1)

 Gamboa  vs.  Cruz  [G.R  No.  L-­‐56291,  June  27,  1988]  

Facts:  Petitioner  was  arrested  for  vagrancy  without  a  warrant.  During  a  line-­‐up  of  5  detainees  including  petitioner,  
he  was  identified  by  a  complainant  to  be  a  companion  in  a  robbery,  thereafter  he  was  charged.  Petitioner  filed  a  
Motion  to  Acquit  on  the  ground  that  the  conduct  of  theline-­‐up,  without  notice  and  in  the  absence  of  his  counsel  
violated  his  constitutional  rights  to  counsel  and  to  due  process.  The  court  denied  said  motion.  Hearing  was  set,  
hence  the  petition.  
Issue:  Whether  or  Not  petitioner’s  right  to  counsel  and  due  processviolated.  
Held:  No.  The  police  line-­‐up  was  not  part  of  the  custodial  inquest,  hence,  petitioner  was  not  yet  entitled,  at  such  
stage,  to  counsel.  He  had  not  been  held  yet  to  answer  for  a  criminal  offense.  The  moment  there  is  a  move  or  even  an  
urge  of  said  investigators  to  elicit  admissions  or  confessions  or  even  plain  information  which  may  appear  innocent  
or  innocuous  at  the  time,  from  said  suspect,  he  should  then  and  there  be  assisted  by  counsel,  unless  he  waives  the  
right,  but  the  waiver  shall  be  made  in  writing  and  in  the  presence  of  counsel.    On  the  right  to  due  process,  
petitioner  was  not,  in  any  way,  deprived  of  this  substantive  and  constitutional  right,  as  he  was  duly  represented  by  
a  counsel.  He  was  accorded  all  the  opportunities  to  be  heard  and  topresent  evidence  to  substantiate  his  defense;  
only  that  he  chose  not  to,  and  instead  opted  to  file  a  Motion  to  Acquit  after  the  prosecution  had  rested  its  case.  
What  due  process  abhors  is  the  absolute  lack  ofopportunity  to  be  heard.  WHEREFORE,  the  petition  is  
DISMISSED.  The  temporary  restraining  order  issued  on  3  March  1981  is  LIFTED.  The  instant  case  is  
remanded  to  the  respondent  court  for  further  proceedings  to  afford  the  petitioner-­‐accused  the  
opportunity  to  present  evidence  on  his  behalf.  

2.)  People  vs.  Macam  [G.R.  Nos.  91011-­‐12,  November  24,  1994]  

Facts:  On  Aug  18,1987,  Eduardo  Macam,  Antonio  Cedro,  Eugenio  Cawilan  Jr.,  Danilo  Roque  and  Ernesto  Roque  
went  to  the  house  of  Benito  Macam  (uncle  of  Eduardo  Macam)  located  at  43  Ferma  Road  QC.  Upon  the  arrival  of  the  
accused,  Benito  invited  the  former  to  have  lunch.  Benito  asked  his  maid  Salvacion  Enrera  to  call  the  companions  of  
Eduardo  who  were  waiting  in  a  tricycle  outside  the  house.  A.  Cedro,  E.  Cawilan  and  D.  Roque  entered  the  house  
while  E.  Roque  remained  in  the  tricycle.  After  all  the  accused  had  taken  their  lunch,  Eduardo  Macam  grabbed  the  
clutch  bag  of  Benito  Macam  and  pulled  out  his  uncle’s  gun  then  declared  a  hold-­‐up.  They  tied  up  the  wife  (Leticia  
Macam),  children,  maid  (Salvacion)  and  Nilo  Alcantara  and  brought  them  to  the  room  upstairs.  After  a  while  Leticia  
was  brought  to  the  bathroom  and  after  she  screamed  she  was  stabbed  and  killed  by  A.  Cedro.  Benito,  Nilo  and  
Salvacion  was  also  stabbed  but  survived.  The  total  value  of  the  items  taken  was  P536,  700.00.  
After  which,  he  together  with  all  the  accused,  in  handcuffs  and  bore  contusions  on  their  faces  caused  by  blows  
inflicted  in  their  faces  during  investigation,  was  brought  to  the  QC  General  Hospital  before  each  surviving  victims  
and  made  to  line-­‐up  for  identification.  Eugenio  Cawilan  was  also  charged  with  Anti-­‐fencing  Law  but  was  acquitted  
in  the  said  case.  
Issue:  Whether  or  Not  their  right  to  counsel  has  been  violated.  WON  the  arrest  was  valid.  WON  the  evidence  from  
the  line-­‐up  is  admissible.  
 
 
 
Held:  It  is  appropriate  to  extend  the  counsel  guarantee  to  critical  stages  of  prosecution  even  before  trial.  A  police  
line-­‐up  is  considered  a  “critical”  stage  of  the  proceedings.  Any  identification  of  an  uncounseled  accused  made  in  a  
police  line-­‐up  is  inadmissible.  HOWEVER,  the  prosecution  did  not  present  evidence  regarding  appellant’s  
identification  at  the  line-­‐up.  The  witnesses  identified  the  accused  again  in  open  court.  Also,  accused  did  not  object  
to  the  in-­‐court  identification  as  being  tainted  by  illegal  line-­‐up.  
The  arrest  of  the  appellants  was  without  a  warrant.  HOWEVER,  they  are  estopped  from  questioning  the  legality  of  
such  arrest  because  they  have  not  moved  to  quash  the  said  information  and  therefore  voluntarily  submitted  
themselves  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  trial  court  by  entering  aplea  of  not  guilty  and  participating  in  trial.    The  court  
believed  the  version  of  the  prosecution.  Ernesto  Roque,  while  remaining  outside  the  house  served  as  a  looked  out.  
Wherefore,  decision  of  lower  court  is  Affirmed.  Danilo  Roque  and  Ernesto  Roque  is  guilty  of  the  crime  of  
robbery  with  homicide  as  co-­‐conspirators  of  the  other  accused  to  suffer  reclusion  perpetua.  

3.)  People  vs.  Judge  Ayson  [G.R.  No.  85215,  July  7,  1989]  

Facts:  Felipe  Ramos  was  a  ticket  freight  clerk  of  the  Philippine  Airlines,  assigned  at  itsBaguio  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.  A  letter  was  sent  by  Ramos  stating  his  willingness  to  settle  the  
amount  of  P76,000.  The  findings  of  the  Audit  team  were  given  to  him,  and  he  refuted  that  he  misused  proceeds  of  
tickets  also  stating  that  he  was  prevented  from  settling  said  amounts.  He  proffered  a  compromise  however  this  did  
not  ensue.  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:  Whether  or  Not  the  respondent  Judge  correct  in  making  inadmissible  as  evidence  the  admission  and  
statement  of  accused.  
Held:  No.  Section  20  of  the  1987  constitution  provides  that  the  right  against  self-­‐incrimination  (only  to  witnesses  
other  than  accused,  unless  what  is  asked  is  relating  to  a  different  crime  charged-­‐  not  present  in  case  at  bar).  This  is  
accorded  to  every  person  who  gives  evidence,  whether  voluntarily  or  under  compulsion  of  subpoena,  in  any  civil,  
criminal,  or  administrative  proceeding.  The  right  is  not  to  "be  compelled  to  be  a  witness  against  himself.”  It  
prescribes  an  "option  of  refusal  to  answer  incriminating  questions  and  not  a  prohibition  of  inquiry."  the  right  can  
be  claimed  only  when  the  specific  question,  incriminatory  in  character,  is  actually  put  to  the  witness.  It  cannot  be  
claimed  at  any  other  time.  It  does  not  give  a  witness  the  right  to  disregard  a  subpoena,  to  decline  to  appear  before  
the  court  at  the  time  appointed,  or  to  refuse  to  testify  altogether.  It  is  a  right  that  a  witness  knows  or  should  know.  
He  must  claim  it  and  could  be  waived.  

Rights  in  custodial  interrogation  as  laid  down  in  miranda  v.  Arizona:  the  rights  of  the  accused  include:  
1)            he  shall  have  the  right  to  remain  silent  and  to  counsel,  and  to  be  informed  of  such  right.  
2)            nor  force,  violence,  threat,  intimidation,  or  any  other  means  which  vitiates  the  free  will  shall  be  used  against  
him.  
3)            any  confession  obtained  in  violation  of  these  rights  shall  be  inadmissible  in  evidence.  
The  individual  may  knowingly  and  intelligently  waive  these  rights  and  agree  to  answer  or  make  a  statement.  But  
unless  and  until  such  rights  and  waivers  are  demonstrated  by  the  prosecution  at  the  trial,  no  evidence  obtained  as  
a  result  of  interrogation  can  be  used  against  him.  
 4.)  People  vs.  Pinlac  [G.R.  Nos.74123-­‐24,  September  26,  1988]  

Facts:  The  accused  was  convicted  for  two  separate  criminal  cases  for  robbery  and  robbery  with  homicide.  He  
assailed  his  conviction  on  the  contention  that  the  court  erred  in  admitting  his  extrajudicial  confession  as  evidence  
which  was  taken  by  force,  violence,  torture,  and  intimidation  without  having  appraised  of  his  constitutional  rights  
and  without  the  assistance  of  counsel.  
Issue:  Whether  or  not  due  process  was  observed  during  the  custodial  investigation  of  the  accused.  
Held:  The  court  find  it  meritorious  to  declare  that  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  accused  was  violated  in  the  
failure  of  the  authorities  in  making  the  accused  understand  the  nature  of  the  charges  against  him  without  
appraising  him  of  his  constitutional  right  to  have  a  counsel  during  custodial  investigation.  Moreover  the  
prosecution  merely  presented  the  extrajudicial  confession  of  the  accused  which  is  inadmissible  as  evidence  and  the  
other  evidences  provided  therein  are  merely  circumstantial  and  subject  for  rebuttal.  The  court  acquitted  the  
accused.  WHEREFORE,  the  appealed  Decision  is  REVERSED  and  SET  ASIDE,  and  the  petitioner  is  hereby  
ACQUITTED.  

5.)  People  vs.  Bolanos  [G.R.  No.  101808,  July  3,  1992]  

Facts:  Oscar  Pagdalian  was  murdered  in  Marble  Supply,  Balagtas  Bulacan.  According  to  Pat.  Rolando  Alcantara  and  
Francisco  Dayao,  deceased  was  with  two  companions  on  the  previous  night,  one  of  whom  the  accused  who  had  a  
drinking  spree  with  the  deceased.  When  they  apprehended  the  accused  they  found  the  firearm  of  the  deceased  on  
the  chair  where  the  accused  was  allegedly  seated.  They  boarded  accused  along  with  Magtibay,  other  accused  on  the  
police  vehicle  and  brought  them  to  the  police  station.  While  in  the  vehicle  Bolanos  admitted  that  he  killed  the  
deceased.  RTC  convicted  him  hence  the  appeal.  
Issue:  Whether  or  Not  accused-­‐appellant  deprived  of  his  constitutional  right  to  counsel.  
Held:  Yes.  Being  already  under  custodial  investigation  while  on  board  the  police  patrol  jeep  on  the  way  to  the  
Police  Station  where  formal  investigation  may  have  been  conducted,  appellant  should  have  been  informed  of  his  
Constitutional  rights  under  Article  III,  Section  12  of  the  1987  Constitution,  more  particularly  par.  1  and  par.  3.  
WHEREFORE,  finding  that  the  Constitutional  rights  of  the  accused-­‐appellant  have  been  violated,  the  
appellant  is  ACQUITTED,  with  costs  de  oficio.  

6.)  People  vs.  Andan  [G.R.  No.  116437,  March  3,  1997]  

Andan's  confessions  to  the  media  were  properly  admitted.  The  confessions  were  made  in  response  to  questions  by  
news  reporters,  not  by  the  police  or  any  other  investigating  officer.  Statements  spontaneously  made  by  a  suspect  to  
news  reporters  on  a  televised  interview  are  deemed  voluntary  and  are  admissible  in  evidence.  The  Bill  of  Rights  
does  not  concern  itself  with  the  relation  between  a  private  individual  and  another  individual.  It  governs  the  
relationship  between  the  individual  and  the  State.  The  prohibitions  therein  are  primarily  addressed  to  the  State  
and  its  agents.  

 
 7.)  Navallo  vs.  Sandiganbayan  [G.R.  No.97214,  July  18,  1994]  

Facts:  Accused  was  the  Collecting  and  Disbursing  Officer  of  the  Numancia  National  Vocational  School,  which  school  
is  also  located  at  del  Carmen,  Surigao  del  Norte.  His  duties  included  the  collection  of  tuition  fees,  preparation  of  
vouchers  for  salaries  of  teachers  and  employees,  and  remittance  of  collections  exceeding  P500.00  to  the  National  
Treasury.  An  information  for  malversation  of  public  funds  was  filed.  A  warrant  of  arrest  was  issued,  but  accused-­‐
petitioner  could  not  be  found.  on  10  December  1978,  Presidential  Decree  No.  1606  took  effect  creating  the  
Sandiganbayan  and  conferring  on  it  original  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  crimes  committed  by  public  officers  
embraced  in  Title  VII  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code.  On  15  November  1984,  Navallo  was  finally  arrested.  He  was  
released  on  provisional  liberty  upon  the  approval  of  his  property  bail  bond.  When  arraigned  by  the  RTC  on  18  July  
1985,  he  pleaded  not  guilty.  Upon  motion  of  the  prosecution,  the  RTC  transferred  the  case  and  transmitted  its  
records  to  the  Sandiganbayan.  Special  Prosecutor  Luz  L.  Quiñones-­‐Marcos  opined  that  since  Navallo  had  already  
been  arraigned  before  the  case  was  transferred  to  the  Sandiganbayan,  the  RTC  should  continue  taking  cognizance  
of  the  case.  The  matter  was  referred  to  the  Office  of  the  Ombudsman  which  held  otherwise.  The  information  was  
then  docketed  with  the  Sandiganbayan.  A  new  order  for  Navallo's  arrest  was  issued  by  the  Sandiganbayan.  The  
warrant  was  returned  with  a  certification  by  the  RTC  Clerk  of  Court  that  the  accused  had  posted  a  bail  bond.  
Navallo  filed  a  motion  to  quash,  contending  (1)  that  the  Sandiganbayan  had  no  jurisdiction  over  the  offense  and  the  
person  of  the  accused  and  (2)  that  since  the  accused  had  already  been  arraigned  by  the  RTC,  the  attempt  to  
prosecute  him  before  the  Sandiganbayan  would  constitute  double  jeopardy.  However  this  was  denied  and  trial  
ensued  and  he  was  found  guilty.  
Held:  No.  Appellant  is  not  in  custodial  investigation.  A  person  under  a  normal  audit  examination  is  not  under  
custodial  investigation.  An  audit  examiner  himself  can  hardly  be  deemed  to  be  the  law  enforcement  officer  
contemplated  in  the  above  rule.  In  any  case,  the  allegation  of  his  having  been  "pressured"  to  sign  the  Examination  
Report  prepared  by  Dulguime  (examined  cash,  as  ordered  by  Espino,  the  provincial  auditor)  appears  to  be  belied  
by  his  own  testimony.  

8.)  People  vs.  Dy  [G.R.  No.74517,  February  23,  1988]  

Issue:  Pat.  Padilla  reported  along  with  Benny  Dy,  with  caliber  .38  as  suspect  to  the  shooting  incident  at  "Benny's  
Bar,"  at  Sitio  Angol,  Manoc-­‐Manoc  Malay,  Aklan  (Boracay)  situated  on  the  Island  which  caused  thedeath  of  
Christian  Langel  Philippe,  tourist,  24  years  old  and  a  Swissnationale.  He  was  charged  with  the  Murder  With  the  Use  
of  Unlicensedfirearms.  
 

Held:  Appellant's  voluntary  surrender  implies  no  violation  as  "no  warrant  of  arrest  is  issued  for  the  apprehension  
of  the  accused  for  the  reason  that  he  is  already  under  police  custody  before  the  filing  of  the  complaint."  What  was  
told  by  the  Accused  to  Pat,  Padilla  was  a  spontaneous  statement  not  elicited  through  questioning,  but  given  in  
ordinary  manner.  No  written  confession  was  sought  to  be  presented  in  evidence  as  a  result  of  formal  custodial  
investigation.  

 
 9.)  People  vs.  Alicando  [G.R.  No.  117487,  December  12,  1995]  

Facts:  Appellant  was  charged  with  the  crime  of  rape  with  homicide  of  Khazie  Mae  Penecilla,  a  minor,  four  years  of  
age,  choking  her  with  his  right  hand.  The  incident  happened  after  appellant  drank  liquor.  A  neighbor,  Leopoldo  
Santiago  found  the  victim’s  body  and  the  parents  and  police  were  informed.  Appellant  was  living  in  his  uncle's  
house  some  five  arm's  length  from  Penecilla's  house.  Appellant  was  arrested  and  interrogated  by  PO3  Danilo  Tan.  
He  verbally  confessed  his  guilt  without  the  assistance  of  counsel.  On  the  basis  of  his  uncounselled  verbal  confession  
and  follow  up  interrogations,  the  police  came  to  know  and  recovered  from  appellant's  house,  Khazie  Mae's  green  
slippers,  a  pair  ofgold  earrings,  a  buri  mat,  a  stained  pillow  and  a  stained  T-­‐shirt  all  of  which  were  presented  as  
evidence  for  the  prosecution.  He  was  arraigned  with  the  assistance  of  Atty.  Rogelio  Antiquiera  of  the  PAO.  
Appellant  pleaded  guilty.  The  RTC  convicted  him.  Hence  an  automatic  review  for  the  imposition  of  death  penalty.  
Held:  It  is  not  only  the  uncounselled  confession  that  is  condemned  as  inadmissible,  but  also  evidence  derived  
therefrom.  The  pillow  and  the  T-­‐shirt  with  the  alleged  bloodstains  were  evidence  derived  from  the  uncounselled  
confession  illegally  extracted  by  the  police  from  the  appellant.  Again,  the  testimony  of  PO3  Tan  makes  this  all  clear.