TITLE: Filoteo, Jr. VS.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 79543, October 16, 1996

NATURE OF THE CASE: Petition challenging the decision of the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioner of brigandage, his Motion for
Reconsideration being denied.

SUPREME COURT DECISION: Accused Filoteo is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal in the crime of robbery.

LEGAL DOCTRINE: Prospective application of the Constitution

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Filoteo is a police investigator of the Western Police District in Metro Manila. He was even a recipient of various awards and
commendations attesting his competence. He was charged of hijacking a postal delivery truck of the Bureau of Posts travelling along
McArthur Highway in Meycauayan, Bulacan and taking instructions amounting to 253,000 pesos on May 3, 1982.

On May 29, Filoteo was arrested in his house and was brought to Camp Crame. Prior his arrest, his companions volunteered
information that Filoteo furnished the blue Mercedez Benz used in the hijacking. When Filoteo was arrested, he was informed, as
part of the SOP, of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel (Miranda Rights). However, he did not avail and refused to have
a counsel and on May 30, he even executed a sworn statement, extra-judicial confession admitting in detail his involvement in the
crime, again, without the presence of a lawyer, and this was admitted as evidence against him.

Under the 1973 Constitution, which is applicable in this case, an accused person has the right to remain silent, the right to
counsel and that any confession of then in violation of Sec. 20, Article IV shall be inadmissible in evidence. In comparison, the 1987
Constitution, Sec. 12, Article III states that the accused, aside from his right to remain silent and right to counsel, cannot waive his
rights except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

Sandiganbayan convicted Filoteo, and upon receipt of the decision, he filed a petition charging Sandiganbayan with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. He insisted that the 1987 Constitution be applied retroactively.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the 1987 Constitution can be applied retroactively to Filoteo when the 1973 Constitution was in force at the
time of the commission of the crime.

RULING:

No, the 1987 Constitution cannot be applied to Filoteo retroactively.

Under the 1973 Constitution, an uncounseled waiver by the accused is admissible, whereas in the 1987 Constitution, it
cannot be admitted. Filoteo executed his sworn statement in 1982. His waiver of his right to counsel was without benefit or assistance
of a counsel, but it was the 1973 Constitution that was in force. There is no law under the 1973 Constitution requiring waivers of the
right to counsel must be with the assistance of a lawyer.

Therefore, Filoteo’s waiver of his right to counsel is admissible. His insistence that the 1987 Constitution be applied
retroactively is unmeritorious, as it should be applied prospectively.