confession need not be
xxx
repeated verbatim, but in such case it must be given in its
substance. FACTS:

Proof of the contents of an oral extrajudicial confession The main evidence relied upon for the conviction of
may be made by the testimony of a person who testifies appellants were their own extrajudicial confessions which
that he was present, heard, understood, and remembers the admittedly were extracted and signed in the presence and
substance of the conversation or statement made by the with the assistance of a lawyer who was applying for work
in the NBI. Such counsel cannot in any wise be
accused.
considered independent because he cannot be expected to
work against the interest of a police agency he was hoping
to join, as a few months later, he in fact was admitted into The Courts Ruling
its work force. For this violation of their constitutional The First Issue: Order of Trial
right to independent counsel, appellants deserve
The pertinent provisions of Rule 119 of the Rules of
acquittal. After the exclusion of their tainted confessions,
Court state:
no sufficient and credible evidence remains in the Courts
records to overturn another constitutional right: the right
"Sec. 3. Order of trial.- The trial shall proceed in the
to be presumed innocent of any crime until the contrary is
following order:
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the
Judgment is hereby rendered finding accused:
charge, and in the proper case, the civil liability.
(1) RENE JANUARIO Y ROLDAN
and-
(b) The accused may present evidence to prove his
(2) EFREN CANAPE Y BAYOT
defense, and damages, if any, arising from the issuance of
any provisional remedy in the case.
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Violation of Sec. 14 last sentence of R.A. No. 6539,
(c) The parties may then respectively present rebutting
otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Law. Thus, this
evidence only, unless the court, in the furtherance of
Court hereby imposes upon the said accused, the supreme
justice, permits them to present additional evidence
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua or life imprisonment.
bearing upon the main issue.

The Issues
(d) Upon admission of the evidence, the cases shall be
deemed submitted unless the court directs the parties to
(1) The trial procedure, particularly the presentation and
argue orally or to submit memoranda.
admission of the testimony of Atty. Carlos Saunar, was
irregular and prejudicial to the appellants; and
(e) However, when the accused admits the act or omission
charged in the complaint or information but interposes a
(2) The extra-judicial confessions of the appellants are
lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified
inadmissible in evidence for having been extracted in
accordingly." (Emphasis supplied.)
violation of their constitutional right to counsel.
The trial procedure as outlined in this rule is
Insisting that his guilt had not been proven beyond
ordinarily followed to insure the orderly conduct of
reasonable doubt, appellant Januario contends that the
litigations to attain the magisterial objective of the Rules
trial court erred in admitting in evidence his sworn
of Court to protect the parties' substantive
statement before the NBI and the testimony of Atty.
rights.[40] However, strict observance of the Rules depend
Saunar as rebuttal or additional witness after the
upon the circumstances obtaining in each case at the
prosecution had rested its case, he (appellant Januario)
discretion of the trial judge. Thus, as early as 1917, this
had filed his memorandum, and the decision had been
Court explained:
scheduled for promulgation.[38]
For his part, appellant Canape also claims that his "x x x. The orderly course of proceedings
guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He requires, however, that the prosecution shall go
questions the trial court's having given "weight and forward and should present all of its proof in the first
sufficiency" to his extra-judicial confession.[39] instance; but it is competent for the judge, according
to the nature of the case, to allow a party who has
Appellant Januario contends that the trial court erred
closed his case to introduce further evidence in
in allowing the presentation of Saunar as a witness after
rebuttal. This rule, however, depends upon the
the prosecution had closed its case and offered its
particular circumstances of each particular case, and
documentary evidence. Saunar could not in any guise be
falls within the sound discretion of the judge, to be
considered as a rebuttal witness simply because there was
exercised or not as he may think proper."[41]
no defense evidence to rebut.
Hence, the court may allow the prosecutor, even after individual autonomy, an informed judgment based on the
he has rested his case or even after the defense has moved choices given to him by a competent and independent
for dismissal, to present involuntarily omitted lawyer.
evidence.[42] The primary consideration is whether the
trial court still has jurisdiction over the case. Thus Thus, the lawyer called to be present during such
investigation should be as far as reasonably possible, the
"The claim that the lower court erred in allowing the choice of the individual undergoing questioning. If the
prosecuting attorney to introduce new evidence is devoid lawyer were one furnished in the accused's behalf, it is
of any merit, for while the prosecution had rested, the trial important that he should be competent and independent,
was not yet terminated and the cause was still under the i.e., that he is willing to fully safeguard the constitutional
control and jurisdiction of the court and the latter, in the rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who
exercise of its discretion, may receive additional would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and
evidence. Sec. 3(c), Rule 119 of the Rules of Court meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional
clearly provides that, in the furtherance of justice, the rights. In People v. Basay, this Court stressed that an
court may grant either of the parties the right and accused's right to be informed of the right to remain silent
opportunity to adduce new additional evidence bearing and to counsel `contemplates the transmission of
upon the main issue in question."[43] meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial
and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
Saunars testimony was admitted in evidence before
principle.'
the trial court rendered its Decision. Undoubtedly then,
the court a quo retained its jurisdiction even though the
Ideally, therefore, a lawyer engaged for an individual
prosecution had rested its case. As to appellants, Saunar
facing custodial investigation (if the latter could not
was an additional prosecution witness, not a rebuttal
afford one) `should be engaged by the accused (himself),
witness, because the defense waived presentation of
or by the latter's relative or person authorized by him to
evidence after the prosecution had rested its
engage an attorney or by the court, upon proper petition
case.[44] Saunar was, therefore, a rebuttal witness with
of the accused or person authorized by the accused to file
respect to accused Cid.[45]
such petition. Lawyers engaged by the police, whatever
testimonials are given as proof of their probity and
supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in many
The Second Issue: Appellants Right to Counsel
areas, the relationship between lawyers and law
Proof of Saunar's presence during the custodial enforcement authorities can be symbiotic.
investigation of appellants is, however, not a guarantee
Let us for the moment grant arguendo that Saunar's
that appellants' respective confessions had been taken in
competence as a lawyer is beyond question. Under the
accordance with Article III, Section 12 (1) of the
circumstances described by the prosecution however, he
Constitution. This constitutional provision requires that a
could not have been the independent counsel solemnly
person under investigation for the commission of an
spoken of by our Constitution. He was an applicant for a
offense shall have no less than "competent and
position in the NBI and therefore it can never be said that
independent counsel preferably of his own
his loyalty was to the confessants. In fact, he was actually
choice." Elucidating on this particular constitutional
employed by the NBI a few months after. As regards
requirement, this Court has taught:
appellant Januario, Saunar might have really been around
to properly apprise appellant of his constitutional right as
It is noteworthy that the
reflected in the written sworn statement itself.
modifiers competent and independent were terms absent
in all organic laws previous to the 1987 However, the same cannot be said about appellant
Constitution. Their addition in the fundamental law of Canape. Clearly, he was not properly informed of his
1987 was meant to stress the primacy accorded to the constitutional rights. Perfunctorily informing a
voluntariness of the choice, under the uniquely stressful confessant of his constitutional rights, asking him if he
conditions of a custodial investigation, by according the wants to avail of the services of counsel and telling him
accused, deprived of normal conditions guaranteeing that he could ask for counsel if he so desires or that one
could be provided him at his request, are simply not in In People vs. Lorenzo,[56] the Court explained that in a
compliance with the constitutional mandate.[51] In this confession there is an acknowledgment of guilt while in
case, appellant Canape was merely told of his an admission the statements of fact by the accused do not
constitutional rights and posthaste, asked whether he was directly involve an acknowledgment of guilt or of the
willing to confess. His affirmative answer may not, by criminal intent to commit the offense with which the
any means, be interpreted as a waiver of his right to accused is charged.
counsel of his own choice.
Appellants verbally intimated facts relevant to the
Furthermore, the right of a person under custodial commission of the crime to the NBI agents in Naga
investigation to be informed of his rights to remain silent City. This is shown by the testimony of NBI Agent Vela
and to counsel implies a correlative obligation on the part that, based on the facts gathered from interviews of people
of the police investigator to explain and to contemplate an in that city, they "invited" and questioned appellants, thus:
effective communication that results in an understanding
Prior to the execution of the sworn statements at the
of what is conveyed.[52] Appellant Canape's sworn
NBI head office, appellants had already made verbal
statement, which reads and sounds so lifeless on paper,
admissions of complicity in the crime. Verbal
fails to reflect compliance with this requirement. Neither
admissions, however, should also be made with the
does the aforequoted testimony of NBI Agent Toribio.
assistance of counsel. Thus:
Bearing in mind that appellant Canape reached only the
fifth grade, the NBI agents should have exerted more
"The verbal admissions allegedly made by both
effort in explaining to him his constitutional rights.
appellants of their participation in the crime, at the
Moreover, there is enough reason to doubt whether time of their arrest and even before their formal
appellant Canape was in fact and in truth assisted by investigation, are inadmissible, both as violative of
counsel. Atty. Saunar affirmed on the witness stand that their constitutional rights and as hearsay
he assisted appellants on March 28, 1988.[53] However, evidence. These oral admissions, assuming they
the sworn statement itself reveals that it was taken on were in fact made, constitute uncounselled
March 27, 1988. No satisfactory explanation was made extrajudicial confessions within the meaning of
by the prosecution on this discrepancy. All that Agent Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution."[60]
Vela stated was that they conducted an oral investigation
That appellants indeed admitted participation in the
in Naga City on March 27, 1988 and that investigation at
commission of the crime in Naga City is shown by the fact
the NBI Manila head office was made in the afternoon of
that the NBI agents brought them to Manila to facilitate
March 28, 1988.[54]
apprehension of the other culprits who could be either in
The law enforcement agents' cavalier disregard of Cavite or Manila. Because their uncounselled oral
appellants' constitutional rights is shown not only by their admissions in Naga City resulted in the execution of their
failure to observe Section 12 (1) of Article III of the written confessions in Manila, the latter had become as
Constitution. They have likewise forgotten the third constitutionally infirm as the former. In People vs.
paragraph of Section 12 of the same article which Alicando,[61] this Court explained the ramifications of an
mandates that an admission of facts related to a crime irregularly counselled confession or admission:
must be obtained with the assistance of counsel otherwise
it would be inadmissible in evidence against the person so "We have not only constitutionalized the Miranda
admitting.[55] warnings in our jurisdiction. We have also adopted the
libertarian exclusionary rules known as the `fruit of the
An admission, which, under Section 26 of Rule 130
poisonous tree,' a phrase minted by Mr. Justice Felix
of the Rules of Court, is an "act, declaration or omission
Frankfurter in the celebrated case of Nardone v. United
of a party as to a relevant fact" is different from a
States. According to this rule, once the primary
confession which, in turn, is defined in Section 33 of the
source (the `tree') is shown to have been unlawfully
same Rule as the "declaration of an accused
obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any
`fruit') derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated
offense necessarily included therein." Both may be given
otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct
in evidence against the person admitting or confessing.
result of the illegal act, whereas the `fruit of the
poisonous tree' is the indirect result of the same illegal crimes would constitute needless expenditures of
act. The `fruit of the poisonous tree is at least once taxpayers money.
removed from the illegally seized evidence, but is equally
This Court values liberty and will always insist on
inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that
the observance of basic constitutional rights as a
evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used
condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative
to gain other evidence because the originally illegally
and prosecutory powers of government. The admonition
obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently
given by this Court to government officers, particularly
obtained."
those involved in law enforcement and the administration
Appellants might have indeed committed the crime of justice, in the case of People vs. Cuizon,[66]where NBI
in concert with Eliseo Sarita and Eduardo agents mishandled a drug bust operation and in so doing
Sarinos. However, what could have been their valuable violated the constitutional guarantees against unlawful
admissions and confessions as far as the prosecution was arrests and illegal searches and seizures, is again called
concerned were sullied and rendered inadmissible by the for and thus reiterated in the case at bench, to wit:
irregular manner by which the law enforcement agents
extracted such admissions and confessions from x x x In the final analysis, we in the
appellants. Without such statements, the remaining administration of justice would have no right to
prosecution evidence -- consisting mostly of hearsay expect ordinary people to be law-abiding if we do
testimony and investigation reports -- is sorely inadequate not insist on the full protection of their rights. Some
to prove appellants participation in the crime. lawmen, prosecutors and judges may still tend to
gloss over an illegal search and seizure as long as the
Notably, these law enforcers did not only defy the
law enforcers show the alleged evidence of the crime
mandate of Section 12 of the Bill of Rights but, after
regardless of the methods by which they were
making "inquiries" from appellants about the crime, they
obtained. This kind of attitude condones law-
likewise illegally detained appellants as shown by the
breaking in the name of law
admission of one of the NBI agents that appellants were
enforcement. Ironically, it only fosters the more
deprived of their liberty while in their
[62]
rapid breakdown of our system of justice, and the
custody. Appellants were even made to travel for ten
eventual denigration of society. While this Court
(10) hours[63] from Naga City to Manila just so their
appreciates and encourages the efforts of law
formal confessions could be executed in the latter
enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the peace
city. According to NBI Agent Vela, they "actually
and security of society, we nevertheless admonish
arrested" the appellants when the court issued the warrant
them to act with deliberate care and within the
for their arrest.[64] The records show however that the NBI
parameters set by the Constitution and the
turned appellants over to the Municipal Circuit Trial
law. Truly, the end never justifies the means.
Court of Silang-Amadeo in Cavite only on March 30,
1989. On the same day, the same court turned them back WHEREFORE, the questioned Decision of the
to the NBI for "detention during pendency of the case." Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 18 in Tagaytay
City, is hereby REVERSED and SET
Epilogue
ASIDE. Appellants Rene Januario and Efren Canape
The Court understands the difficulties faced by law are ACQUITTED.
enforcement agencies in apprehending violators of the
The accused-appellants are hereby ORDERED
law especially those involving syndicates. It sympathizes
RELEASED immediately unless they are being detained
with the public clamor for the bringing of criminals before
for some other legal cause.
the altar of justice. However, quick solution of crimes
and the consequent apprehension of malefactors are not SO ORDERED.
the end-all and be-all of law enforcement. Enforcers of
the law must follow the procedure mandated by the
Constitution and the law. Otherwise, their efforts would 19) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
be meaningless. And their expenses in trying to solve appellee,
vs.
REY DENIEGA y MACOY, and HOYLE DIAZ y In their defense, appellants, during the course
URNILLO, defendants-appellants. of the trial, vehemently denied the claim that
they had voluntarily executed the said
KAPUNAN, J.: confessions. 9 Appellants Daniega and Diaz went
The naked body of Marlyn Canoy was found on a to the extent of seeking the assistance of the
heap of garbage in an ill-frequented back corner National Bureau of Investigation, and there
on the left side of the Mt. Carmel Church in New executed a sworn statement to the effect that their
Manila, Quezon City. Her hands were tied behind respective confessions were coerced and
her back by a shoestring and pieces of her own obtained through torture. 10 Both testified that
clothing. The body bore thirty nine (39) stab they were subjected to electrocution and water
wounds. There was evidence that she had been treatment. They contended that they were
brutally assaulted, physically and sexually, before arrested without warrants of arrest and that
she was murdered. the confessions obtained from them
immediately thereafter were made without the
Police authorities investigating the gruesome
assistance of counsel.
crime on August 31, 1989, arrested Rey Daniega
The lower court, on August 31, 1991 rendered its
y Macoy on information that the victim was last
seen with Daniega, 1 a waiter at the Gathering Decision convicting the accused-appellants of the
Disco where Canoy used to work. Friends of crime of Rape with Homicide. In dismissing
Canoy volunteered the information that the appellant's principal defense that their
former had just broken off from a stormy confessions were obtained in violation of their
relationship with Daniega. 2The latter, it was constitutional rights, the trial court held that:
bruited, 3 desperately tried to patch up the The court finds it hard to believe that (Atty.
relationship. Sansano and Atty. Rous), both of whom are
Following the latter's arrest, and on the basis of a officers of the Legal Aid Committee of the IBP
confession obtained by police authorities from and are prominent practitioners of great integrity,
would act as the accused said they did. The two
him during custodial investigation (where he
counsels testified that they precisely segregated
allegedly admitted raping and killing
Canoy), 4 appellant Hoyle Diaz y Urnillo was the accused from their police escorts to cull out
invited by the investigators for questioning. A the truth and the accused volunteered to confess
second sworn statement, substantially similar and to the crime at bar.
corroborating many of the details of Daniega's
sworn affidavit, was later extracted from Diaz. In Issue:
the said statement, Diaz admitted his participation Whether or not the lower court erred in
in the rape of Canoy, but denied that he had convicting the appellants based on their
something to do with the victim's death. 5 extrajudicial confession.
Armed with the said extra-judicial
Held:
confessions, an Information was filed with the
The court held that under rules laid down by the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon
Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence,
City, 6 charging petitioners with the crime of
a confession to be admissible must satisfy all of
Rape with Homicide
four fundamental requirements: 1) the confession
At trial, the confessions obtained by law
must be voluntary 2) the confession must be
enforcement authorities during their (separate)
made with the assistance of competent and
custodial investigations formed the centerpiece of
independent counsel; 3) the confession must be
the prosecution's case for Rape with Homicide
express and 4) the confession must be in
against both accused. 7 These confessions
writing.
allegedly disclosed details of the killing.
The court noted that the assistance of a counsel
provided for the accused was inadequate to meet
the standard requirements of the constitution for
custodial investigation. It seems that the lawyers and Detention Center in Carmen, Cagayan de Oro
were not around throughout the custodial City where he was detained while Jonelto Labtan
investigation. Citing People vs Javar, the court has eluded arrest. The two cases were tried
reiterated that any statement obtained in violation together.
of the constitutional provision, or in part, shall be After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan
inadmissible in evidence. Even if the confession de Oro City, Branch 25 found Feliciano guilty
speaks the truth, if it was made without the beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct
assistance of counsel, it becomes inadmissible in participation in the crime of robbery with
evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or homicide
even if it had been voluntarily given. Thus, The trial court also found Feliciano guilty beyond
because of these defects in observing the proper reasonable doubt of the crime of highway robbery
procedural requirements of the constitution on The trial court convicted Feliciano on the basis of
custodial investigation the accused-appellants his sworn which he repudiated during the trial.
were acquitted.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sworn-statement executed
20) PEOPLE VS. LABTAN [GR 127493, 8 by accused Feliciano in theabsence of a
DECEMBER 1999] competent counsel of his choice, is admissible
in evidence.
FACTS: Whether the counselling of Atty. Pepito
Chavez to Feliciano cured the initial lack of
On 28 March 1993, at more or less 10:30 p.m. counsel.
while inside a motor vehicle in the national
highway at Barangay Agusan up to the road at HELD:
Camaman-an, all of Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines, Henry Feliciano y Lagura and Under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987
Orlando Labtan y Daquihon took away, through Constitution, the rights of persons under custodial
intimdation or violence, cash amounting to investigation are provided as follows:
P720.00, pioneer stereo, booster and twitters
owned by and belonging to Roman S. Mercado, (1) Any person under investigation for the
and a Seiko Diver wristwatch owned by Ismael P. commission of an offense shall have the right to
Ebon, all in all amounting to P10,800.00. be informed of his right to remain silent and to
Later on, on or about 16 April 1993, at about 2:30 have competent and independent counsel
p.m., more or less, at Buntong, Camaman-an, preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, Feliciano, afford the services of counsel, he must be
Orlando Labtan, and Jonelto Labtan robbed provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
Florentino Bolasito of P30 in cash money. In the except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
course thereof, Orlando and Jonelto Labtan
stabbed Bolasito to death. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat,
On 23 April 1993, an information was filed intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the
against Feliciano, Orlando Labtan, and Jonelto free will shall be used against him. Secret
Labtan charging them with robbery with detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
homicide (as per 16 April 1993 incident). other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Subsequently, another information dated 20 May
1993 was filed against Feliciano and Orlando (3) Any confession or admission obtained in
Labtan charging them with highway robbery (as violation of this or the preceding section shall be
per 28 March 1993 incident). Only Feliciano inadmissible against him.
pleaded not guilty to the two charges. Orlando
Labtan had escaped the Maharlika Rehabilitation
At that point, accused-appellant had been 21) PEOPLE V. BASAY
subjected to custodial investigation without a
counsel. In Navallo v. Sandiganbayan 15, we said FACTS:
that a person is deemed under custodial
investigation where the police investigation is no Teodoro Basay and Jaime Ramirez were charged with
longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime Multiple Murder with Arson in a criminal complaint filed
but has began to focus on a particular suspect who on 24 March 1986 with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
had been taken into custody by the police who (MCTC) of Pamplona-Amlan-San Jose in the Province of
carry out a process of interrogation that lends Negros Oriental.
itself to elicit incriminating statements.
The prosecution tried to establish that Atty. The spouses Zosimo and Beatrice Toting, together with
Pepito Chavez provided effective and
one of their daughters, Bombie, were hacked inside their
independent counselling to accused-appellant
Feliciano which cured the initial lack of counsel. home. In order to conceal the crime, the perpetrators also
However, this is belied by the very testimony of burned the said house. Because of the fire, the spouses
Atty. Chavez showing he performed his duty in a other daughter, Manolita, was burned to death, while one
lackadaisical fashion. of their sons, Manolo, suffered second and third degree
The right to counsel is a fundamental right and burns. Bombie survived the hacking and the burning and
contemplates not a mere presence of the lawyer was found alive around forty meters away from the dead
beside the accused.
bodies of her family members almost two days after the
Atty. Chavez did not provide the kind of
crime was committed. Upon being found, Bombie
counselling required by the Constitution. He did
not explain to accused-appellant the allegedly related to the authorities that Jaime Ramirez and
consequences of his action that the sworn Teodoro Basay killed their parents and burned their
statement can be used against him and that it is house. She died a day later while confined in the hospital.
possible that he could be found guilty and sent to
jail. After Bombie told the authorities who the perpetrators
We also find that Atty. Chavez's independence as were, they went to Jaimes house, and Jaime, upon seeing
counsel is suspect he is regularly engaged by the police, tried to run. He was then turned over to the
the Cagayan de Oro City Police as counsel de Pamplona police station and brought to the chamber of
officio for suspects who cannot avail the services
Judge Teopisto Calumpang, accompanied by Elpedio
of counsel. He even received money from the
police as payment for his services: Catacutan, a barrister and a COMELEC registrar of the
We also find the fact that Atty. Chavez notarized place, who acted as Jaimes counsel. An affidavit (Exhibit
the sworn statement seriously compromised his F), referred to as Jaimes extrajudicial confession, was
independence. By doing so, he vouched for the produced before the Judge, previously typed by a police
regularity of the circumstances surrounding the investigating officer. The Judge then made the court
taking of the sworn statement by the police. He interpreter translate the allegations of the sworn statement
cannot serve as counsel of the accused and the into the local dialect for Jaime, who did not understand
police at the same time. There was a serious
conflict of interest on his part. 22 English. Afterwards, Jaime and Catacutan signed the
On the charge of robbery with homicide, the only document in the presence of the Judge. After Teodoro was
evidence presented by the prosecution was the also apprehended by the police, he and Jaime allegedly
sworn statement which we have found executed a Joint Waiver wherein it was stated that for their
inadmissible. Thus, we are forced to absolve safety and security, they voluntarily decided to be
accused-appellant of this charge. With respect to detained and that they killed the spouses and thereafter
the charge of highway robbery, the prosecution burned the spouses house which resulted in the death of
presented the testimony of Ismael Ebon.
However, Ebon failed to identify Feliciano as the one and hospitalization of two Toting children.
perpetrator when he reported to the police
During the trial, Jaime testified that he did not read the
immediately after the incident.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the trial document that he signed before Judge Calumpang
court is SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Henry because he did not know how to read. He also did not
Feliciano is ACQUITTED on both charges of understand when it was read to him because it was in
robbery with homicide and highway robbery due English. He also stated that Catacutan was not his lawyer
to lack of evidence to sustain a conviction. and that he did not know him, but only saw him for the
first time in the Pamplona Municipal Hall while the latter remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such
was going upstairs. right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiates the free will shall be used against
The trial court disregarded the joint waiver insofar as it him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section
tended to incriminate the accused and because when they shall be inadmissible in evidence."
signed the same, they were not represented by counsel, in
violation of their rights as provided in Section 12, Article The source of this provision is Miranda v. Arizona, in
III of the 1987 Constitution. There being no other connection therewith, this Court stated in People v.
evidence against Teodoro, the court acquitted him. Caguioa that:
However, it admitted in evidence Jaimes extrajudicial
confession, considered as part of the res gestae the ". . . The landmark opinion of Miranda v. Arizona,
statement given by Bombie identifying Jaime and decided in 1966, as noted above, the source of this
Teodoro as the perpetrators of the crime, and considered constitutional provision, emphasized that statements
as flight which is indicative of guilt Jaimes running away made during the period of custodial interrogation to be
when he saw the law enforcers. It further ruled that Jaime admissible require a clear intelligent waiver of
signed the extrajudicial confession voluntarily and in the constitutional rights, the suspect being warned prior to
presence of counsel so it is therefore admissible against questioning that he has a right to remain silent, that any
him. utterance may be used against him, and that he has the
right to the presence of a counsel, either retained or
Jaime neither filed a notice of appeal, nor orally appointed. In the language of Chief Justice Warren: Our
manifested his intention to appeal. However, the lower holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the
court transmitted the records of the case to the Supreme pages which follow, but briefly stated, it is this: the
Court because in view of the penalty imposed life prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory
imprisonment the lower court ratiocinated that such or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of
decision is subject for automatic review by the Supreme the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural
Court. Although erroneous, the Supreme Court safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-
nonetheless accepted the appeal in the interest of justice. incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived
of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the
ISSUE:
procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully
WON the RTC erred in finding the appellant guilty as effective means are devised to inform accused persons of
charged on the basis of Exhibit F (affidavit) which was their right of silence and to assure a continuous
executed in violation of his Constitutional rights and on opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are
the basis of hearsay evidence and on the presumption of required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be
guilt. warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any
statement he does not make (sic) may be used as evidence
RULING: against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an
attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may
The Court find merit in the appeal. The Court does not
waive effectuation of those rights, provided the waiver is
hesitate to rule that this purported extra-judicial
made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If,
confession belonging to appellant Jaime Ramirez and
however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of
obtained during custodial interrogation was taken in
the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney
blatant disregard of his right to counsel, to remain silent
before speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if
and to be informed of such rights, guaranteed by Section
the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he
20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution the governing
does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not
law at that time. Said section reads:
question him. The mere fact that he may have answered
"SECTION 20. No person shall be compelled to be a some questions or volunteered some statements on his
witness against himself. Any person under investigation own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from
for the commission of an offense shall have the right to answering any further inquiries until he has consulted
with an attorney and thereafter consents to be further ensuring the right to counsel, it is not enough that
questioned." the subject is informed of such right; he should also be
asked if he wants to avail of the same and should be told
Then, in Morales v. Enrile, in the light of the said Section that he could ask for counsel if he so desired or that one
20, prescribed the procedure to be followed by peace could be provided him at his request. If he decides not to
officers when making an arrest and when conducting a retain counsel of his choice or avail of one to be provided
custodial investigation. Thus: for him and, therefore, chooses to waive his right to
"7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of counsel, such waiver, to be valid and effective, must still
the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the be made with the assistance of counsel. That counsel must
arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. be a lawyer.
He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain The foregoing pronouncements are now synthesized in
silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might paragraphs 1 and 3, Section 12, Article III of the 1987
make could be used against him. The person arrested shall Constitution, to wit:
have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative,
or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means by "SECTION 12(1). Any person under investigation for the
telephone if possible or by letter or messenger. It shall commission of an offense shall have the right to be
be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that informed of his right to remain silent and to have
this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel,
by the reason arrested, by any person on his behalf, or he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel
may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless x x x
made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, against him."
shall be inadmissible in evidence."
The adjectives competent and independent, which qualify
In People v. Nicandro, this Court declared that ones the kind of counsel an accused is entitled to during
right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to investigation, were not found in the previous Constitution.
counsel contemplates "the transmission of meaningful Their incorporation in the 1987 Constitution was thus
information rather than just the ceremonial and meant to stress the primacy of this right to counsel.
perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
principle." Thus, is not enough for the interrogator to A close scrutiny of the questioned extra-judicial
merely repeat to the person under investigation the confession in the case at bar reveals all possible violations
provisions of section 20, Article IV of the 1973 of the appellants right to remain silent, to counsel and to
Constitution, now Section 12, Article III of the 1987 be informed of such rights, and of the safeguards
Constitution; the former must also explain the effects of prescribed by this Court for the holding of custodial
such provision in practical terms e.g., what the person interrogations.
under interrogation may or may not do - and in a language
the subject fairly understands. The right "to be informed" (a) The interrogation was the conducted and the
carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of the confession was written in English a language the
police investigator to explain, and contemplates effective appellant, a farmer in a remote barangay of Pamplona,
communication which results in the subjects cannot speak and does not understand; he only finished
understanding of what is conveyed. Since it is Grade II. There is no evidence to show that the
comprehension that is sought to be attained, the degree of interrogator, who was not even presented as a witness and
explanation required will necessarily vary and depend on remains unidentified, translated the questions and the
the education, intelligence and other relevant personal answers into a dialect known and fairly understood by the
circumstances of the person undergoing investigation. In appellant.
(b) Appellant was not told that he could retain a counsel perfunctorily or in a pro-forma manner, obviously to pay
of choice and that if he cannot afford to do so, he could be mere lip service to the prescribed norms.
provided with one.
Consequently, Exhibit "F", which is indisputably an
(c) He did not sign any waiver of his right to remain silent uncounselled confession or admission, is inadmissible in
and to counsel. evidence. The trial court, therefore, committed a fatal
error in admitting it.
(d) He was not assisted by any counsel during the
investigation. Instead, a certain Elpedio Catacutan, who Hence, the appellants guilt was not established with
claimed to have appeared for him as a "friend-counsel," moral certainty. He should be acquitted.
was present only at the time that appellant was brought to
the office of Judge Catacutan for the preparation of the WHEREFORE, the challenged of the Regional Trial
jurat. Court of Negros Oriental is REVERSED and appellant
JAIME RAMIREZ alias "NEBOY" is hereby
(e) Assuming arguendo that Elpedio Catacutan may have ACQUITTED with costs de oficio.
been summoned to act as appellants counsel, he was,
nevertheless, not present during the custodial
interrogation which, by the way, was conducted exactly a
week before he appeared or more correctly, was made
to appear before Judge Calumpang. His presence
before the latter did not change the situation. As this Court
stated in People v. Burgos, the securing of counsel to help
the accused when the latter subscribed under oath to his
statement at the Fiscals Office was too late and had no
palliative effect; it did not cure the absence of counsel at
the time of the custodial investigation when the extra-
judicial statement was being taken.

(f) Furthermore, Elpedio Calumpang is not a lawyer;


according to the trial court, he is "a barister (sic)." In fact,
he candidly admitted that he is not a lawyer but that he
obtained a law degree from the Siliman University in
1959. Unfortunately, however, he failed in three Bar
Examinations.

(g) There is no showing that the so-called extra-judicial


confession, which is in English, was correctly explained
and translated to the appellant by Judge Calumpang.
Although the latter claimed in his testimony on direct
examination that he translated the same in the local dialect
to the appellant before the latter affixed his signature
thereto, Elpedio Catacutan categorically declared that it
was the interpreter, one Pedro Rodriguez, who translated
it to the appellant.

(h) Finally, the kind of "advice" proffered by the


unidentified interrogator belongs to that stereotyped class
a long question by the investigator informing the
appellant of his right followed by a monosyllabic answer
which this Court has condemned for being
unsatisfactory. The investigator gave his advice
employers house and accused-appellant EDNA replied
that she set the house on fire because when she asked
D. BARANGAY CAPTAINS AND permission to go home to her province, the wife of her
NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH GROUPS employer told her to just ride a broomstick in going home.
And when Mercedita Mendoza asked how she burned the
22) PEOPLE VS. MALNGAN
house, she told her: Naglukot ako ng maraming diyaryo,
FACTS: sinindihan ko ng disposable lighter at hinagis ko sa
ibabaw ng lamesa sa loob ng bahay.
(This case is a review of the Decision of the Court of
Appeals, affirming with modification the Judgment of the The fire resulted in the destruction of the house of Roberto
Regional Trial Court finding appellant Edna Malngan y Separa, Sr. and other adjoining houses and the death of
Mayo (Edna) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime Roberto Separa, Sr. and Virginia Separa together with
of Arson with Multiple Homicide or Arson resulting to their four children.
the death of six (6) people, and sentencing her to suffer
A trial thereafter ensued. Barangay Chairman Bernardo,
the penalty of death.)
Mercedita Mendoza, and other three witnesses were
It was at around 4:45 a.m. on January 2, 2001 when presented in court.
Remigio Bernardo and his tanods saw the accused-
appellant EDNA, one hired as a housemaid by Roberto Accused-appellant questions the admissibility of her
Separa, Sr., with her head turning in different directions, uncounselled extrajudicial confession given to
hurriedly leaving the house of her employer at No. 172 prosecution witnesses, namely Remigio Bernardo and
Moderna Street, Balut, Tondo, Manila. She was seen to Mercedita Mendoza. Accused-appellant Edna contends
have boarded a pedicab which was driven by a person that being uncounselled extrajudicial confession, her
admissions to having committed the crime charged should
later identified as Rolando Gruta. She was heard by the
pedicab driver to have instructed that she be brought to have been excluded in evidence against her for being
Nipa Street, but upon her arrival there, she changed her violative of Article III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution.
mind and asked that she be brought instead to Balasan ISSUE:
Street where she finally alighted, after paying for her fare.
WON the Honorable Court erred in allowing and giving
Thirty minutes later, Barangay Chairman Bernardos credence to the uncounselled admissions allegedly given
group later discovered that a fire gutted the house of the by the accused to the witnesses Barangay Chairman
employer of the housemaid. They responded and firemen Bernando and Mercedita Mendoza.
from the Fire District 1-NCR arrived at the fire scene to
contain the fire. Accused appellant EDNA was later RULING:
apprehended in Balasan Street where she was seen acting
strangely and suspiciously. She was brought to the The Court partly disagrees.
Barangay Hall for investigation. Upon inspection, a Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution in part
disposable lighter was found inside accused-appellant provides:
EDNAs bag. Thereafter, accused-appellant EDNA
confessed to Barangay Chairman Bernardo that she set (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of
her employers house on fire because she had not been an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right
paid her salary for about a year and that she wanted to go to remain silent and to have competent and independent
home to her province but her employer told her to just ride counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
a broomstick in going home. afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and
Mercedita Mendoza, whose house was also burned and in the presence of counsel.
identified EDNA as the housemaid of the victims, went to
the San Lazaro Fire Station, where EDNA was later xxxx
turned over, to give her sworn statement. She had the
opportunity to ask EDNA why she did the burning of her
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of constitutional safeguards during custodial investigations
this Section or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in do not apply to those not elicited through questioning by
evidence. the police or their agents but given in an ordinary manner
whereby the accused verbally admits to having committed
The Court have held that the above-quoted provision the offense as what happened in the case at bar when
applies to the stage of custodial investigation when the accused-appellant admitted to Mercedita Mendoza, to
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an having started the fire in the Separas house. The testimony
unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person of Mercedita Mendoza recounting said admission is
as a suspect. Said constitutional guarantee has also been admissible in evidence against her and is not covered by
extended to situations in which an individual has not been the aforesaid constitutional guarantee. Article III of the
formally arrested but has merely been invited for Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, solely governs the
questioning. relationship between the individual on one hand and the
To be admissible in evidence against an accused, the State (and its agents) on the other; it does not concern
extrajudicial confessions made must satisfy the following itself with the relation between a private individual and
requirements: another private individual as both accused-appellant and
prosecution witness Mercedita Mendoza undoubtedly are.
(1) It must be voluntary; Here, there is no evidence on record to show that said
witness was acting under police authority, so
(2) It must be made with the assistance of competent and appropriately, accused-appellants uncounselled
independent counsel; extrajudicial confession to said witness was properly
admitted by the RTC.
(3) It must be express; and
23. PEOPLE VS. LAUGA (2010)
(4) It must be in writing.
FACTS:
Arguably, the barangay tanods, including the Barangay
Chairman, in this particular instance, may be deemed as Prosecutions Version
law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Article
III, Section 12(1) and (3), of the Constitution. When In the afternoon of 15 March 2000, AAA was left alone at
accused-appellant was brought to the barangay hall in the home. AAAs father, the appellant, was having a drinking
morning of 2 January 2001, she was already a suspect, spree at the neighbors place. Her mother decided to leave
actually the only one, in the fire that destroyed several because when appellant gets drunk, he has the habit of
houses as well as killed the whole family of Roberto mauling AAAs mother. Her only brother BBB also went
Separa, Sr. She was, therefore, already under custodial out in the company of some neighbors.
investigation and the rights guaranteed by Article III,
Section 12(1), of the Constitution should have already At around 10:00 oclock in the evening, appellant woke
AAA up; removed his pants, slid inside the blanket
been observed or applied to her. Accused-appellants
confession to Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo was covering AAA and removed her pants and underwear;
made in response to the interrogation made by the latter warned her not to shout for help while threatening her
admittedly conducted without first informing accused- with his fist; and told her that he had a knife placed above
appellant of her rights under the Constitution or done in her head. He proceeded to mash her breast, kiss her
the presence of counsel. For this reason, the confession of repeatedly, and "inserted his penis inside her vagina."
accused-appellant, given to Barangay Chairman Remigio Soon after, BBB arrived and found AAA crying.
Bernardo, as well as the lighter found by the latter in her Appellant claimed he scolded her for staying out late.
bag are inadmissible in evidence against her as such were BBB decided to take AAA with him. While on their way
obtained in violation of her constitutional rights. to their maternal grandmothers house, AAA recounted
Be that as it may, the inadmissibility of accused- her harrowing experience with their father. Upon reaching
appellants confession to Barangay Chairman Remigio their grandmothers house, they told their grandmother
Bernardo and the lighter as evidence do not automatically and uncle of the incident, after which, they sought the
lead to her acquittal. It should well be recalled that the assistance of Moises Boy Banting.
Moises Boy Banting found appellant in his house wearing violation of his constitutional right; and (3) AAAs
only his underwear. He invited appellant to the police accusation was ill-motivated.
station, to which appellant obliged. At the police outpost,
he admitted to him that he raped AAA because he was ISSUE:
unable to control himself.
1. WON the extrajudicial confession made before the
The following day, AAA submitted herself to physical Bantay Bayan without the presence of counsel is
examination. Dra. Josefa Arlita L. Alsula, Municipal admissible as evidence.
Health Officer of x x x, Bukidnon, issued the Medical
2. WON the accused is still guilty despite the
Certificate, which reads:
inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA and her
hyperemic vulvae with 4 oclock & 6 oclock freshly brother.
lacerated hymen; (+) minimal to moderate bloody
HELD:
discharges 2 to an alleged raping incident.
1. NO. The confession to Moises Boy Banting, a
Defenses Version
"bantay bayan was inadmissible in evidence because
only appellant testified for the defense. He believed that Lauga was not assisted by a lawyer and there was no
the charge against him was ill-motivated because he valid waiver of such requirement.
sometimes physically abuses his wife in front of their In the case of People v. Malngan, the accuseds
children after engaging in a heated argument, and beats extrajudicial confessions given to the barangay chairman
the children as a disciplinary measure. He went further to were found to be inadmissible, but the verbal admission
narrate how his day was on the date of the alleged rape. not elicited through questioning by the police or their
He alleged that on 15 March 2000, there was no food agents but given in an ordinary manner to a neighbor of
prepared for him at lunchtime. Shortly after, AAA the private complainant is not covered by constitutional
arrived. She answered back when confronted. This safeguards during custodial investigations. The Court
infuriated him that he kicked her hard on her buttocks. distinguished that the barangay tanods, including the
Barangay Chairman, in such case, may be deemed as law
Appellant went back to work and went home again around enforcement officer for purposes of applying Article III,
3 oclock in the afternoon. Finding nobody at home, he Section 12(1) and (3), of the Constitution. When
prepared his dinner and went to sleep. accused-appellant was brought to the barangay hall, she
was already a suspect in the fire that destroyed several
Later in the evening, he was awakened by the members of houses. She was, therefore, already under custodial
the "Bantay Bayan" headed by Moises Boy Banting. They investigation and the rights guaranteed by the
asked him to go with them to discuss some matters. He Constitution should have already been observed or
later learned that he was under detention because AAA applied to her. Accused-appellants confession to
charged him of rape. Barangay Chairman was made in response to the
interrogation made by the latter admittedly conducted
RTC: Rape qualified by relationship and minority
without first informing accused-appellant of her rights
CA: Affirmed but modified indemnification under the Constitution or done in the presence of counsel.
(increased both the civil indemnity and moral For this reason, the confession of accused-appellant,
damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00) given to Barangay Chairman, as well as the lighter found
in her bag are inadmissible in evidence against her.
The lone assignment of error in the appellants brief is However, it did not automatically lead to her acquittal.
that, the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty as The constitutional safeguards during custodial
charged despite the failure of the prosecution to establish investigations do not apply to those not elicited through
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, because: (1) there were questioning by the police or their agents but given in an
inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA and her brother ordinary manner whereby the accused verbally admits in
BBB; (2) his extrajudicial confession before Moises Boy the case at bar when accused-appellant admitted to
Banting was without the assistance of a counsel, in
Mercedita Mendoza, one of the neighbors of the private 2. YES. The conviction of the appellant was not deduced
complainant. solely from the assailed extrajudicial confession but
"from the confluence of evidence showing his guilt
Following the rationale behind the ruling in Malngan, beyond reasonable doubt." Also, the testimony of AAA
Court ascertained that a "bantay bayan" may be does not run contrary to that of BBB. Both testified that
deemed a law enforcement officer within the they sought the help of a "bantay bayan." Their respective
contemplation of Article III, Section 12 of the testimonies differ only as to when the help was sought for,
Constitution. which this Court could well attribute to the nature of the
In People of the Philippines v. Buendia, the nature of a testimony of BBB, a shortcut version of AAAs testimony
that dispensed with a detailed account of the incident. The
"bantay bayan," that is, "a group of male residents
living in [the] area organized for the purpose of assailed inconsistency is too trivial to affect the
keeping peace in their community[,which is] an veracity of the testimonies. In fact, inconsistencies
accredited auxiliary of the PNP. which refer to minor, trivial or inconsequential
circumstances even strengthen the credibility of the
Also, it may be worthy to consider that pursuant to witnesses, as they erase doubts that such testimonies
Section 1(g) of Executive Order No. 309 issued on 11 have been coached or rehearsed.
November 1987, as amended, a Peace and Order
Committee in each barangay shall be organized "to serve The jurisprudence in Bartocillo vs. CA, that "where the
as implementing arm of the City/Municipal Peace and testimonies of two key witnesses cannot stand together,
Order Council at the Barangay level."61 The composition the inevitable conclusion is that one or both must be
of the Committee includes, among others: (1) the Punong telling a lie, and their story a mere concoction" is not
Barangay as Chairman; (2) the Chairman of the applicable in this case because in Bartocillo, the two
Sangguniang Kabataan; (3) a Member of the Lupon testimonies could not simply stand together.
Tagapamayapa; (4) a Barangay Tanod; and (5) at least Moreover, the contention that AAA charged him of rape
three (3) Members of existing Barangay-Based Anti- only because she bore grudges against him is
Crime or neighborhood Watch Groups or a Non unmeritorious. Mere disciplinary chastisement is not
Government Organization Representative well-known in strong enough to make daughters in a Filipino family
his community. invent a charge that would not only bring shame and
This Court is, therefore, convinced that barangay-based humiliation upon them and their families but also
bring their fathers into the gallows of death. Even when
volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups,
consumed with revenge, it takes a certain amount of
as in the case of the "bantay bayan," are recognized
psychological depravity for a young woman to concoct a
by the local government unit to perform functions
story which would put her own father to jail for the most
relating to the preservation of peace and order at the
barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the legality of of his remaining life and drag the rest of the family
the actions taken by Moises Boy Banting, and the specific including herself to a lifetime of shame. It is highly
scope of duties and responsibilities delegated to a "bantay improbable for AAA against whom no proof of sexual
bayan," particularly on the authority to conduct a perversity or loose morality has been shown to fake
custodial investigation, any inquiry he makes has the charges much more against her own father. In fact her
color of a state-related function and objective insofar as testimony is entitled to greater weight since her accusing
the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights words were directed against a close relative.
provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the Elements of Rape and Aggravating/Qualifying
Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is Circumstances
concerned.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 provides that rape is
We, therefore, find the extrajudicial confession of committed, among others, by a man who shall have carnal
appellant, which was taken without a counsel, knowledge of a woman through force, threat or
inadmissible in evidence. intimidation. The death penalty shall be imposed if it is
committed with aggravating/qualifying circumstances,
which include, when the victim is under eighteen (18)
years of age and the offender is a parent."

The consistent and forthright testimony of AAA detailing


how she was raped, culminating with the penetration of
appellants penis into her vagina, suffices to prove that
appellant had carnal knowledge of her. When a woman
states that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape was committed. Further,
when such testimony corresponds with medical findings,
there is sufficient basis to conclude that the essential
requisites of carnal knowledge have been established.

The element of force or intimidation is not essential when


the accused is the father of the victim, in as much as his
superior moral ascendancy or influence substitutes for
violence and intimidation. At any rate, AAA was actually
threatened by appellant with his fist and a knife allegedly
placed above AAAs head.

It may be added that the self-serving defense of appellant


cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward
testimony of AAA. Settled is the rule that, "alibi is an
inherently weak defense that is viewed with suspicion
because it is easy to fabricate." "Alibi and denial must be
supported by strong corroborative evidence in order to
merit credibility." Moreover, for the defense of alibi to
prosper, the accused must establish two elements (1) he
was not at the locus delicti at the time the offense was
committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him
to be at the scene at the time of its commission.

The presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority


and relationship with the offender in the instant case has
likewise been adequately established. Both qualifying
circumstances were specifically alleged in the
Information, stipulated on and admitted during the pre-
trial conference, and testified to by both parties in their
respective testimonies. Also, such stipulation and
admission, as correctly pointed out by the Court of
Appeals, are binding upon this Court because they are
judicial admissions within the contemplation of Section 4,
Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The autopsy conducted by Dr. Alberto Bondoc revealed
that Marianne died of "traumatic injuries" sustained.

Marianne's gruesome death drew public attention and


prompted Mayor Cornelio Trinidad of Baliuag to form a
crack team of police officers to look for the criminal.
E. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS TO
Searching the place where Marianne's body was found,
PRIVATE PERSONS AND MASS MEDIA
the policemen recovered a broken piece of concrete block
24. PEOPLE VS. ANDAN (1997) stained with what appeared to be blood. They also found
a pair of denim pants and a pair of shoes which were
FACTS: identified as Marianne's.
Prosecutions Version: Appellant's nearby house was also searched by the police
who found bloodstains on the wall of the pigpen in the
On February 19, 1994 at about 4:00 P.M., in Concepcion
backyard. They interviewed the occupants of the house
Subdivision, Baliuag, Bulacan, Marianne Guevarra,
and learned from Romano Calma, the stepbrother of
twenty years of age and a second-year student at the
appellant's wife, that accused-appellant also lived there
Fatima School of Nursing, left her home for her school
but that he, his wife and son left without a word. Calma
dormitory in Valenzuela, Metro Manila. She was to
surrendered to the police several articles consisting of
prepare for her final examinations on February 21, 1994.
pornographic pictures, a pair of wet short pants with some
Marianne wore a striped blouse and faded denim pants
reddish brown stain, a towel also with the stain, and a wet
and brought with her two bags containing her school
T-shirt. The clothes were found in the laundry hamper
uniforms, some personal effects and more than P2,000.00
inside the house and allegedly belonged to appellant.
in cash.
The police tried to locate appellant and learned that his
Marianne was walking along the subdivision when
parents live in Barangay Tangos, Baliuag, Bulacan. On
appellant invited her inside his house. He used the pretext
February 24 at 11:00 P.M., a police team led by Mayor
that the blood pressure of his wife's grandmother should
Trinidad traced appellant in his parents' house. They took
be taken. Marianne agreed to take her blood pressure as
him aboard the patrol jeep and brought him to the police
the old woman was her distant relative. She did not know
headquarters where he was interrogated. Initially,
that nobody was inside the house. Appellant then punched
appellant denied any knowledge of Marianne's death.
her in the abdomen, brought her to the kitchen and raped
However, when the police confronted him with the
her. His lust sated, appellant dragged the unconscious girl
concrete block, the victim's clothes and the bloodstains
to an old toilet at the back of the house and left her there
found in the pigpen, appellant relented and said that his
until dark. Night came and appellant pulled Marianne,
neighbors, Gilbert Larin and Reynaldo Dizon, killed
who was still unconscious, to their backyard. The yard
Marianne and that he was merely a lookout. He also said
had a pigpen bordered on one side by a six-foot high
that he knew where Larin and Dizon hid the two bags of
concrete fence. On the other side was a vacant lot.
Marianne. Immediately, the police took appellant to his
Appellant stood on a bench beside the pigpen and then
house. Larin and Dizon, who were rounded up earlier,
lifted and draped the girl's body over the fence to transfer
were likewise brought there by the police. Appellant went
it to the vacant lot. When the girl moved, he hit her head
to an old toilet at the back of the house, leaned over a
with a piece of concrete block. He heard her moan and hit
flower pot and retrieved from a canal under the pot, two
her again on the face. After silence reigned, he pulled her
bags which were later identified as belonging to
body to the other side of the fence, dragged it towards a
Marianne. Thereafter, photographs were taken of
shallow portion of the lot and abandoned it.
appellant and the two other suspects holding the bags.
At 11:00 A.M. of the following day, February 20, 1994,
Appellant and the two suspects were brought back to the
the body of Marianne was discovered. She was naked
police headquarters. The following day, February 25, a
from the chest down with her brassiere and T-shirt pulled
physical examination was conducted on the suspects by
toward her neck. Nearby was found a panty with a
the Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Orpha Patawaran.
sanitary napkin.
Appellant was found to sustain multiple scratches on the Appellant was brought by the police to a hotel at Bagong
right side of his neck, as well as chest and back. Nayon, Baliuag. In one of the rooms, the policemen
covered his face with a bedsheet and kicked him
By this time, people and media representatives were repeatedly. They coerced him to confess that he raped and
already gathered at the police headquarters awaiting the killed Marianne. When he refused, they pushed his head
results of the investigation. Mayor Trinidad arrived and into a toilet bowl and injected something into his buttocks.
proceeded to the investigation room. Upon seeing the Weakened, appellant confessed to the crime. Thereafter,
mayor, appellant approached him and whispered a appellant was taken to his house where he saw two of his
request that they talk privately. The mayor led neighbors, Larin and Dizon. He was ordered by the police
appellant to the office of the Chief of Police and there, to go to the old toilet at the back of the house and get two
appellant broke down and said "Mayor, patawarin mo bags from under the flower pot. Fearing for his life,
ako! I will tell you the truth. I am the one who killed appellant did as he was told.
Marianne." The mayor opened the door of the room
to let the public and media representatives witness the RTC: Pablito Andan is found guilty by proof beyond
confession. The mayor first asked for a lawyer to assist reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the
appellant but since no lawyer was available he ordered Information (Special Complex Crime of Rape with
the proceedings photographed and videotaped. In the Homicide).
presence of the mayor, the police, representatives of
the media and appellant's own wife and son, appellant On automatic review, Andan contends that the
confessed his guilt. He disclosed how he killed Marianne inadmissibility of the testimonies of the policemen, the
and volunteered to show them the place where he hid her mayor and the news reporters because they were made
bags. He asked for forgiveness from Larin and Dizon during custodial investigation without the assistance of
whom he falsely implicated saying he did it because of ill- counsel. Section 12, paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article III
feelings against them. He also said that the devil entered of the Constitution provides:
his mind because of the pornographic magazines and Sec. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the
tabloid he read almost everyday. After his confession, commission of an offense shall have the right to
appellant hugged his wife and son and asked the mayor to be informed of his right to remain silent and to
help him. His confession was captured on videotape have competent and independent counsel
and covered by the media nationwide. preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
Appellant was detained at the police headquarters. The afford the services of counsel, he must be
next two days, February 26 and 27, more newspaper, radio provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
and television reporters came. Appellant was again except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
interviewed and he affirmed his confession to the (3) Any confession or admission obtained in
mayor and reenacted the crime. violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
Defenses Version inadmissible in evidence against him.

On arraignment, however, appellant entered a plea of "not ISSUE:


guilty." He testified that in the afternoon of February 19,
1. WON the extra judicial confession is admissible (1)
1994 he was at his parent's house in Barangay Tangos
as to the police officers, (2) as to the mayor and (3) as
attending the birthday party of his nephew. He, his wife
to the news reporters.
and son went home after 5:00 P.M. His wife cooked
dinner while he watched their one-year old son. They all 2. WON the absence of spermatozoa in the autopsy
slept at 8:00 P.M. and woke up the next day at 6:00 in the conducted on the victim, as well as other real and
morning. His wife went to Manila to collect some debts testimonial evidence, is enough to convict Andan as
while he and his son went to his parents' house where he charged
helped his father cement the floor of the house. His wife
joined them in the afternoon and they stayed there until HELD:
February 24, 1994 when he was picked up by the police.
1. The extrajudicial confession to the police officers is incriminating facts or confessions. The rights under
inadmissible, but the ones made to the mayor and the Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of
news reporters were admissible. coercion by the state as would lead the accused to admit
something false, not to prevent him from freely and
As to the police officers: voluntarily telling the truth. Hence, we hold that
NO. The rights under Section 12 are accorded to any appellant's confession to the mayor was correctly
admitted by the trial court.
person under investigation for the commission of an
offense." An investigation begins when it is no longer a As to the news reporters:
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus
on a particular person as a suspect, i.e., when the police YES. Appellant's confessions to the media were likewise
investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession properly admitted. The confessions were made in
from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense. response to questions by news reporters, not by the police
or any other investigating officer. We have held that
When the police arrested appellant, they were no longer statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news
engaged in a general inquiry about the death of Marianne. reporters on a televised interview are deemed
Andan was already a prime suspect even before the police voluntary and are admissible in evidence. Such are not
found him at his parents' house so he is already under covered by Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the
custodial investigation when he confessed to the police. Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not concern itself
It is admitted that the police failed to inform appellant with the relation between a private individual and
of his constitutional rights when he was investigated another individual. It governs the relationship between
and interrogated. His confession is therefore the individual and the State. The prohibitions therein are
inadmissible in evidence. So too were the two bags primarily addressed to the State and its agents. They
recovered from appellant's house, because the victim's confirm that certain rights of the individual exist without
bags were the fruits of appellant's uncounseled confession need of any governmental grant, rights that may not be
to the police. They are tainted evidence, hence also taken away by government, rights that government has the
inadmissible. duty to protect. Governmental power is not unlimited and
As to the mayor: the Bill of Rights lays down these limitations to protect
the individual against aggression and unwarranted
YES. It is true that a municipal mayor has "operational interference by any department of government and its
supervision and control" over the local police and may agencies.
arguably be deemed a law enforcement officer for
purposes of applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III The confessions to the news reporters were given free
of the Constitution. However, appellant's confession to from any undue influence from the police authorities.
the mayor was not made in response to any interrogation The news reporters acted as news reporters when they
by the latter. In fact, the mayor did not question appellant interviewed appellant. They were not acting under the
at all. No police authority ordered appellant to talk to the direction and control of the police. They were there to
mayor. It was appellant himself who spontaneously, check appellant's confession to the mayor. They did not
freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a private force appellant to grant them an interview and reenact the
meeting. The mayor did not know that appellant was commission of the crime. In fact, they asked his
going to confess his guilt to him. When appellant talked permission before interviewing him. They interviewed
with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law him on separate days not once did appellant protest
enforcement officer, his uncounseled confession to him his innocence. Instead, he repeatedly confessed his
did not violate his constitutional rights. Thus, it has been guilt to them. He even supplied all the details in the
held that the constitutional procedures on custodial commission of the crime, and consented to its
investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, reenactment. All his confessions to the news reporters
not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but were witnessed by his family and other relatives.
given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant orally There was no coercive atmosphere in the interview of
admitted having committed the crime. What the appellant by the news reporters.
Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of
2. The absence of spermatozoa in the vagina does not In fine, appellant's extrajudicial confessions together with
negate the commission of rape nor does the lack of the other circumstantial evidence justify the conviction of
complete penetration or rupture of the hymen. What is appellant.
essential is that there be penetration of the female
organ no matter how slight. Dr. Aguda testified that the Appellant 's defense of alibi cannot overcome the
fact of penetration is proved by the lacerations found in prosecution evidence. His alibi cannot even stand the test
the victim's vagina. The lacerations were fresh and could of physical improbability at the time of the commission of
not have been caused by any injury in the first autopsy. the crime. Barangay Tangos is only a few kilometers away
from Concepcion Subdivision and can be traversed in less
Dr. Aguda's finding and the allegation that the victim was than half an hour.
raped by appellant are supported by other evidence, real
and testimonial, obtained from an investigation of the
witnesses and the crime scene,:
25. PEOPLE V. ENDINO
(1) The victim, Marianne, was last seen walking
along the subdivision road near appellant's house;
YIELDING to mans brutish instinct for revenge, Edward
(2) At that time, appellant's wife and her step
Endino, with the aid of Gerry Galgarin alias Toto, slew
brother and grandmother were not in their house;
Dennis Aquino in the presence of a lady whose love they
(3) A bloodstained concrete block was found over once shared.
the fence of appellant's house, a meter away from
FACTS: On a busy street in Puerto Princesa City, Gerry
the wall. Bloodstains were also found on the grass
Galgarin, uncle of accused Edward Endino, suddenly and
nearby and at the pigpen at the back of appellant's
without warning lunged at Dennis and stabbed him
house;
repeatedly on the chest. Dennis girlfriend Clara Agagas
(4) The victim sustained bruises and scars who was with him, stunned by the unexpected attack,
indicating that her body had been dragged over a pleaded to Galgarin to stop. Dennis struggled and
flat rough surface. This supports the thesis that succeeded momentarily to free himself from his
she was thrown over the fence and dragged to attacker. Dennis dashed towards the nearby Midtown
where her body was found; Sales but his escape was foiled when from out of nowhere
Edward Endino appeared and fired at Dennis. As Dennis
(5) Appellant's bloodstained clothes and towel staggered for safety, the two (2) assailants fled in the
were found in the laundry hamper in his house; direction of the airport. Meanwhile, Dennis, wounded and
bleeding, sought refuge inside the Elohim Store where he
(6) The reddish brown stains in the towel and T-
collapsed on the floor. He was grasping for breath and
shirt of appellant were found positive for the
near death. Clara with the help of some onlookers took
presence of blood type "B," the probable blood
him to the hospital but subsequently Dennis died.
type of the victim. 61 Marianne 's exact blood
type was not determined but her parents had type As a result thereof, an Information for the murder of
"A" and type "AB." The victim's pants had Dennis Aquino was filed against Edward Endino and
bloodstains which were found to be type "O," accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin and warrants were
appellant's blood type; issued for their arrest. However, as both accused
remained at large.
(7) Appellant had scratch marks and bruises in his
body which he failed to explain; Gerry Galgarin was arrested through the combined
efforts of the Antipolo and Palawan police forces at a
(8) For no reason, appellant and his wife left their
house in Sitio Sto. Nio, Antipolo, Rizal.
residence after the incident and were later found
at his parents' house in Barangay Tangos, He was taken into custody of Antipolo Police then
Baliuag, Bulacan; transferred to Palawan.
On their way to the airport, they stopped at the ABS-CBN does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not
television station where accused Galgarin was given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to
interviewed by reporters. Video footages of the interview elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. Besides,
were taken showing Galgarin admitting his guilt while if he had indeed been forced into confessing, he could
pointing to his nephew Edward Endino as the have easily sought succor from the newsmen who, in all
gunman. According to Galgarin, after attacking Aquino, likelihood, would have been symphatetic with him. As the
they left for Roxas, Palawan, where his trial court stated in its Decisio
sister Langging who is Edward's mother, was
waiting. Langging gave them money for their fare for We agree. However, because of the inherent danger
in the use of television as a medium for admitting ones
Manila. They took the boat for Batangas, where they
guilt, and the recurrence of this phenomenon in several
stayed for a few days, and proceeded to Manila where cases,[14] it is prudent that trial courts are reminded that
they separated, with him heading for Antipolo. Galgarin extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar
appealed for Edward to give himself up to the confessions. For in all probability, the police, with the
authorities.His interview was shown over the ABS-CBN connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners, may
evening news program TV Patrol. attempt to legitimize coerced extrajudicial confessions
and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an
For his part, accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin disclaimed accused admit an offense on television. Such a situation
having taking part in the slaying of Dennis. Gerry asserted would be detrimental to the guaranteed rights of the
accused and thus imperil our criminal justice system.
that on the date of the incident he was in Antipolo to help
his common-law wife Maria Marasigan give birth to their We do not suggest that videotaped confessions given
first born. The midwife who delivered his son, supported before media men by an accused with the knowledge of
the alibi of accused-appellant. However, she admitted that and in the presence of police officers are
impermissible. Indeed, the line between proper and
when she registered the childs birth on 13 December 1993
invalid police techniques and conduct is a difficult one to
or more than two (2) years after the delivery, she informed draw, particularly in cases such as this where it is essential
the civil registrar that the childs father was "unknown." to make sharp judgments in determining whether a
confession was given under coercive physical or
Accused-appellant disowned the confession which he psychological atmosphere.
made over TV Patrol and claimed that it was induced by
A word of counsel then to lower courts: we should
the threats of the arresting police officers. He asserted that
never presume that all media confessions described as
the videotaped confession was constitutionally infirmed voluntary have been freely given. This type of confession
and inadmissible under the exclusionary rule provided in always remains suspect and therefore should be
Sec.12, Art. III, of the Constitution.[8] thoroughly examined and scrutinized. Detection of
coerced confessions is admittedly a difficult and arduous
The trial court however admitted the video footages on the task for the courts to make. It requires persistence and
strength of the testimony of the police officers that no determination in separating polluted confessions from
force or compulsion was exerted on accused-appellant untainted ones. We have a sworn duty to be vigilant and
and upon a finding that his confession was made before a protective of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
group of newsmen that could have dissipated any WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo finding
semblance of hostility towards him. accused-appellant GERRY GALGARIN alias Toto guilty
of Murder qualified by Treachery
convicted of murder qualified by treachery[9] and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

RULING:

The admission of accused-appellants videotaped


confession is proper.

The interview was recorded on video and it showed


accused-appellant unburdening his guilt willingly, openly
and publicly in the presence of newsmen. Such confession
document. He did not know Atty. Juliano and did not talk
to him. The victims were the neighbors of his father in the
province.

Likewese, he testified that, it took less than 15 minutes to


travel, and he also mentioned that the media interviewed
F. WAIVER AT TRIAL
him 2 days after his arrest.He and his relatives in Laguna
26) PEOPLE VS. SAMUS did not have the capacity to hire/secure the services of a
lawyer.
Appellant was a farmer, tilling and living in the land of
Miguel Completo at Barangay Niugan, Cabuyao,
Laguna. The victims, sixty two (62) year old Dedicacion First Issue:
Balisi and her grandson, six (6) year old John Ardee Arrest of Appellant
Balisi, were the neighbors of appellants father. Police
officers received a telephone call from a local barangay The police officers version of the arrest is incredible. Not
official informing them of the victims deaths. The only are their allegations uncertain and inconsistent, they
investigators likewise found a pair of maong pants, a are also contrary to human experience. We find it hard to
white T-shirt, a handkerchief and dirty slippers in the believe that anyone would jump from the roof of a two-
bathroom and roof of the house. A pair of earrings worn story house to escape and, after landing on the ground
by Dedicacion Balisi was likewise reported missing from without any broken bones, make a complete turnaround
her body and just meekly surrender without further ado. Even if
this story were true, jumping from a roof is not a crime
An acquaintance (Poncianos) of appellant, happened to
that would justify the warrantless arrest of appellant.
meet appellant at Sammy Pachecas house in the same
barangay where appellant asked Ponciano to accompany MOREOVER, He was not a prisoner. The killing of
him to Poncianos wife to pawn a pair of Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi was not done in the
earrings. Poncianos wife was mad at first but upon presence of the arresting officers. Since it took place on
Poncianos prodding, gave appellant P300.00 with no September 2, 1996, it could not have been considered as
interest. The earrings were placed in a jewelry box; having just been committed. Evidently, they unlawfully
thereafter, appellant received another P250.00. arrested appellant on September 10, 1996. When they did
so, we cannot ascribe to them the presumption of
Criminal Investigation Group received information that regularity in the performance of official functions,
contrary to the court a quos finding.
appellant was the principal suspect in the killing of the
two (2) victims . He was arrested. Considering that the arrest of appellant was
unlawful, the apprehending officers uncertainty and
NP Fingerprint Examiner Reigel Allan Sorra took reluctance in admitting it becomes understandable.
fingerprint samples from appellant. His prints exactly Thus, the apprehending officers contend that the
matched with a set of prints found at the crime scene constitutional rights of appellant were not violated, since
they were not the ones who had investigated and elicited
Mario Bitos was able to recover the pawned earrings from evidentiary matters from him.
Ponciano
We are not persuaded. The events narrated by the
For his defense, Samus denied the accusations against law enforcers in court are too good to be true. Their Sworn
him. He testified that he was a farmer, he was harvesting Statements given a day after the arrest contradict their
testimonies and raise doubts on their credibility.
palay with Eligio Completo; that he never left the
farm. He took his lunch at the hut of Miguel Completo;
that he arrived home at 6:00 in the afternoon, took his
Second Issue:
dinner then went to sleep. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
He also testified that he was forced to execute a document
admitting the killing. He was forced to sign said Appellant claims that his alleged confession to the
media while in police custody cannot be admitted in
evidence. He further contends that the pair of earrings, the evidence to support its case. To disregard
turnover receipt, as well as the testimonies of Pontaos and unceremoniously a major portion of its case at this late
Bitos, relative thereto should be excluded for being fruits stage when it can no longer present additional evidence as
of the poisonous tree. substitute for that which is now claimed to be
inadmissible goes against fundamental fairness.
We clarify. After being illegally arrested, appellant
was not informed of his constitutional rights to remain
silent and to have competent and independent
counsel. Hence, any admission elicited from him by the PENALTIES
law enforcers during custodial investigation are normally
inadmissible in evidence. Treachery qualified the killing of six-year-old John
Ardee Balisi as murder.
In their affidavits, the police officers readily
admitted that appellant was subjected to a preliminary As for the death of Dedicacion Balisi, however, none
interview. Yet, during their examination in open court, of the qualifying circumstances alleged in the Information
they tried to skirt this issue by stating that it was only the was proven by the prosecution. Hence, appellant can be
media that had questioned appellant, and that they were convicted of homicide only.
merely present during the interview.
In either of the two cases, the aggravating
In the absence of testimony from any of the media circumstance of dwelling cannot be appreciated against
persons who allegedly interviewed appellant, the appellant, simply because it was not alleged in the
uncertainties and vagueness about how they questioned Information.[27]
and led him to his confession lead us to believe that they
themselves investigated appellant and elicited from him There being no aggravating circumstances, the
uncounselled admissions. This fact is clearly shown by imposable penalty for the homicide[28] of Dedicacion
the Affidavits they executed on September 11, 1997, as Balisi is reclusion temporal in its medium period. In this
well as by their testimonies on cross-examination. case, appellant is entitled to the benefits of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. For the same
Nonetheless, even if the uncounselled admission per reason, reclusion perpetua-- not death -- is the correct
se may be inadmissible, under the present circumstances penalty that should be imposed on appellant for the
we cannot rule it out because of appellants failure to make murder[29] of John Ardee Balisi.
timely objections. Indeed, the admission is inadmissible
in evidence under Article III, Section 12(1) and (3) of the WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial
Constitution, because it was given under custodial Court of Calamba, Laguna (Branch 36) is
investigation and was made without the assistance of hereby AFFIRMED with the
counsel. However, the defense failed to object to its following MODIFICATIONS : in Criminal Case No.
presentation during the trial, with the result that the 5015-96-C, the maximum of the penalty is reduced to 17
defense is deemed to have waived objection to its years and four months of reclusion temporal medium; in
admissibility.[20] Criminal Case No. 5016-96-C, the penalty is reduced
to reclusion perpetua.Costs de oficio.
Can the testimony of Pontaos and the picture of a pair
of earrings together with the turnover receipt, which
appellant identified during his testimony, be considered
inadmissible as the fruit of the poisonous tree and hence
be disregarded at this stage of appeal?
Upon examination of the records, we find that during
the entire examination in court of Prosecution Witness
Pontaos, appellant did not question or object to the
admissibility of the formers testimony. Worse, the latters
counsel even freely cross-examined the witness without
any reservations. Having made no objection before the
trial court, appellant cannot raise this question for the first
time on appeal.[21] The evidence having been admitted
without objection, we are not inclined to reject it.
If only appellant had made a timely objection to the
admissibility of the said testimony, the prosecution could
have been warned of the need to present additional
illness" and that this requires maintenance medication to
avoid relapses. After accused-appellant was discharged
on February 22, 1993, he never returned to the hospital,
not even for a check-up.

Contention of the Accused:

He claimed that the prosecution failed to prove the crime


XV. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED of murder because there was no evidence of the qualifying
circumstance of treachery; that there was unlawful
A. CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS aggression by the victim when he tapped accused-
appellant's hand with his nightstick; and that accused-
1) PEOPLE VS ESTRADA, 333 SCRA 699 (2000) appellant did not have sufficient ability to calculate his
defensive acts because he was of unsound mind.
The sacrament of confirmation was being performed at St.
John's Cathedral, Dagupan City by the Roman Catholic Contention of the State:
Bishop when Roberto Estrada went up and walked
towards the center of the altar and sat on the Bishop's The accused "pretended to be weak, tame and of unsound
chair. Crisanto Santillan, who was assisting the Bishop at mind;" that after he made the first stab, he "furiously
the rites, approached Estrada and requested him to vacate continued stabbing and slashing the victim to finish him
the Bishop's chair. Gripping the chair's armrest, accused- off undeterred by the fact that he was in a holy place
appellant replied in Pangasinese: "No matter what will where a religious ceremony was being conducted".
happen, I will not move out!" Hearing this, Santillan
moved away. Ruling:

Rogelio Mararac, the security guard at the cathedral went Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of
near Estrada and told him to vacate the Bishop's chair. intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality of
Estrada stared intensely at the guard. Mararac then held the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. The
his nightstick and tapped twice Estrada's hand on the accused must be "so insane as to be incapable of
armrest. When Mararac was about to tap again, Estrada entertaining a criminal intent." He must be deprived of
suddenly drew a knife from his back, lunged at Mararac reason and act without the least discernment because there
and stabbed him twice, causing the death of the latter. is a complete absence of the power to discern or a total
Then Estrada got up, went to the microphone and shouted: deprivation of freedom of the will.
"Anggapuy nayan dia!" (No one can beat me here!). He
returned to the Bishop's chair and sat on it again. There is no direct proof that Estrada was afflicted with
insanity at the time he killed Mararac. The absence of
The police came and when they frisked appellant, they direct proof, nevertheless, does not entirely discount the
found a leather scabbard tucked around his waist. He was probability that appellant was not of sound mind at that
brought to the police station and placed in jail. Then Jail time. It was highly unusual for a sane person to go up to
Warden Wilfredo Valdez requested the court to allow the altar and sit in the Bishop's chair while the Bishop was
Estrada, to be treated at the Baguio General Hospital to administering the Holy Sacrament of Confirmation. It
determine whether he should remain in jail or be goes against normal and ordinary behavior for Estrada
transferred to some other institution as other prisoners without sufficient provocation from the security guard, to
were allegedly not comfortable with appellant because he stab the latter at the altar, during sacramental rites and in
had been exhibiting unusual behavior; he would shout at front of all the Catholic faithful to witness. Estrada did not
the top of his voice and cause panic among the jail inmates flee, or at least attempt to flee after the stabbing. He
and personnel; he had not been eating and sleeping; and casually approached the microphone and, over the public
his co-inmates had been complaining of not getting address system, uttered words to the faithful which the
enough sleep for fear of being attacked by him while rational person would have been made. He then returned
asleep; that once, while they were sleeping, he took out all to the Bishop's chair and sat there as if nothing happened.
his personal effects and waste matter and burned them
inside the cell which again caused panic among the Mere allegation of insanity is insufficient. There must be
inmates. evidence or circumstances that raise a "reasonable
doubt" or a "bona fide doubt" as to defendant's
Dr. Gawidan, testified that the illness of accused- competence to stand trial. Estradas plea was not an
appellant, i.e., schizophrenia, paranoid type, is a "lifetime unconditional admission of guilt because he was "not in
full possession of his mental faculties when he killed the In 1979, Olaguer and some others were detained by
victim;" and thereby ordered that he be subjected to the military personnel and they were placed in Camp Bagong
necessary medical examination to determine his degree of Diwa. Logauer and his group are all civilians. They were
insanity at the time of commission of the crime. charged with (1) unlawful possession of explosives and
incendiary devices; (2) conspiracy to assassinate
President and Mrs. Marcos; (3) conspiracy to assassinate
cabinet members Juan Ponce Enrile, Francisco Tatad and
2) ISIDRO T. HILDAWA vs. ENRILE Vicente Paterno; (4) conspiracy to assassinate Messrs.
Arturo Tangco, Jose Roo and Onofre Corpus; (5) arson
of nine buildings; (6) attempted murder of Messrs.
FACTS: Leonardo Perez, Teodoro Valencia and Generals Romeo
Espino and Fabian Ver; and (7) conspiracy and proposal
Petitioners Isidro T. Hildawa and Ricardo C. to commit rebellion, and inciting to rebellion. On August
Valmonte in these Special Civil Actions pray that a 19, 1980, the petitioners went to the SC and filed the
"preliminary injunction issue directing respondents to instant Petition for prohibition and habeas corpus.
recall the crimebusters and restraining them from fielding ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for habeas corpus be
police teams or any of this sort with authority/license to granted.
kill and after hearing, declaring the order of respondents
HELD: The petition for habeas corpus has become moot
fielding crimebusters null and void and making the
and academic because by the time the case reached the SC
injunction permanent." They alleged that the formation
Olaguer and his companions were already released from
and fielding of secret marshals and/or crimebusters with
military confinement. When the release of the persons in
absolute authority to kill thieves, holduppers, robbers,
whose behalf the application for a writ of habeas corpus
pickpockets and slashers are violative of the provisions of
was filed is effected, the Petition for the issuance of the
the New Constitution under Sections 1, 17,19, 20 and 21
writ becomes moot and academic. 18 Inasmuch as the
of Article III (Bill of Rights).
herein petitioners have been released from their
confinement in military detention centers, the instant
ISSUE: Petitions for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus should
be dismissed for having become moot and academic. But
Whether or not the creation and deployment of the military court created to try the case of Olaguer (and
special operations team to counter the resurgence of the decision it rendered) still continues to subsist.
criminality is violative of the provisions of the
Constitution. ISSUE2: The issue is then shifted to: Whether or not a
military tribunal has the jurisdiction to try civilians while
HELD: the civil courts are open and functioning.
HELD: The SC nullified for lack of jurisdiction all
The Supreme held that there is nothing wrong in decisions rendered by the military courts or tribunals
the creation and deployment of special operation teams to during the period of martial law in all cases involving
counter the resurgence of criminality, as there is nothing civilian defendants. A military commission or tribunal
wrong in the formation by the police of special cannot try and exercise jurisdiction, even during the
teams/squads to prevent the proliferation of vices, period of martial law, over civilians for offenses allegedly
prostitution, drug addiction, pornography and the like. committed by them as long as the civil courts are open and
That is the basic job of the police. It is the alleged use of functioning, and that any judgment rendered by such body
violence in the implementation of the objectives of the relating to a civilian is null and void for lack of
special squads that the court is concerned about. It is our jurisdiction on the part of the military tribunal concerned.
way of life that a man is entitled to due process which
simply means that before he can be deprived of his life,
liberty or property, he must be given an opportunity to
2ND VERSION: OLAGUER V. MILITARY
defend himself. Due process of law requires that the
accused must be heard in court of competent jurisdiction, COMMISSION
proceeded against under the orderly process of law, and
Olaguer v Military Commission No. 34
only punished after inquiry and investigation, upon notice
GR No. L-54558 May 22, 1987
to him, with an opportunity to be heard, and a judgment
awarded within the authority of a constitutional law.
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-
3) OLAGUER VS. MILITARY COMMISSION Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever
it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces June 13. 1980 -the respondent Chief of Staff of the
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or Armed Forces of the Philippines 3 created the respondent
Military Commission No 34 to try criminal case filed
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public
against the petitioners.
safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty July 30, 1980 - an amended charge sheet was filed for
days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas seven (7) offenses, namely:
corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under (1) Unlawful possession of explosives and incendiary
martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the devices;
(2) Conspiracy to assassinate President, and Mrs. Marcos;
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
(3) Conspiracy to assassinate cabinet members Juan
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall Ponce Enrile, Francisco Tatad and Vicente Paterno;
submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. (4) Conspiracy to assassinate Messrs. Arturo Tangco, Jose
The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a Roo and Onofre Corpus;
majority of all its Members in regular or special session, (5) Arson of nine buildings;
may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which (6) Attempted murder of Messrs. Leonardo Perez,
Teodoro Valencia and Generals Romeo Espino and
revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon Fabian Ver; and
the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the (7) Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, and
same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for inciting to rebellion.
a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion December 4, 1984 - pending the resolution of the
or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires Petition, the respondent Military Commission No. 34
passed sentence convicting the petitioners and imposed
it.cralaw
upon them the penalty of death by electrocution.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four The thrust of petitioners arguments is that military
hours following such proclamation or suspension, commissions have no jurisdiction to try civilians for
convene in accordance with its rules without need of a offenses alleged to have been committed during the
call.cralaw period of martial law. They also maintain that the
proceedings before the respondent Military Commission
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
No. 34 are in gross violation of their constitutional right
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the to due process of law.
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or ISSUE:
the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision Whether or not a military tribunal has the jurisdiction to
thereon within thirty days from its filing.cralaw try civilians while the civil courts are open and
functioning
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of
the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil HELD:
courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the WHEREFORE,
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies
over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor DISMISSED - the Petitions for habeas corpus are for
having become moot and academic.
automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
GRANTED - The Petitions for certiorari and prohibition.
corpus.cralaw DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL - The creation of
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas the respondent Military Commission No. 34 to try
corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for civilians like the petitioners is hereby declared
rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected unconstitutional and all its proceedings are deemed null
with, invasion.cralaw and void. The temporary restraining order issued against
the respondents enjoining them from executing the
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ Decision of the respondent Military Commission No. 34
of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained is hereby made permanent and the said respondents are
shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he permanently prohibited from further pursuing Criminal
shall be released.cralaw Case No. MC-34-1 against the petitioners. The sentence
rendered by the respondent Military Commission No. 34
GANCAYCO, J: imposing the death penalty on the petitioners is hereby
vacated for being null and void, and all the items or
FACTS:
properties taken from the petitioners in relation to the said "The military tribunals created pursuant thereto are
criminal case should be returned to them immediately. hereby dissolved upon final determination of case's
pending therein which may not be transferred to the civil
RATIO: courts without irreparable prejudice to the state in view of
(1) Military commissions or tribunals have no jurisdiction the rules on double jeopardy, or other circumstances
to try civilians for alleged offenses when the civil courts which render prosecution of the cases difficult, if not
are open and functioning. Due process of law demands impossible."
that in all criminal prosecutions (where the accused stands
to lose either his life or his liberty), the accused shall be
entitled to, among others, a trial. Civilians like (the) (6) Certainly, the rule of stare decisis is entitled to respect
petitioner placed on trial for civil offenses under general because stability in jurisprudence is desirable.
law are entitled to trial by judicial process, not by Nonetheless, reverence for precedent, simply as
executive or military process. precedent, cannot prevail when constitutionalism and the
(2) Judicial power exists only in the courts, which have public interest demand otherwise. Thus, a doctrine which
"exclusive power to hear and determine those matters should be abandoned or modified should be abandoned or
which affect the life or liberty or property of a citizen. In modified accordingly. After all, more important than
Toth v. Quarles, 40 the U.S. Supreme Court further anything else is that this Court should be right.
stressed that the assertion of military authority over
civilians cannot rest on the President's power as
Commander-in-Chief or on any theory of martial law. 4) GALMAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN
(3) Following the principle of separation of powers
underlying the existing constitutional organization of the FACTS: Assassination of former Senator Benigno
Government of the Philippines, the power and the duty of "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. He was killed from his plane that had
interpreting the laws as when an individual should be just landed at the Manila International Airport. His brain
considered to have violated the law) is primarily a was smashed by a bullet fired point-blank into the back of
function of the judiciary. It is not, and it cannot be the
his head by an assassin. The military investigators
function of the Executive Department, through the
military authorities. And as long as the civil courts in the reported within a span of three hours that the man who
land remain open and are regularly functioning, as they do shot Aquino (whose identity was then supposed to be
so today and as they did during the period of martial law unknown and was revealed only days later as Rolando
in the country, military tribunals cannot try and exercise Galman) was a communist-hired gunman, and that the
jurisdiction over civilians for offenses committed by them military escorts gunned him down in turn.
and which are properly cognizable by the civil courts.
(4) Respondent Military Commission No. 34 appears to President was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board
have been rendered too hastily to the prejudice to the to investigate due to large masses of people who joined in
petitioners, and in complete disregard of their
the ten-day period of national mourning yearning for the
constitutional right to adduce evidence on their behalf.
Thus, even assuming arguendo that the respondent truth, justice and freedom.
Military Commission No. 34 does have the jurisdiction to
The fact is that both majority and minority reports were
try the petitioners, the Commission should be deemed
ousted of its jurisdiction when, as observed by the one in rejecting the military version stating that "the
Solicitor General, the said tribunal acted in disregard of evidence shows to the contrary that Rolando Galman had
the constitutional rights of the accused. Indeed, it is well- no subversive affiliations. Only the soldiers in the
settled that once a deprivation of a constitutional right is staircase with Sen. Aquino could have shot him; that
shown to exist, the tribunal that rendered the judgment in Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military
question is deemed ousted of jurisdiction.
conspiracy, not a communist plot. Only difference
(5) Proclamation No. 2045 (dated January 17, 1981)
officially lifting martial law in the Philippines and between the two reports is that the majority report found
abolishing all military tribunals created pursuant to the all the twenty-six private respondents above-named in the
national emergency effectively divests the respondent title of the case involved in the military conspiracy; "
Military Commission No. 34 (and all military tribunals for while the chairman's minority report would exclude
that matter) of its supposed authority to try civilians, nineteen Of them.
including the herein petitioners. The said proclamation
states: Then Pres. Marcos stated that evidence shows that
Galman was the killer.
Petitioners pray for issuance of a TRO enjoining Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera (made his expose 15
respondent court from rendering a decision in the two months later when former Pres. was no longer around)
criminal cases before it, the Court resolved by nine-to-two affirmed the allegations in the second motion for
votes 11 to issue the restraining order prayed for. The reconsideration that he revealed that the Sandiganbayan
Court also granted petitioners a five-day period to file a Justices and Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by
reply to respondents' separate comments and respondent Marcos to whitewash the Aquino-Galman murder case.
Tanod bayan a three-day period to submit a copy of his Malacaang wanted dismissal to the extent that a prepared
84-page memorandum for the prosecution. resolution was sent to the Investigating Panel.
Malacaang Conference planned a scenario of trial where
But ten days later, the Court by the same nine-to-two-vote the former President ordered then that the resolution be
ratio in reverse, resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift revised by categorizing the participation of each
the TRO issued ten days earlier enjoining the respondent; decided that the presiding justice, Justice
Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision. The same Pamaran, (First Division) would personally handle the
Court majority denied petitioners' motion for a new 5-day trial. A conference was held in an inner room of the
period counted from receipt of respondent Tanodbayan's Palace. Only the First Lady and Presidential Legal
memorandum for the prosecution (which apparently was Assistant Justice Lazaro were with the President. The
not served on them). conferees were told to take the back door in going to the
Thus, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, room where the meeting was held, presumably to escape
alleging that the dismissal did not indicate the legal notice by the visitors in the reception hall waiting to see
ground for such action and urging that the case be set for the President. During the conference, and after an
agreement was reached, Pres. Marcos told them 'Okay,
a full hearing on the merits that the people are entitled to
due process. mag moro-moro na lamang kayo;' and that on their way
out of the room Pres. Marcos expressed his thanks to the
However, respondent Sandiganbayan issued its decision group and uttered 'I know how to reciprocate'.
acquitting all the accused of the crime charged, declaring
them innocent and totally absolving them of any civil
liability. Respondents submitted that with the The Court then said that the then President (code-named
Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal, the instant case had Olympus) had stage-managed in and from Malacaang
become moot and academic. Thereafter, same Court Palace "a scripted and predetermined manner of handling
majority denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for and disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder case;" and
lack of merit. that "the prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and the
Justices who tried and decided the same acted under the
Hence, petitioners filed their motion to admit their second
motion for reconsideration alleging that respondents compulsion of some pressure which proved to be beyond
committed serious irregularities constituting mistrial and their capacity to resist.
resulting in miscarriage of justice and gross violation of Also predetermined the final outcome of the case" of total
the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the absolution of the twenty-six respondents-accused of all
sovereign people of the Philippines to due process of law. criminal and civil liability. Pres. Marcos came up with a
public statement aired over television that Senator Aquino
ISSUES:
was killed not by his military escorts, but by a communist
(1) Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as hired gun. It was, therefore, not a source of wonder that
an accused. President Marcos would want the case disposed of in a
manner consistent with his announced theory thereof
(2) Whether or not there was a violation of the double which, at the same time, would clear his name and his
jeopardy clause. administration of any suspected guilty participation in the
assassination.
RULING: Petitioners' second motion for reconsideration
is granted and ordering a re-trial of the said cases which such a procedure would be a better arrangement because,
should be conducted with deliberate dispatch and with if the accused are charged in court and subsequently
careful regard for the requirements of due process.
acquitted, they may claim the benefit of the doctrine of There was no double jeopardy. Courts' Resolution of
double jeopardy and thereby avoid another prosecution if acquittal was a void judgment for having been issued
some other witnesses shall appear when President Marcos without jurisdiction. No double jeopardy attaches,
is no longer in office. therefore. A void judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment
at all. By it no rights are divested. It neither binds nor bars
More so was there suppression of vital evidence and anyone. All acts and all claims flowing out of it are void.
harassment of witnesses. The disappearance of witnesses
two weeks after Ninoy's assassination. According to J.
Herrera, "nobody was looking for these persons because
they said Marcos was in power. The assignment of the Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been resolved
case to Presiding Justice Pamaran; no evidence at all that ahead. In this case, petitioners' motion for reconsideration
the assignment was indeed by virtue of a regular raffle, of the abrupt dismissal of their petition and lifting of the
except the uncorroborated testimony of Justice Pamaran TRO enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its
himself. decision had been taken cognizance of by the Court which
had required the respondents', including the
The custody of the accused and their confinement in a Sandiganbayan's, comments.
military camp, instead of in a civilian jail. The monitoring
of proceedings and developments from Malacaang and Although no restraining order was issued anew,
by Malacaang personnel. The partiality of respondent Sandiganbayan should not have precipitately
Sandiganbayan betrayed by its decision: That President issued its decision of total absolution of all the accused
Marcos had wanted all of the twenty-six accused to be pending the final action of this Court. All of the acts of
acquitted may not be denied. In rendering its decision, the the respondent judge manifest grave abuse of discretion
Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential on his part amounting to lack of jurisdiction which
directive. Its bias and partiality in favor of the accused substantively prejudiced the petitioner.
was clearly obvious. The evidence presented by the With the declaration of nullity of the proceedings, the
prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. cases must now be tried before an impartial court with an
The record shows that the then President misused the unbiased prosecutor. Respondents accused must now face
overwhelming resources of the government and his trial for the crimes charged against them before an
authoritarian powers to corrupt and make a mockery of impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor with all due
the judicial process in the Aquino-Galman murder cases. process.
"This is the evil of one-man rule at its very worst." Our The function of the appointing authority with the mandate
Penal Code penalizes "any executive officer who shall of the people, under our system of government, is to fill
address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority the public posts. Justices and judges must ever realize that
with respect to any case or business coming within the they have no constituency, serve no majority nor minority
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice." but serve only the public interest as they see it in
Impartial court is the very essence of due process of law. accordance with their oath of office, guided only the
This criminal collusion as to the handling and treatment Constitution and their own conscience and honor.
of the cases by public respondents at the secret
Malacaang conference (and revealed only after fifteen
months by Justice Manuel Herrera) completely 5. SALAZAR VS. PEOPLE
disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan and voided ab
initio its verdict. The courts would have no reason to exist FACTS:
if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of injustice,
Petitioner, Anamer E. Salazar and one Nena
deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth.
Jaucian Timario were charged with estafa before the
More so, in the case at bar where the people and the world
Legazpi City Regional Trial Court. Said estafa case
are entitled to know the truth, and the integrity of our
stemmed from the payment of a check worth 214,000
judicial system is at stake.
php to private respondent, J.Y Brothers Marketing
Corporation through their representative, Jerson Yao for
the purchase of 300 cavans of rice. The check was drawn In a case where the accused files a demurrer to
against Prudential Bank by Nena Jaucian Timario and was evidence without leave of court, he thereby waives his
dishonored as it was drawn against a closed account. right to present evidence and submits the case for decision
Salazar replaced the check with a new one which was on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution. On the
drawn against Solid Bank and it was again dishonored for other hand, if the accused is granted leave to file a
being drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD) which demurrer to evidence, he has the right to adduce evidence
in banking parlance means means that the account had not only on the criminal aspect but also on the civil aspect
sufficient funds but was still restricted because the of the case if his demurrer is denied by the court.
deposit, usually a check, had not yet been cleared.
If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the
After the prosecution rested its case, the court, the accused has the right to adduce evidence on the
petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of civil aspect of the case unless the court also declares that
Court. The trial court granted. the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise
did not exist. If the trial court issues an order or renders
On November 19, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment judgment not only granting the demurrer to evidence of
acquitting the petitioner of the crime charged but ordering the accused and acquitting him but also on the civil
her to remit to the private complainant the amount of the liability of the accused to the private offended party, said
check as payment for her purchase. The trial court ruled judgment on the civil aspect of the case would be a nullity
that the evidence for the prosecution did not establish the for the reason that the constitutional right of the accused
existence of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt between to due process is thereby violated.
the petitioner and the issuer of the check, her co-accused
Nena Jaucian Timario, for the purpose of defrauding the When the accused files a demurrer to evidence,
private complainant. In fact, the private complainant, the accused has not yet adduced evidence both on the
Jerson Yao, admitted that he had never met Nena Jaucian criminal and civil aspects of the case. The only evidence
Timario who remained at large. As a mere indorser of the on record is the evidence for the prosecution. What the
check, the petitioners breach of the warranty that the trial court should do is to issue an order or partial
check was a good one is not synonymous with the judgment granting the demurrer to evidence and
fraudulent act of falsely pretending to possess credit under acquitting the accused; and set the case for continuation
Article 315(2)(d) RPC. of trial for the petitioner to adduce evidence on the civil
aspect of the case.
Salazar filed a motion for reconsideration on the
civil aspect of the decision with a plea to be allowed to This is where the trial court, in this case, erred by
present evidence. Trial Court denied MFR. Hence, rendering acquittal of Salazar and at the same time,
petition for review on certiorari before SC alleging she ordering her to pay for the purchases even before the
was denied due process as the trial court did not give her petitioner could adduce evidence in a proper civil case,
opportunity to adduce evidence to controvert her civil thereby denying her of due process.
liability.
Section 14, paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article III
ISSUE: WON Salazar was denied due process of the Constitution which are elementary and deeply
imbedded in our own criminal justice system, are
RULING: mandatory and indispensable. The principles find
YES. Petitioner should have been given by the universal acceptance and are tersely expressed in the oft-
trial court the opportunity to present evidence as regards quoted statement that procedural due process cannot
to the civil aspect of the case. Under the Revised Rules of possibly be met without a law which hears before it
Criminal Procedure, the Court explained the demurrer to condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial
evidence partakes of a motion to dismiss the case for
failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused Section 14, paragraphs (1) and (2), of Article III, of the
beyond reasonable doubt. Constitution
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be


presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process
to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production
of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment,
trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
accused provided that he has been duly notified and his
failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Petitioner, in its Comment/Opposition said that
the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) is inapplicable as
the attending circumstances are immaterial because the
charge constituting the complex crime has the
corresponding penalty of reclusion Perpetua. Since the
offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua, bail is
discretionary. Instead of a motion to fix bail, a summary
hearing to determine if the evidence of guilt is strong is,
therefore, necessary conformably with Section 13, Article
III of the 1987 Constitution and Section 4, Rule 114 of the
B. BAIL Rules.

6. PEOPLE VS. VALDEZ & SANDIGANBAYAN Due to the issuance and release of a warrant of
arrest, Valdez subsequently filed an Urgent Supplemental
FACTS: Motion to the Motion to Set Aside No Bail
Recommendation and to Fix the Amount of Bail with
Respondent, Valdez was charged with eight cases
Additional Prayer to Recall/Lift Warrant of Arrest.
four of which (SB-14-CRM-0317 to 0320) were for
Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, while Public respondent (Sandiganbayan) granted the
the remaining half (SB-14-CRM-0321 to 0324) were for motions of Valdez. It recalled the arrest order issued in
the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru Criminal Case Nos. SB-14-CRM-0321, 0322 and 0324. In
Falsification of Official/Public Documents under Articles lieu thereof, a new arrest order was issued, fixing the bail
217 and 171 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal for each offense charged in said cases in the amount of
Code (RPC). Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00).
Based on the post-audit of the disbursement Without filing a motion for reconsideration,
vouchers (D.V.) of the Bacolod City Government where petitioner elevated the matter before SC to resolve the
among the subjects thereof were the reimbursements of lone issue of whether an accused indicted for the complex
expenses of private respondent Luzviminda S. Valdez a crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification
former mayor of Bacolod City, it was alleged that the cash of Official/Public Documents involving an amount that
slips were altered/falsified to enable Valdez to exceeds P22,000.00 is entitled to bail as a matter of right.
claim/receive reimbursement from the Government the
total amount of P279,150.00 instead of only P4,843.25; ISSUE: WON accused is entitled to bail as a matter of
thus, an aggregate overclaim of P274,306.75. right

Case was brought before the Public Assistance RULING:


and Corruption Prevention Office (PACPO), Office of the
YES. The accused is entitled to bail as a matter of
Ombudsman Visayas and was resolved adverse to
right.
Valdez. The Ombudsman recommended "no bail" in SB-
14-CRM-0321, 0322, and 0324. The court first resolved the issue on how the term
punishable must be construed in relation to Section 13,
Valdez, who is still at-large, caused the filing of a
Article III of the Constitution and Sections 4 and 7 Rule
Motion to Set Aside No Bail Recommendation and to Fix
114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which
the Amount of Bail. She argued that the three cases are
provides for granting bail to the accused. Notably, the
bailable as a matter of right because no aggravating or
word used is ["punishable,"] which practically bears the
modifying circumstance was alleged; the maximum of the
same meaning as "imposable." It is only logical that the
indeterminate sentence shall be taken from the medium
reference has a direct correlation with the time frame
period that ranged from 18 years, 8 months and 1 day to
"before conviction" since trial is yet to begin; hence, it
20 years; and applying Article 48 of the RPC, the
can only be the penalty imposable of the offense charged
imposable penalty is 20 years, which is the maximum of
that can be considered for purposes of bail.
the medium period.
Pursuant to the lenity rule, when the court is faced
In this case, the offenses charged are the complex with two possible interpretations of a penal statute, one
crimes of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification that is prejudicial to the accused and another that is
of Official/Public Documents. In determining the penalty favorable to him. The rule calls for the adoption of an
imposable, it is the penalty for the most serious crime interpretation which is more lenient to the accused. Since
which is considered (Art. 48 RPC). Between Malversation the complex crimes have not yet been proven, Valdez is
and Falsification, it is Malversation which provides the entitled to bail
graver penalty. As thus provided under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code, if the amount exceeds 22,000, the
penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period SECTION 13. All persons, except those charged with
to reclusion Perpetua The penalty, however, cannot be
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence
immediately applied in its maximum period, or reclusion of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
Perpetua, since this will already consider the application sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may
of the penalty in the event of a conviction. be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired
The trial, however, is yet to proceed and the even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
prosecution must still prove the guilt of the accused suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
beyond reasonable doubt. It is not amiss to point that in required.22ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
charging a complex crime, the information should allege Pursuant thereto, Sections 4 and 7, Rule 114 of the
each element of the complex offense with the same Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provide:
precision as if the two (2) constituent offenses were the
subject of separate prosecutions. Where a complex crime
is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as SEC. 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. - All persons in
to one of the component offenses, the defendant can be custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with
convicted of the offense proven. There is no certainty that sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as
Valdez would be found guilty of Malversation of Public prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after
Funds thru Falsification of Official/Public Documents conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
involving an amount that exceeds P22,000.00. Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal
Falsification, like an aggravating circumstance, must be Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the
alleged and proved during the trial. Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. (4a)
For purposes of bail proceedings, it would be
premature to rule that the supposed crime committed is a
SEC. 7. Capital offense of an offense punishable by
complex crime since it is only when the trial has reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. - No
terminated that falsification could be appreciated as a person charged with a capital offense, or an
means of committing malversation. Further, it is possible offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
that only the elements of one of the constituent imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of
offenses, i.e., either malversation or falsification, or guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal
worse, none of them, would be proven after full-blown prosecution. (7a)
trial.

It would be the height of absurdity to deny


Valdez the right to bail and grant her the same only after 7) ENRILE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD
trial if it turns out that there is no complex crime DIVISION)
committed. Likewise, it is unjust for the court to give a
stamp of approval in depriving the accused person's Date of Promulgation: August 18, 2015
constitutional right to bail for allegedly committing a
Ponente: Bersamin, J
complex crime that is not even considered as inherently
grievous, odious and hateful. Petition: Certiorari
Petitioner: Juan Ponce Enrile Bail is not a matter of right in cases where the crime
charged is plunder and the imposable penalty is reclusion
Respondents: Sandiganbayan (Third Division), and perpetua. The grant of bail is a special accommodation for
People of the Philippines the petitioner.
FACTS: The prosecution should have been given the opportunity
On June 5, 2014 Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged to rebut the allegation that petitioner suffers from medical
by the Office of the Ombudsman with plunder in the conditions.
Sandiganbayan on the basis of his purported involvement The invocation of a general human rights principle does
in the diversion and misuse of appropriations under the not provide clear legal basis for the grant of bail on
Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). The case humanitarian grounds. It is neither presently provided in
is a petition for certiorari to annul the decision of the our Rules of Court nor found in any statue or provision of
Sandiganbayan denying his Motion to fix bail and Motion the Constitution. This sets a dangerous precedent for the
for Reconsideration on the following grounds: (a) The granting of bail on the basis of humanitarian conditions,
prosecution failed to show conclusively that Enrile, if ever which is determined by the personal discretion of the trial
convicted, is punishable by reclusion perpetua; (b) The judge.
prosecution failed to show that evidence of Enriles guilt
is strong; (c) Enrile is not a flight risk. The grant of provisional liberty to petitioner without any
determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong
ISSUE: violates the clear and unambiguous text of the
Whether or not Enrile can bail -YES constitution.

RULING:

The purpose of the bail is to guarantee the appearance of 8) LEVISTE VS. COURT OF APPEALS
the accused at the trial. FACTS:
It is the Philippines responsibility in the international Charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas, petitioner
community under the Universal Declaration of Human Jose Antonio Leviste was convicted by the Regional Trial
Rights .of protecting and promoting the right of every Court of Makati City for the lesser crime of homicide and
person to liberty and due processunder the obligation to sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six years
make available to every person under detention such and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and
remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
liberty. These remedies include the right to be admitted to
bail. He appealed his conviction to the Court of
Appeals. Pending appeal, he filed an urgent application
Enrile is not a flight risk because of his social and political for admission to bail pending appeal, citing his advanced
standing and his having immediately surrendered to the age and health condition, and claiming the absence of any
authorities upon being charged in court. risk or possibility of flight on his part.
The currently fragile state of Enriles health is a The Court of Appeals denied petitioners
compelling justification for his admission to bail. application for bail. It invoked the bedrock principle in the
(Chronic hypertension, diffuse atherosclerotic matter of bail pending appeal, that the discretion to extend
cardiovascular disease, Atrial and Ventricular bail during the course of appeal should be exercised with
Arrhythmia, etc.) grave caution and only for strong reasons.

Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied


Dissenting Opinion of Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen ISSUE:
Whether or not bail should automatically be granted not more than 20 years is imposed, and not one of the
absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the third circumstances stated in Sec. 5 or any other similar
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court circumstance is present and proved, bail is a matter of
filed by an appellant pending appeal? discretion (Sec. 5);

RULING: f. After conviction by the Regional Trial Court


imposing a penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years
NO. Absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the but not more than 20 years, and any of the circumstances
third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 means that a less stated in Sec. 5 or any other similar circumstance is
stringent approach in granting bail only subject to the present and proved, no bail shall be granted by said court
discretion of the court to grant bail. (Sec. 5); x x x1[24] (emphasis supplied
Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides: The third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114
Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. Upon conviction by applies to two scenarios where the penalty imposed on the
appellant applying for bail is imprisonment exceeding six
the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission years. The first scenario deals with the circumstances
to bail is discretionary. enumerated in the said paragraph (namely, recidivism,
quasi-recidivism, habitual delinquency or commission of
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, previous escape from legal confinement, evasion of
or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the sentence or violation of the conditions of his bail without
prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following a valid justification; commission of the offense while
or other similar circumstances: under probation, parole or conditional pardon;
circumstances indicating the probability of flight if
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual released on bail; undue risk of committing another crime
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the during the pendency of the appeal; or other similar
circumstance of reiteration; circumstances) not present. The second scenario
contemplates the existence of at least one of the said
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal
circumstances.
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions
of his bail without a valid justification; In the first situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial
discretion. This means that, if none of the circumstances
(c) That he committed the offense while under
mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is
probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
present, the appellate court has the discretion to grant or
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the deny bail. An application for bail pending appeal may be
probability of flight if released on bail; or denied even if the bail-negating2[26] circumstances in the
third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 are absent. In other
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit words, the appellate courts denial of bail pending appeal
another crime during the pendency of the appeal. where none of the said circumstances exists does not, by
and of itself, constitute abuse of discretion.
Under the present revised Rule 114, the availability of bail
to an accused may be summarized in the following rules: On the other hand, in the second situation, the
appellate court exercises a more stringent discretion, that
xxx xxx xxx
is, to carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated
e. After conviction by the Regional Trial Court circumstances in fact exists. If it so determines, it has no
wherein a penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years but other option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal.
Conversely, if the appellate court grants bail pending Hongkong. The Hongkong Depoartment of Justice
appeal, grave abuse of discretion will thereby be requested DOJ for the provisional arrest of respondent
committed. Muoz; the DOJ forward the request to the NBI then to
RTC. On the same day, NBI agents arrested him.
Given these two distinct scenarios, therefore, any
application for bail pending appeal should be viewed from Respondent filed with the CA a petition for certiorari,
the perspective of two stages: (1) the determination of prohibition and mandamus with application for
discretion stage, where the appellate court must determine preliminary mandatory injunction and writ of habeas
whether any of the circumstances in the third paragraph corpus questioning the validity of the order of arrest.
of Section 5, Rule 114 is present; this will establish
whether or not the appellate court will exercise sound The CA declared the arrest void. Hence this petition by
discretion or stringent discretion in resolving the the Hongkong Department of Justice thru DOJ.
application for bail pending appeal and (2) the exercise of DOJ filed a petition for certiorari in this Court and
discretion stage where, assuming the appellants case falls sustained the validity of the arrest.
within the first scenario allowing the exercise of sound
discretion, the appellate court may consider all relevant Hongkong Administrative Region then filed in the RTC
circumstances, other than those mentioned in the third petition for extradition and arrest of respondent.
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114, including the demands Meanwhile, respondent filed a petition for bail, which was
of equity and justice; on the basis thereof, it may either opposed by the petitioner, initially the RTC denied the
allow or disallow bail. petition holding that there is no Philippine Law granting
bail in extradition cases and that private responded is a
On the other hand, if the appellants case falls within the flight risk.
second scenario, the appellate courts stringent discretion
requires that the exercise thereof be primarily focused on Motion for reconsideration was filed by the respondent,
the determination of the proof of the presence of any of which was granted. Hence this petition.
the circumstances that are prejudicial to the allowance of
bail. This is so because the existence of any of those ISSUE: Whether or not right to bail can be avail in
circumstances is by itself sufficient to deny or revoke bail. extradition cases.
Nonetheless, a finding that none of the said circumstances
HELD:
is present will not automatically result in the grant of bail.
Such finding will simply authorize the court to use the less Section 13, Article III of the Constitution provides that the
stringent sound discretion approach. right to bail shall not be impaired, thus:

Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses


punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt
9) GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG SPECIAL
is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
ADMINISTRATIVE REGION V. OLALIA JR.
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may
Bail, Section 1, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired
Procedure - is the surety for the release of a person in even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
guarantee his appearance before any court as required
Moreover, the constitutional right to bail "flows from the
under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be
presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who
given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash
should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter
deposit, or recognizance.
he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be
FACTS: proved beyond reasonable doubt" (De la Camara v.
Enage, 41 SCRA 1, 6, September 17, 1971, per Fernando,
Respondent Muoz was charged of 3 counts of offences J., later CJ). It follows that the constitutional provision on
of accepting an advantage as agent, and 7 counts of bail will not apply to a case like extradition, where the
conspiracy to defraud, punishable by the common law of presumption of innocence is not at issue.
In Purganan case, the right to bail was not included in the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting
extradition cases, since it is available only in criminal state or government to hold him in connection with
proceedings. criminal investigation directed against him or execution
of a penalty imposed on him under the penal and criminal
However the Supreme Court, recognised the following law of the requesting state or government. Thus
trends in International Law. characterized as the right of the a foreign power, created
by treaty to demand the surrender of one accused or
1. The growing importance of the individual person in
publican international law who, in the 20th century convicted of a crimes within its territorial jurisdiction, and
attained global recognition. the correlative obligation of the other state to surrender
him to the demanding state.
2. The higher value now being given in human rights in
international sphere The extradited may be subject to detention as may be
necessary step in the process of extradition, but the length
3. The corresponding duty of countries to observe these of time in the detention should be reasonable.
human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations
In the case at bar, the record show that the respondent,
4. The of duty of this court to balance the rights of the Muoz has been detained for 2 years without being
individual under our fundamental law, on one hand, and convicted in Hongkong.
the law on extradition on the other.
While our extradition law does not provide for the grant
The modern trend in the public international law is the of bail to an extraditee, however, there is no provision
primacy placed on the sanctity of human rights. prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right
to due process under the Constitution.
Enshrined the Constitution The state values the dignity
of every human person and guarantees full respect for The Philippines has the obligation of ensuring the
human rights. The Philippines therefore, has the individual his right to liberty and due process and should
responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of not therefor deprive the extraditee of his right to bail
every person to liberty and due process, ensuring that PROVIDED that certain standards for the grant is
those detained or arrested can participate in the satisfactorily met. In other words there should be
proceeding before the a court, to enable it to decide CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
without delay on the legality of the detention and order
In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate
their release if justified.
Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that
Examination of this Court in the doctrines provided for in a new standard which he termed "clear and convincing
the US Vs Purganan provide the following. evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition
cases. According to him, this standard should be lower
1. The exercise of the States police power to deprive a than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than
person of his liberty is not limited to criminal proceedings. preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee must
prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a
2. To limit the right to bail in the criminal proceeding
flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes
would be to close our eyes to jurisprudential history.
of the extradition court.
Philippines has not limited the exercise of the right to bail
to criminal proceedings only. This Court has admitted to However in the case at bar, the respondent was not able to
bail persons who are not involved in criminal show and clear and convincing evidence that he be
proceedings. In fact, bail has been involved in this entitled to bail. Thus the case is remanded in the court for
jurisdiction to persons in detention during the tendency of the determination and otherwise, should order the
administrative proceedings, taking into cognisance the cancellation of his bond and his immediate detention.
obligation of the Philippines under international
conventions to uphold human rights.

EXTRADITION, is defined as the removal of an accused


from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the
did not perform all the acts of execution which would
produce the said felony by reason of causes other than the
spontaneous desistance of the accused, that is, Ronalyn
Pastera was awakened and shouted for help, thus forcing
the accused to release Ronalyn Pastera and ran away.

Prosecutions Version:

Before proceeding to the boarding house of Jicelyn


Lansap, the accused, an ice cream vendor, first went to the
residence of Ronalyn Pastera at around three forty-five in
the morning and surreptitiously entered Ronalyn's
bedroom where she was sleeping. He fanned her face with
C. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
his handkerchief and then lifted her bodily from the floor.
10) PEOPLE VS. FRAGO He was about to take her out of the room when she
suddenly woke up and screamed for help thus prompting
The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an her father to respond immediately by switching on the
investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to lights. As a consequence, the accused had to drop Ronalyn
ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or on the floor and run out of the house. The prosecution
admissions from the respondent/accused would seem to infer that from the house of Ronalyn where
he failed in his alleged attempt to defile her, the accused
FACTS:
next went to the boarding house of Jicelyn some fifty
ORLANDO FRAGO was charged before the court a quo meters away.
with rape and attempted rape, docketed as Crim. Cases
According to Jicelyn, she and her cousins went to bed at
Nos. 9144 and 9145, respectively.
about eight o'clock in the evening of 25 September 1990.
Crim. Case No. 9144: Then at around five-thirty the following morning, she was
awakened by appellant who was already strangling her.
In the early morning of 26 September 1990, at about four She shouted for help so that he immediately ran away. She
o'clock, in the poblacion of Quezon, Palawan, the accused felt pain all over her body, more particularly in her private
Orlando Frago entered the sleeping room of the house part, and discovered that she was no longer wearing her
belonging to Fortunato Moral where JICELYN LANSAP skirt and underwear. To her consternation, she found
was sleeping, thereby Jicelyn Lansap was bodily carried herself in the vacant house of a certain Dado Andor. So
by accused Orlando Frago to a nearby house belonging to she lost no time looking for her way home. Upon reaching
Dado Andor and with lewd design did then and there her boarding house, she narrated her harrowing
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lay with and have experience to her cousins who in turn related the incident
carnal knowledge with said Jicelyn Lansap who at that to her mother.
time was deeply asleep, against her will and without her
consent, to the damage and prejudice of Jicelyn Lansap. Jicelyn and her mother went to the hospital where she was
examined by Dr. Marcela Remegio who found Jicelyn
Crim. Case No. 9145: with "Labia Majora and Minora still coaptated and with
sign of external struggle, contusion, abrasion all over face,
In the early morning of 26 September 1990, at about three
around neck, scratch marks on both medial surface of
forty-five, in the poblacion of Quezon, Palawan, the
thigh, vulva swollen, presence of fresh hymenal laceration
accused Orlando Frago entered the room of the dwelling
at six o'clock, [e]xamination for the presence of
house of Philip Pastera where one RONALYN
spermatoza was positive, physical virginity lost.
PASTERA, a girl 9 years of age, was sleeping, and once
inside the room, with lewd design did then and there Defenses Version
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously hold her head and
bodily carry said Ronalyn Pastera, thus commencing the Appellant seeks sanctuary in the alcove of denial and
commission of a felony of Rape directly by overt acts but alibi. He claims that at nine o'clock in the evening of 25
September 1990, he was already asleep with his wife and dissection of the testimony of Jicelyn herself indubitably
children. He woke up at six o'clock the following shows that she has no reliable basis for pointing to the
morning. He was very tired that night because he was accused as the person who raped her. The only evidence
vending ice cream in the poblacion the whole day. In his of sexual intercourse is the result of the medical
appeal, appellant imputes error to the trial court in examination. There was no positive identification of
convicting him on the basis of an identification which was Orlando Frago by Jicelyn. Her testimony on direct
made without the assistance of counsel and according examination supports this conclusion. While she would
credence to the story of Jicelyn, which he considers make it appear that she was able to positively identify the
fantastic, thereby denying his constitutional right to be accused, her account of the incident proved otherwise. It
presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable appears highly incredible that Jicelyn could be bodily
doubt. lifted from her room in her boarding house and taken
some three hundred meters away to the vacant house of
Appellant argues that it was during his detention, when he Dado Andor. Only when the conscience is satisfied that
was not assisted by counsel, that he was identified by the crime has been committed by the person on trial
Jicelyn. Thus he invokes People v. Hassan where this should the sentence be for conviction. 21 Unfortunately
Court affirmed the right of an accused to counsel at all for the prosecution, its evidence has miserably failed to
stages of the proceedings, the most crucial of which is his pass that conscience test.
identification, and denial thereof entitles him to acquittal.
11. PEOPLE VS. GODOY, 250 SCRA 676 (1995)
In Crim. Case No. 9145 for attempted rape, the accused
was acquitted on "reasonable doubt occasioned by lack of Facts:
clear and convincing evidence that the accused Orlando
Frago indeed performed against Ronalyn Pastera Godoy was charged with the crimes of rape and
kidnapping with serious illegal detention.
ISSUE: Whether or not positive identification of the
victim is accepted to prove beyond reasonable doubt the According to complainant Mia Taha, at around 7:00 P.M.
guilt of the accused of January 21, 1994, she went to the boarding house of her
cousin, Merlylyn Casantosan, at Pulot Center, Brooke's
RULING: Point which is near the Palawan National School (PNS),
Pulot Branch, where she was studying. When she saw that
No. Orlando Frago was singled out by Jicelyn in a police the house was dark, she decided to pass through the
line-up composed of ten persons. In Gamboa v. Cruz, we kitchen door at the back because she knew that there was
were explicit The right to counsel attaches upon the start nobody inside. As soon as she opened the door, somebody
of an investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer suddenly grabbed her, poked a knife on her neck, dragged
starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or her by the hand and told her not to shout. She was then
confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused. forced to lie down on the floor. Although it was dark,
As aptly observed, however, by the Solicitor General, the complainant was able to recognize her assailant, by the
police line-up (at least, in this case) was not part of the light coming from the moon and through his voice, as
custodial inquest, hence, petitioner was not yet entitled, at accused-appellant Danny Godoy who was her Physics
such stage, to counsel. When petitioner was identified by teacher at PNS.
the complainant at the police line-up, he had not been held
yet to answer for a criminal offense. The police line-up is When she was already on the floor, appellant removed her
not a part of the custodial inquest, hence, he was not yet panty with one hand while holding the knife with the other
entitled to counsel. Since petitioner in the course of his hand, opened the zipper of his pants, and then inserted his
identification in the police line-up had not yet been held private organ inside her private parts against her will. She
to answer for a criminal offense, he was, therefore, not felt pain because it was her first experience and she cried.
deprived of his right to be assisted by counsel because the Throughout her ordeal, she could not utter a word. She
accusatory process had not yet set in. was very frightened because a knife was continually
pointed at her. She also could not fight back nor plead
But we sustain the defense on the insufficiency of the with appellant not to rape her because he was her teacher
identification of appellant Orlando Frago. A careful and she was afraid of him. She was threatened not to
report the incident to anyone or else she and her family went to see a certain Naem ** from whom appellant
would be killed. sought help. On that same day, she was released but only
after her parents agreed to settle the case with appellant.
Thereafter, while she was putting on her panty, she
noticed that her skirt was stained with blood. Appellant Immediately thereafter, Mia's parents brought her to the
walked with her to the gate of the house and she then District Hospital at Brooke's Point where she was
proceeded alone to the boarding house where she lived. examined by Dr. Rogelio Divinagracia who made the
She did not see where appellant went after she left him at following medical findings:
the gate. When she arrived at her boarding house, she saw
her landlady but she did not mention anything about the GENERAL: Well developed, nourished, cooperative,
incident. walking, conscious, coherent Filipina.

The following morning, January 22, 1994, complainant BREAST: Slightly globular with brown colored areola
went home to her parents' house at Ipilan, Brooke's Point. and nipple.
She likewise did not tell her parents about the incident for
EXTERNAL EXAM.: Numerous pubic hair, fairly
fear that appellant might make good his threat. At around developed labia majora and minora, hymenal opening
3:00 P.M. of that same day, appellant arrived at the house stellate in shape, presence of laceration superficial,
of her parents and asked permission from the latter if longitudinal at the fossa navicularis, approximately 1/2
complainant could accompany him to solicit funds cm. length.
because she was a candidate for "Miss PNS Pulot." When
her parents agreed, she was constrained to go with INTERNAL EXAM.: Hymenal opening, stellate in shape,
appellant because she did not want her parents to get into laceration noted, hymenal opening admits 2 fingers with
trouble. slight resistance, prominent vaginal rugae, cervix closed.

Appellant and complainant then left the house and they CONCLUSION: Hymenal opening admits easily 2
walked in silence, with Mia following behind appellant, fingers with slight resistance, presence of laceration,
towards the highway where appellant hailed a passenger longitudinal at the fossa navicularis approximately 1/2
jeep which was empty except for the driver and the cm. length. Hymenal opening can admit an average size
conductor. She was forced to ride the jeep because penis in erection with laceration. 4
appellant threatened to kill her if she would not board the
vehicle. The jeep proceeded to the Sunset Garden at the Dr. Divinagracia further testified that the hymenal
poblacion, Brooke's Point where they alighted. opening was in stellate shape and that there was a
laceration, which shows that complainant had participated
At the Sunset Garden, appellant checked in and brought in sexual intercourse. On the basis of the inflicted
her to a room where they staye d for three days. During laceration which was downward at 6 o'clock position, he
the entire duration of their stay at the Sunset Garden, could not say that there was force applied because there
complainant was not allowed to leave the room which was were no scratches or bruises, but only a week-old
always kept locked. She was continuously guarded and laceration. He also examined the patient bodily but found
constantly raped by appellant. She was, however, never no sign of bruises or injuries. The patient told him that she
drunk or unconscious. Nonetheless, she was forced to was raped.
have sex with appellant because the latter was always
carrying a knife with him. During the cross-examination, complainant denied that
she wrote the letters marked as Exhibits "1" and "2"; that
In the early morning of January 25, 1994, appellant she never loved appellant but, on the contrary, she hated
brought her to the house of his friend at Edward's him because of what he did to her; and that she did not
Subdivision where she was raped by him three times. She notice if there were people near the boarding house of her
was likewise detained and locked inside the room and cousin. She narrated that when appellant started to remove
tightly guarded by appellant. After two days, or on her panty, she was already lying down, and that even as
January 27, 1994, they left the place because appellant appellant was doing this she could not shout because she
came to know that complainant had been reported and was afraid. She could not remember with which hand
indicated as a missing person in the police blotter. They appellant held the knife. She was completely silent from
the time she was made to lie down, while her panty was Brooke's Point. He further conveyed appellant's
being removed, and even until appellant was able to rape willingness to become a Muslim so he could marry Mia
her. and thus settle the case. Helen Taha readily acceded
because she wanted to see her daughter.
When appellant went to their house the following day, she
did not know if he was armed but there was no threat made In the morning of January 27, 1994, she went to the house
on her or her parents. On the contrary, appellant even of Naem who sent somebody to fetch complainant. She
courteously asked permission from them in her behalf and testified that when Mia arrived, she was crying as she
so they left the house with appellant walking ahead of her. reported that she was raped by appellant, and that the
When she was brought to the Sunset Garden, she could latter threatened to kill her if she did not return within an
not refuse because she was afraid. However, she admitted hour. Because of this, she immediately brought Mia to the
that at that time, appellant was not pointing a knife at her. hospital where the latter was examined and then they
She only saw the cashier of the Sunset Garden but she did proceeded to the municipal hall to file a complaint for rape
not notice if there were other people inside. She likewise and kidnapping. Both Mia and Helen Taha executed
did not ask the appellant why he brought her there. separate sworn statements before the PNP at Brooke's
Point.
Complainant described the lock in their room as an
ordinary doorknob, similar to that on the door of the Later, Fruit Godoy, the wife of appellant, went to their
courtroom which, even if locked, could still be opened house and offered P50,000.00 for the settlement of the
from the inside, and she added that there was a sliding case. On their part, her husband insisted that they just
lock inside the room. According to her, they stayed at settle, hence all three of them, Adjeril, Helen and Mia
Sunset Garden for three days and three nights but she Taha, went to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
never noticed if appellant ever slept because everytime where they met with the mother of appellant who gave
she woke up, appellant was always beside her. She never them P30,000.00. Adjeril and Helen Taha subsequently
saw him close his eyes. executed an affidavit of desistance in Criminal Case No.
7687 for kidnapping pending in the prosecutor's office,
Helen Taha, the mother of complainant, testified that which was sworn to before Prosecutor II Chito S.
when the latter arrived at their house in the morning of Meregillano. Helen Taha testified that she agreed to the
January 22, 1994, she noticed that Mia appeared weak and settlement because that was what her husband wanted.
her eyes were swollen. When she asked her daughter if Mia Taha was dropped from the school and was not
there was anything wrong, the latter merely kept silent. allowed to graduate. Her father died two months later,
That afternoon, she allowed Mia to go with appellant supposedly because of what happened.
because she knew he was her teacher. However, when
Mia and appellant failed to come home at the expected Issue:
time, she and her husband, Adjeril, went to look for them
at Ipilan. When they could not find them there, she went Can Godoy be convicted of rape and kidnapping with
to the house of appellant because she was already illegal detention?
suspecting that something was wrong, but appellant's wife
told her that he did not come home.
Ruling:
Early the next morning, she and her husband went to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) station at Pulot, No. They were in fact lovers.
Brooke's Point and had the incident recorded in the police
blotter. The following day, they went to the office of the This notwithstanding, the basic rule remains that in all
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) at Puerto Princess criminal prosecutions without regard to the nature of the
City, then to the police station near the NBI, and finally to defense which the accused may raise, the burden of proof
the radio station airing the Radyo ng Bayan program remains at all times upon the prosecution to establish his
where she made an appeal to appellant to return her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the accused raises a
daughter. When she returned home, a certain Naem was sufficient doubt as to any material element, and the
waiting there and he informed her that Mia was at prosecution is then unable to overcome this evidence, the
prosecution has failed to carry its burden of proof of the
guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and the prosecution's evidence thereon and cast serious doubts on
accused must be acquitted. the guilt of appellant.

There are three well-known principles that guide an The Court takes judicial cognizance of the fact that in
appellate court in reviewing the evidence presented in a rural areas in the Philippines, young ladies are strictly
prosecution for the crime of rape. These are: (1)while rape required to act with circumspection and prudence. Great
is a most detestable crime, and ought to be severely and caution is observed so that their reputations shall remain
impartially punished, it must be borne in mind that it is an untainted. Any breath of scandal which brings dishonor to
accusation easy to be made, hard to be proved, but harder their character humiliates their entire families.80 It could
to be defended by the party accused, though precisely be that complainant's mother wanted to save
innocent;(2) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the face in the community where everybody knows
crime of rape where only two persons are usually everybody else, and in an effort to conceal her daughter's
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be indiscretion and escape the wagging tongues of their
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) that the small rural community, she had to weave the scenario of
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own this rape drama.
merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense.

In the case at bar, several circumstances exist which 12. RE: CONVICTION OF JUDGE ADORACION G.
amply demonstrate and ineluctably convince this Court ANGELES [FOR CHILD ABUSE]- A.M. NO. 06-9-
that there was no rape committed on the alleged date and 545-RTC, JANUARY 31, 2008
place, and that the charge of rape was the contrivance of
Facts:
an afterthought, rather than a truthful plaint for redress of
an actual wrong. Respondent was convicted for violation of RA 7610.
Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco (SSP
The challenged decision definitely leaves much to be Velasco) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote a
desired. The court below made no serious effort to
letter to then CJ Panganiban inquiring whether it is
dispassionately or impartially consider the totality of the possible to order the immediate suspension of the
evidence for the prosecution in spite of the teaching in respondent. The matter was referred to the OCA for
various rulings that in rape cases, the testimony of the comment and recommendation where they recommended
offended party must not be accepted with precipitate that respondent be indefinitely suspended. The Court's
credulity. In finding that the crime of rape was committed, Second Division approved all of these recommendations,
the lower court took into account only that portion of the thus, suspending respondent from performing her judicial
testimony of complainant regarding the incident and functions while awaiting the final resolution of her
conveniently deleted the rest. Taken singly, there would criminal cases. Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for
be reason to believe that she was indeed raped. But if we Reconsideration; he claimed that the suspension order
are to consider the other portions of her testimony was wielded against her without affording her the
concerning the events which transpired thereafter, which opportunity to be heard since she was not furnished copies
unfortunately the court a quo wittingly or unwittingly of SSP Velasco's letter and OCA's Administrative
failed or declined to appreciate, the actual truth could have Complaint. Thus, respondent submitted that her
been readily exposed. suspension is essentially unjust. Moreover, respondent
It is basic that for kidnapping to exist, there must be manifested that the two criminal cases against her are on
indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactor appeal before the CA and have, therefore, not yet attained
was to deprive the offended party of her liberty. In the finality. As such, respondent still enjoys the constitutional
present charge for that crime, such intent has not at all presumption of innocence and her suspension clashes
been established by the prosecution. Prescinding from the with this presumption and is tantamount to a prejudgment
fact that the Taha spouses desisted from pursuing this of her guilt. SSP Velasco filed an Urgent
charge which they themselves instituted, several grave Appeal/Manifestation manifesting that respondent
and irreconcilable inconsistencies bedevil the continuously defied the courts Resolution. Velasco
reiterated that due to her conviction on two counts of child
abuse, respondent no longer enjoys the constitutional argument that there is no urgency in imposing preventive
presumption of innocence and should remain suspended suspension as the criminal cases are now before the CA,
in order to erase any suspicion that she is using her and that she cannot, by using her present position as an
RTC Judge, do anything to influence the CA to render a
influence to obtain a favorable decision and in order to
decision in her favor. The issue of preventive suspension
maintain and reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of has also been rendered moot as the Court opted to resolve
the judiciary. this administrative case.

However, even as we find that the OCA and SSP Velasco


have not clearly and convincingly shown ample grounds
to warrant the imposition of preventive suspension, we do
note the use of offensive language in respondent's
Issue:
pleadings, not only against SSP Velasco but also against
Whether or not grounds exist to preventively suspend the former CA Lock. To reiterate our previous ruling
involving the respondent, her use of disrespectful
respondent pending the resolution of this administrative language in her Comment is certainly below the standard
case. expected of an officer of the court. The esteemed position
of a magistrate of the law demands temperance, patience
Held: and courtesy both in conduct and in language. Illustrative
are the following statements: "CA Lock's hostile mindset
We resolve the issue in the negative. The Court cannot and his superstar complex"; "In a frenzied display of
fully agree with the recommendation of the OCA. By arrogance and power"; "(CA Lock's) complaint is merely
parity of reasoning, the fact of respondent's conviction by a pathetic echo of the findings of the trial court"; and
the RTC does not necessarily warrant her suspension. We "when (CA Lock) himself loses his objectivity and
agree with respondent's argument that since her misuses the full powers of his Office to persecute the
conviction of the crime of child abuse is currently on object of his fancy, then it is time for him to step
appeal before the CA, the same has not yet attained down." In the attempt to discredit CA Lock, respondent
finality. As such, she still enjoys the constitutional even dragged CA Lock's son into the controversy, to wit:
presumption of innocence. It must be remembered that the
existence of a presumption indicating the guilt of the It is noteworthy to mention that CA
accused does not in itself destroy the constitutional Lock's hostile attitude was aggravated
presumption of innocence unless the inculpating by his embarrassment when the
presumption, together with all the evidence, or the lack of undersigned mentioned to him that she
any evidence or explanation, proves the accused's guilt knew how he used his influence to
beyond a reasonable doubt. Until the accused's guilt is secure a position for his son at the RTC
shown in this manner, the presumption of innocence Library of Pasay City which was then
continues. Moreover, it is established that any managed by Judge Priscilla Mijares.
administrative complaint leveled against a judge must CA Lock had made sure that his son be
always be examined with a discriminating eye, for its assigned to the library to enable the
consequential effects are, by their nature, highly penal, latter to conveniently adjust his
such that the respondent judge stands to face the sanction schedule in reviewing for the bar
of dismissal or disbarment. As aforementioned, the filing examination.
of criminal cases against judges may be used as tools to
harass them and may in the long run create adverse Neither was SSP Velasco spared. Of him, the respondent
consequences. The OCA, as well as SSP Velasco, failed said: "A reading of the motion for reconsideration readily
to prove that other than the fact that a judgment of discloses that it is mainly anchored on SSP Velasco's
conviction for child abuse was rendered against the malicious speculations about the guilt of the
respondent, which is still on appeal, there are other lawful undersigned. Speculations, especially those that emanate
grounds to support the imposition of preventive from the poisonous intentions of attention-seeking
suspension. Based on the foregoing disquisition, the Court individuals, are no different from garbage that should be
is of the resolve that, while it is true that preventive rejected outright"; and "His malicious insinuation is no
suspension pendente lite does not violate the right of the less than a revelation of his warped mindset that a
accused to be presumed innocent as the same is not a person's position could cause pressure to bear among
penalty, the rules on preventive suspension of judges, not government officials. This brings forth a nagging
having been expressly included in the Rules of Court, are question. Did SSP Velasco use his position at the DOJ to
amorphous at best. Likewise, we consider respondent's 'cause pressure to bear' and obtain a favorable
disposition of the administrative cases lodged against him
by the undersigned? Is he afraid of his own ghost?" It
must be stressed again that, as a dispenser of justice,
respondent should exercise judicial temperament at all
times, avoiding vulgar and insulting language. She must
maintain composure and equanimity. The judicial office
circumscribes the personal conduct of a judge and
imposes a number of restrictions. This is the price that
judges have to pay for accepting and occupying their
exalted positions in the administration of justice. One
final word. The parties herein have admitted in their
various pleadings that they have filed numerous cases
against each other. We do not begrudge them the
prerogative to initiate charges against those who, in their
opinion, may have wronged them. But it is well to remind
them that this privilege must be exercised with prudence,
when there are clearly lawful grounds, and only in the
pursuit of truth and justice. This prerogative does not give
them the right to institute shotgun charges with reckless
abandon, or allow their disagreement to deteriorate into a
puerile quarrel, not unlike that of two irresponsible
children.
Dissent. The dissent writes to emphasize that the
photographic lineup is indeed a critical stage of the
proceedings.
Concurrence. Justice Potter Stewart (J. Stewart)
concurs to emphasize the point that any issues involved
could be resolved through traditional methods such as
cross examination.

Discussion. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution


guarantees the assistance of counsel during stages of the
proceeding at which a defendant is faced with either the
D. RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND TO COUNSEL intricacies of the law, or a zealous prosecutor. Neither of
these situations exist at a photographic display. The
13) UNITED STATES V. ASH historical test to be applied to the Sixth Amendment issues
indicates that the right has only been expanded when new
Citation. 413 U.S. 300, 93 S. Ct. 2568, 37 L. Ed. 2d 619 facts have demanded it for the protection of the defendant.
(1973)
Brief Fact Summary. A number of informants were 14) ROCK V. ARKANSAS
asked to identify a number of suspects in connection with
Citation. 549 U.S. 877 127 S. Ct. 360 166 L. Ed. 2d 134
a bank robbery. The respondent, Ash (the respondent),
2006 U.S.
challenged the identification because counsel was not
present at what was arguably a critical stage of the Brief Fact Summary. The petitioner, Rock (the
prosecution. petitioner), was charged with manslaughter for shooting
her husband, and sought to introduce her own testimony
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An accused does not have the that had been refreshed by hypnosis. An expert witness
right to counsel at a post indictment photographic lineup corroborated the petitioners refreshed testimony that the
gun was defective. The trial court ruled that hypnotically
refreshed testimony was inadmissible per se and the
Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.
Facts. The Supreme Court of the United States
(Supreme Court) granted certiorari to resolve the split Synopsis of Rule of Law. The states legitimate interest
in the circuits as to the issue of whether an accused has in barring unreliable evidence does not justify a per se
exclusion because the evidence may be reliable in an
the right to counsel at a post indictment photographic individual case.
lineup. The Supreme Court held that the right to counsel
at a display at which the defendant himself was not Facts. During a domestic dispute, the petitioner shot her
entitled to be present was not embodied in the Sixth husband. Because she could not remember the precise
Amendment of the United States Constitution details of the incident she submitted to hypnosis by a
(Constitution). The Court of Appeals reversed. licensed hypnotherapist. After the hypnosis, the petitioner
recalled that she did not have her finger on the trigger
Issue. Whether the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution when the gun fired during a scuffle. An inspection by an
grants an accused the right to have counsel present at a expert revealed that the gun was defective. The trial court
post indictment photographic identification procedure? ruled that no hypnotically refreshed testimony would be
admitted. The Supreme Court of Arkansas upheld the
Held. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution does not
conviction, ruling that hypnotically refreshed testimony
grant an accused the right to counsel during a post
was inadmissible per se.
indictment photographic identification procedure because
the accused himself is not entitled to be present, rendering
Issue. Does an evidentiary rule prohibiting the admission
it impossible that the accused will be confused or
of hypnotically refreshed testimony per se violate a
overpowered by the proceedings.
defendants right to testify on her own behalf?
Held. Criminal defendants have a right to testify in their tricycle behind the driver. When they reached India Street,
own behalf under the Due Process Clause of the Lope Liwanag entered the sidecar and sat beside
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution complainant, grabbed her shoulder, pointed an instrument
(Constitution), the Compulsory Clause of the Sixth
at the side of her neck, and declared a hold-up. Because
Amendment of the Constitution, and the Fifth
Amendment constitutional privilege against self of fear complainant told accused-appellant that she only
incrimination. had sixty pesos (P60.00) in her bag. Liwanag instructed
Restrictions placed on a criminal defendants right to Randy Simbulan to get her bag. Before municipal
testify by a states evidentiary rules, may not be arbitrary building of Paraaque, accused-appellant informed
or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to complainant that since they could not get anything from
serve. her anyway, she might as well submit herself to them.
Then, accused-appellant began kissing complainant and
The states legitimate interest in barring unreliable
touching her private parts. Randy Simbulan, meanwhile,
evidence does not justify a per se exclusion because the
evidence may be unreliable in an individual case. inserted his finger into complainants vagina.

As they were entering Levitown Subdivision, accused-


Dissent. An individuals right to present evidence is
appellant ordered complainant to act naturally while they
always subject to reasonable restrictions. Traditionally the
Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) passed the guardhouse. Afterwards, accused-appellant
accords the respect to the states in the establishment of asked her to give in to his desire, and then, he again began
their own evidentiary rules and procedures. The Arkansas touching her private parts. Complainant answered that she
Supreme Courts decision was a permissible response to would rather be killed than accede to his desire. This
a novel and difficult question. prompted accused-appellant to hit her with an icepick on
the abdomen.
A defendant in a criminal case has the right to take the
witness stand and testify in his own defense. This right Upon reaching a vacant lot, accused-appellant ordered
can be found in several places in the Constitution. A state Vendibil to stop the tricycle. He then tried to strangle
may not apply a rule of evidence that permits a witness to complainant, causing her to fall down from her seat and
take the stand, but arbitrarily excludes material portions lose consciousness. When she regained consciousness,
of his testimony. The right to present relevant testimony she was forced to board the tricycle. Accused-appellant
is not without limitation, but a state must evaluate whether tried to strangle her with a bandana and ordered her to
the interests served justify the limitation imposed on the remove her underwear. When she refused, accused-
defendants constitutional right to testify. The Arkansas appellant himself removed her underwear, opened his
Supreme Court failed to perform the constitutional pant zipper and forced her to sit on his lap. Complainant
analysis necessary when a defendants right to testify is at struggled, so accused-appellant ordered the tricycle to
stake. More traditional means of assessing information stop and dragged complainant out. Accused-appellant
such as cross-examination are effective tools for revealing then brought complainant to a grassy vacant lot and forced
inconsistencies. A states legitimate interest in barring himself on her. After satisfying his lust, they again
unreliable evidence does not extend to per se exclusions boarded the tricycle and accused-appellant informed
that may be unreliable in the individual case. complainant that his companions would
follow.Thereafter, they came upon another vacant lot
15) PEOPLE VS LIWANANG where accused-appellant and Vendibil dragged
363 SCRA 62 complainant. There, Vendibil forced complainant to put
his penis into her mouth. Unsatisfied, Vendibil forced her
Facts: to lie down and succeeded in having sexual intercourse
with her while accused-appellant and Simbulan watched.
Complainant Corazon Hernandez was on her way home Thereafter, Simbulan took his turn. After he satisfied his
to Paraaque at around 1:00 oclock Upon reaching the lust, they talked of killing complainant.
tricycle terminal at Dona Soledad St., Better Living
Subdivision, Paraaque, Metro Manila, she was offered by She pleaded for her life and, in desperation, she offered
tricycle driver Ramil Vendibil While they were about to them money in exchange for her life. Accused-appellant
leave, Randy Simbulan and Lope Liwanag also rode the asked her if she can produce P10,000.00, but she said she
could not. Accused-appellant lowered his demand to accused secures his other rights. In other words, the right
P5,000.00. They agreed on the sum of P2,000.00. to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel
Accused-appellant instructed complainant to deliver the
money at Guadalupe, Makati. She was to place the In Strickland v. Washington,[12] accused-appellant
amount inside a bag together with a sandwich she was to contends that the assistance rendered by counsel is
buy at Burger Machine at 11:30 that same morning. When ineffective or is defective if the following elements are
they finally let go of her, complainant proceeded to a present: (1) that counsels performance was deficient,
church. At daybreak, She told here mother the story and which requires a showing that counsel was not
the went to police station to report the incident. functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by
the Sixth Amendment; and (2) that the deficient
At the appointed hour, complainant went to Guadalupe, performance prejudiced the defense, which requires a
Makati, bringing with her an envelope containing pieces showing that counsels errors were so serious as to deprive
of plain paper. Accused-appellant arrived after 45 the defendant of a fair trial, a trial which result is reliable.
minutes. Complainant handed the envelope to him, then Accused-appellant claims that the assistance afforded him
she ran away. Accused-appellant also ran and boarded a by his counsel during the course of the trial was
bus, but he was collared and arrested by the police. ineffective since the counsel de officio failed to safeguard
his rights necessary for the reversal of his conviction.
the Court finds accused Lope Liwanag y Buenaventura
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of having violated One of the rights which accused-appellant contends his
Presidential Decree No. 532, known as the Anti-Piracy counsel de officio failed to safeguard was his right to be
and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974. secure in his person against unreasonable searches and
seizures as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. He claims that
Accused-appellant submits that he was deprived of his his right was violated when he was arrested without a
constitutional right to counsel under Article III, Section warrant which his counsel should have contested.
14, (2) of the 1987 Constitution which provides, thus:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be


presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall 16) PEOPLE VS TULIN
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel.
363 SCRA 10
Issue: WON, the accused-appelant was deprived of his
constitutional right to counsel. FACTS:

Held: No, In essence, the right to be heard by counsel In the evening of March 2, 1991, "M/T Tabangao," a
simply refers to the right to be assisted by counsel for the cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and Transport
purpose of ensuring that an accused is not denied the Corporation,loaded with barrels of kerosene, regular
collateral right to due process, a fundamental right which gasoline, and diesel oil, was boarded by 7 fully armed
cannot be waived by an accused. The underlying basis for pirates. The pirates includingthe accused Roger P. Tulin,
due process is the concept of fairness, without which there Virgilio Loyola, and Andres Infante Jr. detained the crew
can be no justice. In other words, there can be no due and completely took over the vessel.The vessel was
process accorded an accused if he is not given the right to directed to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes were
be heard through counsel or assisted by counsel. It follows unloaded transferred and sold under the directsupervision
that in order to be heard, and therefore be accorded due of accused Cheong San Hiong. Thereafter, the captive
process, the assistance given by counsel must be effective vessel returned to the Philippines.
as implied in the rationale of Article III, Section 14 (2). In A series of arrests was thereafter effected and all
this sense, this Court subscribes to American the accused were charged with qualified piracy or
jurisprudence when it held that [t]he right of an accused violation of PresidentialDecree No. 532 (Piracy in
to counsel is beyond question a fundamental right. Philippine Waters). They were subsequently convicted of
Without counsel, the right to a fair trial itself would be of the crime charged. Hence, this appeal.Meanwhile accused
little consequence, for it is through counsel that the Cheong argues that
the trial court erred in convicting and punishing him as an information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as
accomplice when theacts allegedly committed by him likewise inadmissible in evidence against them.
were done or executed outside of Philippine waters and
territory, stripping the Philippinecourts of jurisdiction to
hold him for trial, to convict, and sentence.

accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Infante, Cecilio,


Changco uniformly contend that during the custodial
investigation, they were subjected to physical violence;
were forced to sign statements without being given the
opportunity to read the contents of the same; were denied
assistance of counsel, and were not informed of their
rights, in violation of their constitutional rights,

Issue: WON the accused-appellants were deprived of


the right to counsel.

Held: No, It is true that an accused person shall be entitled


to be present and to defend himself in person and by
counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from
arraignment to promulgation of judgment (Section 1, Rule
115, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). This is
hinged on the fact that a layman is not versed on the
technicalities of trial. However, it is also provided by law
that "[r]ights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary
to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good
customs or prejudicial to a third person with right
recognized by law." (Article 6, Civil Code of the
Philippines). Thus, the same section of Rule 115 adds that
"[u]pon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend
himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court
that he can properly protect his rights without the
assistance of counsel." it is amply shown that the rights of
accused-appellants were sufficiently and properly
protected by the appearance of Mr. Tomas Posadas. SEC.
12. (1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel,
he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
Saliently, the absence of counsel during the execution of
the so-called confessions of the accused-appellants make
them invalid. In fact, the very basic reading of the
Miranda rights was not even shown in the case at bar.
Thus, in this case, the uncounselled extrajudicial
confessions of accused-appellants, without a valid waiver
of the right to counsel, are inadmissible and whatever
In order that this requirement may be satisfied facts must
be stated: not conclusions of law. The complaint must
contain a specific allegation of every fact and
circumstance necessary to constitute the crime. What
determines the real nature and cause of accusation against
an accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the
information or complaint and not the caption or preamble
of the information or complaint nor the specification of
the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they
being conclusions of law. It follows then that an accused
may be convicted of a crime which although not the one
charged, is necessarily included in the latter. It has been
E. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED shown that the information filed in court is considered as
charging for two offenses which the counsel of the
17. PECHO V. PEOPLE (1996) accused failed to object therefore he can be convicted for
both or either of the charges. However by reviewing the
Facts: case at bar the SC finds lack of sufficient evidence that
The decision of the Supreme Court for convicting the
accused for the complex crime of attempted estafa thru would establish the guilt of the accused as conspirator to
falsification of official and commercial document was the crime of estafa beyond reasonable doubt, the prior
assailed with the contention of the defense that the decision of the SC was deemed to be based merely on
accused may not be convicted of the crime for double circumstantial evidence, thus the accused was acquitted.
jeopardy. The charge against the accused (Odon Pecho)
was on violation of RA 3019 of which he was acquitted 18. ANDAYA vs. PEOPLE, 2006
because it only penalizes consummated crime. In the
absence of evidence that shows that the crime was FACTS:
consummated the accused was acquitted but the court
held judgment of prosecuting his conviction for attempted Complainant Armed Forces and Police Savings and Loan
estafa thru falsification of official and commercial Association, Inc. (AFPSLAI) is a non-stock and non-
document which is necessarily included in the crime profit association authorized to engage in savings and
charged. Accused invokes the defense of double jeopardy loan transactions. In 1986, petitioner Noe S. Andaya was
since his acquittal from the charge involving RA 3019 is elected as president and general manager of AFPSLAI.
a bar for prosecution on the crime of attempted estafa thru During his term, he sought to increase the capitalization
falsification of official and commercial document and that of AFPSLAI to boost its lending capacity to its members.
the accused was not informed of this charge against him Consequently, the Board of Trustees of AFPSLAI passed
in the filing of the information. and approved a Resolution setting up a Finders Fee
Program whereby any officer, member or employee,
Issue: Whether or not the accused was informed of the except investment counselors, of AFPSLAI who could
nature and cause of the crime to which he is convicted. solicit an investment of not less than P100,000.00 would
be entitled to a finders fee equivalent to one percent of
Held: The court presented the objectives of the right of the amount solicited.
the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
crime he is charged with as follows: An information for estafa through falsification of
commercial document was filed against petitioner.
1. To furnish the accused with such a description of Noe S. Andaya, being then the President and General
the charge against him as will enable him to make Manager of the AFPSLAI, was accused of having caused
his defense; and approved the disbursement of the sum of P21,000.00,
2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for from the funds of the association, by making it appear in
protection against a further prosecution for the Disbursement Voucher No. 58380 that said amount
same cause; represented the 1% finders fee of one DIOSDADO J.
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it GUILLAS [Guilas]; that by virtue of said falsification,
may decide whether they are sufficient in law to said accused was able to encash and receive a MBTC
support a conviction, if one should be had. Check for the said amount.
The facts alleged in the information are sufficient to This variance material and prejudicial to petitioner which,
constitute the crime of falsification of private document. perforce, is fatal to his conviction in the instant case. By
Specifically, the allegations in the information can be the clear and unequivocal terms of the information, the
broken down into the three essential elements of this prosecution endeavored to prove that the falsification of
offense as follows: (1) petitioner caused it to appear in the voucher by petitioner caused damage to AFPSLAI in
Disbursement Voucher No. 58380 that Diosdado Guillas the amount of P21,000.00 and not that the falsification of
was entitled to a finders fee from AFPSLAI in the the voucher was done with intent to cause damage to the
amount of P21,000.00 when in truth and in fact no finders government. The defense applicable for each is different.
fee was due to him; (2) the falsification was committed on
Disbursement Voucher No. 58380; and (3) the
falsification caused damage to AFPSLAI in the amount of
P21,000.00.

ISSUE:
Are disbursement vouchers commercial documents 19) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ABULON
(negotiable instruments)?
FACTS:
HELD:
NO. It appears that the public prosecutor erroneously In three (3) separate Informations for Criminal Cases No.
characterized the disbursement voucher as a commercial SC-7422, SC-7423 and SC-7424 all dated 16 June 1999,
document so that he designated the offense as estafa appellant was indicted before the RTC for three (3) counts
through falsification of commercial document in the of qualified rape against his minor daughter AAA.
preamble of the information. However, as correctly ruled
by the trial court, the subject voucher is a private AAA is the oldest of five (5) legitimate children born to
document only; it is not a commercial document because appellant and BBB. On 14, 15, and 16 March 1999,
it is not a document used by merchants or businessmen to appellant raped AAA. The first rape incident occurred at
promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions nor is it around 1:30 in the morning of 14 March 1999. AAA was
defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other home, fast asleep next to her brother and sister when she
commercial law. Rather, it is a private document, which suddenly woke up to the noise created by her father who
has been defined as a deed or instrument executed by a arrived drunk, but who likewise soon thereafter returned
private person without the intervention of a public notary to the wedding festivities he was attending. Abiding by
or of other person legally authorized, by which some their fathers instructions, AAA and her siblings went back
disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth, to sleep.
because it acted as the authorization for the release of the
P21,000.00 finders fee to Guilas and as the receipt AAA was next awakened by the weight of her father lying
evidencing the payment of this finders fee. naked on top of her. Appellant had removed her
The information in the case at bar is valid, however, underwear while she slept. He poked a knife on AAAs
there is a variance between the allegation in the waist and threatened to kill her and her siblings if she
information and proof adduced during trial with reported the incident to anyone. She begged him to stop
respect to the third essential element of falsification of but he proceeded to kiss her mouth, vagina, and breast,
private document, i.e., the falsification caused damage and to have carnal knowledge of her. Although they
or was committed with intent to cause damage to a third witnessed the ongoing ordeal, AAAs siblings could do
party. nothing but cry as appellant likewise poked the knife on
To reiterate, petitioner was charged in the information them.The following morning, AAA found a whitish
with causing damage to AFPSLAI in the amount of substance and blood stains on her panty.
P21,000.00 because he caused it to appear in the
disbursement voucher that Guilas was entitled to a On 15 March 1999, at around 10:30 in the evening, AAA
P21,000.00 finders fee when in truth and in fact and her siblings were awakened as appellant came home
AFPSLAI owed no such amount to Guilas. drunk. As in the previous evening, appellant roused AAA
However, he was convicted by the trial court of falsifying in mid-sleep. This time, she woke up with her father
the voucher with criminal intent to cause damage to the holding her hand, covering her mouth and lying on top of
government because the trial court found that petitioners her. He undressed AAA, then mounted her. Repeatedly,
acts were designed to lower the tax base of Hernandez and he inserted his penis into her vagina, and AAA felt pain
aid the latter in evading payment of taxes on the finders in her private parts. Appellant also kissed and fondled
fee. AAA on different parts of her body.
Again, AAAs siblings could only cry as they saw second rape charge, appellant testified that on 15 March
appellant rape their sister. AAAs sister, however, took a 1999, he attended a wedding ceremony in Sityo Kalayaan,
pen and wrote her a note which read: Ate, let us tell what San Antonio, Kalayaan, Laguna. He went home drunk at
father was doing to the police officer. After appellant had 6:00 that evening and promptly went to sleep. Similarly,
raped AAA, the latters sister asked their father why he had at 3:00 in the morning of 16 March 1999, appellant
done such to AAA. In response, appellant spanked AAAs claimed to have been asleep with his children and could
sister and threatened to kill all of them should they report not have thus committed the rape as charged.
the incidents to the police.The sisters nonetheless related
to their relatives AAAs misfortune, but the relatives did RTC found him guilty of 2 counts of qualified rape and 1
not take heed as they regarded appellant to be a kind man. count of acts of lasciviousness

The third rape episode happened at around 3:30 in the ISSUE


morning of 16 March 1999. Although appellant did not Whether or not the Informations against him are defective
insert his penis into AAAs vagina on this occasion, he as they failed to allege the key element of force and/or
took off her lower undergarments and kissed her vagina. intimidation.
On cross-examination, AAA asserted that her father
inserted his tongue into the hole of her vagina and she felt
pain because of this. RULING
The matter of the purportedly defective Informations was
To corroborate AAAs testimony, the prosecution properly addressed by the Court of Appeals, pointing out
presented BBB and AAAs 6-year old brother CCC. BBB that a close scrutiny of the Informations would reveal that
testified that she was a stay-in housemaid working in Las the words force and/or intimidation are specifically
Pias on the dates that her daughter was raped by appellant. alleged therein. Even if these were not so, well-
On 26 March 1999, she went home and stayed with her established is the rule that force or intimidation need not
family. However, it was only on 4 May 1999 that BBB be proven in incestuous cases. The overpowering moral
learned of the rape, when CCC told her that appellant had influence of a father over his daughter takes the place of
raped AAA three (3) times and that he had seen his father violence and offer of resistance ordinarily required in rape
on top of his sister during those occasions. BBB then cases where the accused is unrelated to the victim
verified the matter with AAA herself, and the latter
affirmed the incidents. BBB thus took AAA with her to The differences between the two modes of committing
the barangay and police authorities to report the incidents, rape are the following:
and later to the provincial hospital for medical
examination. (1) In the first mode, the offender is always a man, while
in the second, the offender may be a man or a woman;
CCC testified that on three (3) separate occasions, he saw (2) In the first mode, the offended party is always a
his father lying naked on top of AAA, who was likewise woman, while in the second, the offended party may be a
naked. man or a woman;
(3) In the first mode, rape is committed through penile
The prosecution also presented SPO1 Bayani G. penetration of the vagina, while the second is committed
Montesur (SPO1 Montesur) and Dr. Gloria Cabael (Dr. by inserting the penis into another persons mouth or anal
Cabael). SPO1 Montesur identified the Police Blotter of 4 orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal
May 1999 which recorded the complaints of rape against orifice of another person; and
appellant and the report of the latters arrest.[20] Dr. (4) The penalty for rape under the first mode is higher
Cabael, on the other hand, testified that she examined than that under the second.
AAA on 4 May 1999 upon the request of Police Officer
Gallarosa. She identified the Rape Case Report she In view of the material differences between the two modes
prepared thereafter. of rape, the first mode is not necessarily included in the
second, and vice-versa. Thus, since the charge in the
Appellant testified as the sole witness on his behalf, Information in Criminal Case No. SC-7424 is rape
proffering denial and alibi as his defenses. According to through carnal knowledge, appellant cannot be found
appellant, he was hired by his aunt, Raquel Masangkay, guilty of rape by sexual assault although it was proven,
to deliver hogs and that at 1:30 in the morning of 14 without violating his constitutional right to be informed
March 1999, he was in Calamba, Laguna pursuant to such of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
employment. He averred that he went home at 7:00 in the
morning of the following day and thus could not have However, following the variance doctrine embodied in
raped his daughter as alleged. Likewise denying the Section 4, in relation to Section 5, Rule 120, Rules of
Criminal Procedure, appellant can be found guilty of the After experiencing pains and swelling, AAA decided to
lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness. Said provisions tell her aunt BBB about the rape incidents. BBB
read: brought AAA to the hospital and was examined. The
results stated that she has a lacerated hymen at the 6:00
SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation oclock position and a corrugated hymen. AAAs
and proof. When there is a variance between the offense family subsequently reported the incident to the DSWD.
charged in the complaint or information and that proved, The Defense presented five witnesses, including the
and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily appellant. The witnesses gave their testimonies. One
includes the offense proved, the accused shall be stated that Delfin was with him at the time of the crime,
convicted of the offense proved which is included in the and another testimony is that there was no jeepney parked
offense charged, or of the offense charged which is near the billiard hall. Delfin also contended that AAAs
included in the offense proved. allegations were false, and that such allegations were
instigated by CCC, AAAs aunt.
SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in Since he once reported to the police that AAAs aunt
another. An offense charged necessarily includes the CCC was involved in illegal drug activities. The
offense proved when some of the essential elements or defense also pointed out that there were inconsistencies to
ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or AAAs account.
information, constitutes the latter. And an offense charged
is necessarily included in the offense proved when the On November 19, 2003, the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part declared that the appellant is guilty of two counts of
of those constituting the latter. statutory rape. On appeal, on January 27, 2009 the Court
of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the Decision
of the RTC of Naval, Brilian Branch 16, sentencing
Indeed, acts of lasciviousness or abusos dishonestos are Francasio Delfin of the crime of simple rape instead of
necessarily included in rape. statutory rape, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim civil indemnity
and moral damages at PhP. 75,000 each and acquitting
20) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff- him of statutory rape, hence the appeal.
appellee V. FRANCASIO DELFIN accused-
appellant; ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Delfin raped AAA on two counts
GR. No. 190349; December 10, 2014; 2. Whether or not the inconsistencies have a bearing in the
Second Division; Del Castillo, J. present case
3. Whether or not the allegations were false and was
TOPIC/PURPOSE: instigated by CCC
This is a case regarding two counts of rape.

FACTS: RULING:
1. Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the
There are two counts of rape. CA with modifications. The Supreme Court pointed
The first rape incident happened on May 27, 2001 at out the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the
around 10:00pm. RPC and that such elements were present in the case
AAA, an 11 year old girl was watching TV at a market namely: (1) the offender was a man, in this case
in Naval, when shewent out, the appellant summoned her, Delfin; (2) the offender had carnal knowledge of a
she tried to run away, however, Delfin threatened her, thus woman; and lastly, (3) the act was accomplished by
she approached him. When she was near Delfin, he use of force or intimidation. The testimonies
grabbed her arm and dragged her to the second floor of a established that Delfin had carnal knowledge of
newly constructed building near the market. Under threat, AAA, which was proven by the medical
Delfin was able to rapenAAA. Delfin then gave her examinations, and that he used force and intimidation
money and told her not to tell anyone of the incident or in approaching her.
her family will be harmed.
The second rape incident happened on June 30, 2001 at 2. No, the inconsistencies in AAAs statements are
around 11:00 pm. AAA was sleeping at a parked trivial matters. The Court reiterated the ruling of CA, that
jeepney outside a billiard hall. She was awakened by such inconsistencies are only minor and collateral
Delfin when he flashed a flashlight towards her. He went matters. It has been stated that such inconsistencies were
inside the jeepney and raped AAA. not an essential element of the crime, and that it has no
bearing on the essential facts. It is a well-settled rule that
factual findings of trial courts in regard of the credibility
of witnesses are given great weight ad respect most
especially since it has been affirmed by the CA.

3. No, CCC did not instigate the allegations against


Delfin. The
Defense was not able to prove the connection of CCC
to the rape cases. There was no showing that CCC knew
about the rape incidents, since they were not able to meet
and talk after the incidents and she was not informed by
AAA about such incidents.