Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Magtoto V Manguera PDF
Magtoto V Manguera PDF
*
Nos. L-37201-02. March 3, 1975.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
his right to counsel, since no law gave the accused the right to be
so informed before that date.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code does not confer right to counsel.—The argument that the
second paragraph of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which
was added
_______________
* EN BANC.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
custodial inquest to only the choice few who happen to know the
provisions of the law and have the courage or the temerity to
invoke it in the menacing presence of peace officers, and in the
same breath deny the beneficence of those provisions to all others.
The poor, the ignorant and the illiterate who do not know the
rudiments of law would be at an overriding disadvantage as
against the informed few.
Same; Rights of the accused; Evidence; Confession; Guarantee
of right to counsel has existed as early as 1954.—I am thus of the
firm view that the second paragraph of article 125 makes it an
obligation on the part of any detaining officer to inform the perso
n detained of his right to counsel before the very inception of
custodial inquest, and that this obligation was made a statutory
one as early as in the year 1954. So I consider it an error to say
that Section 20 of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution granted, for
the first time, the right to counsel to a person under custodial
interrogation.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Custodial interrogation not the
only means of solving a crime.—If understand the size and shape
of this implication, Justice Antonio is of the view that until our
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
clearly
10
11
retroactive effect is given, where the purpose of the new rule can
be adequately effectuated without giving it retroactive operation,
or where retroactive operation might greatly burden the
administration of justice, then it is Our duty to apply the new rule
prospectively.
FERNANDEZ, J.:
_______________
12
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
2 Petitioner Magtoto was accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 394 and 395
(CFI of Occidental Mindoro) of murd er for the death of Ignacio Calara and
Eduardo Calara in two informations both dated February 23, 1973; and
during the joint trial of these cases, his extrajudicial confession dated
November 15, 1972 was, in the Court’s order of June 18, 1973, admitted in
evidence over the objection of the defense on the ground that it was taken
while the accused was in the preventive custody of the PC without his
having been informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel.
3 The petitioners were accused of murder for the death of Pedro
Langaoen in Criminal Case No. CCC-VII 87, Rizal. When arraigned on
November 25, 1972, they pleaded not guilty . Their Extrajudicial
confessions, obtained without the benefit of counsel were taken on October
17, 1970, and presented during the trial held on June 2, 1973 and
admitted in the Court’s order of August 16, 1973.
4 In G.R. No. L-38929, the respondents Vicente Longakit and Jaime
Dalion were both accused in Criminal Case No. 4113 of the Court of First
Instance of Zamboanga del Sur for robbery with homicide. The
information is dated February 6, 1970. The extrajudicial confession of
Longakit was executed on November 7, 1968, while his additional confessi
on was executed on September 1, 1970, without his having been informed
of his right to counsel; and
13
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
“In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause
of his detention and shall he allowed, upon his request, to
communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or
counsel,”
_______________
they were offered in evidence during the trial and rejected by the Court
on June 18, 1974. In this case, nothing was ment ioned of any
extrajudicial confession of the co-accused and co-respondent Jaime Dalion.
14
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
15
4*
proceedings, x x x.” (57 Phil. 26, 48, 51; 1932). In the
concurring opinion of Justice Butte, he said: “Apart from
the fact that involuntary confessions will be declared
incompetent and are therefore utterly futile, it is high time
to put a stop to these (third degree) practices which are a
blot on our Philippine civilization.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
_______________
17
18
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
19
20
_______________
22
“In every case the person detained shall be informed of the cause
of his detention and shall be allowed upon his request to
communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or
counsel.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
25
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
_______________
29
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
30
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
31
_______________
32
_______________
6 Ibid, 422-423.
7 Cf. Cardozo, The Nature of Judicial Process, 127-132 (1921).
8 Holmes, The Common Law 1 (1881).
9 Cf. De los Santos v. Mallare, 87 Phil. 289 (1950).
10 L-26182, May 31, 1971, 39 SCRA 236.
11 Ibid, 242.
12 Ibid.
13 L-26194, March 29, 1972, 44 SCRA 75.
33
on a showing of circums 14
tances neutralizing their
“voluntary
15
character.” The next month, in People v.
Urro, cited in the opinion of the Court, Justice Teehankee
as ponente stressed: “A coerced confession ‘stands
discredited in the16eyes of the law and is as a thing that
never existed.’ ” Further: “In any case, the mo st
painstaking scrutiny mu st be resorted to by the trial
courts in weighing evid ence relating to alleged voluntary
confessions of the accused and the courts should be slow to
accept such confessions
17
unless they are corroborated by
other testimony.” Nothing is clearer therefore than that
during the period this provision was under consideration by
the Convention, the juridical atmosphere was permeated
by healthy skepticis m, at times downright distru st, when
ever confessions were relied upon by the prosecution, there
being an insistence, as was but proper, that they should be
unmarred by any taint of18impair ment of will. So it has
been from the later sixties.
To complete the picture, j u st shortly before th e parties
in Magtoto and Simeon, were heard in oral argument, in 19
the closing days of November, 1973, in People v. Saligan,
Justice Castro could speak thus for a unanimous Court: “It
is worthy of note that the trial fiscal was in th e correct
frame of mind when he recognized the importance of
demonstrating the culpability of th e defendant by
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
________________
14 Ibid, 85.
15 L-28405, April 27, 1972, 44 SCRA 473.
16 Ibid, 484. Citing United States v. De los Santos, 24 Phil. 329 (1913).
17 Ibid.
18 Cf. People v. Manobo, L-19798, Sept. 20, 1966, 18 SC RA 30; People
v. Chaw, L-19590, April 25, 1968, 23 SCRA 127; Chavez v. Court of
Appeals, L-29169, Aug. 19, 1968, 24 SCRA 663; People v. Alto, L-18661,
Nov. 29, 1968, 26 SCRA 342; Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners, L-
25018, May 26, 1969, 28 SCRA 344; People v. Gande, L-28163, Jan. 30,
1970, 31 SCRA 347.
19 L-35792, November 29, 1973, 54 SCRA 190.
34
_______________
20 Ibid, 195-196.
21 384 US 436 (1966). Even before Miranda, the trend appears to be
towards a much more exacting scrutiny of the voluntariness of
confessions. Cf. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 US 278 (1936); Chambers v.
Florida, 309 US 227 (1940); Lisenba v. California, 314 US 219 (1941);
Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 US 143 (1944); Malinski v. New York, 324 US
401 (1945); Lee v. Mississippi, 332 US 742 (1948); Williams v. United
States, 341 US 97 (1 951); Rochin v. California, 342 US 165 (1952); Ley ra
v. Denno, 347 US 556 (1954); Pennsy lvania v. Claudy, 350 US 116 (1956)
; Payne v. Arkansas, 356 US 560 (1958); Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 US
199 (1960); Rogers v. Richmond, 365 US 534 (1961); Reck v. Pate, 367 US
433 (1961); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961); Gallegas v. Colorado, 370
US 49 (1962); Shotwell Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 371 US 341
(1963); Fay v. Noia, 372 US 391 (1963); Ly numn v. Illinois, 372 US 528
(1963); Brady v. Mary land, 373 US 83 (1963); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 US 1
(1964); Jackson v. Denno, 378 US 368 (1964); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US
478 (1964).
35
_______________
36
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
_______________
37
26
American lea ding decision, McNabb v. United States. It
does not lend support to their plea, wh ich merited the
approval of my brethren. It is a blade that cuts both ways.
W itness these words in the opinion of Justice Frankfurter:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
_______________
38
_______________
39
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
CONCURRING OPINION
ANTONIO , J.:
I
The constant doctrine of this Court has always been in
favor of the admis sibility of state ments obtained fro m a
defendant under police custodial interrogation 1 where the
same has been obtained freely and voluntarily. W e have
always held th at it will suffice for th e admis sion of an ex
traj ud icial co nfessio n of an accused that it appears to
have been given under conditions which accredit prima
facie its admissibility, leaving the accused at liberty to
show it was not voluntarily given or was obtained
2
by undue
pressure, thus destroying its weight, and that a
presumption of law favors the spontaneity and
voluntariness of a statement given by the defendant in a
criminal case3 and the burden is upon him to destroy that
presumption. W e have also declared that an extraj udicial
confession is not rendered inadmissible by reason of failure
to caution th e accused that he need not talk and that if he
does, what he says will be used against him,4 even though
such extrajudicial confession was under oath.
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
75 Phil., 554.
2 U.S. v. Zara, 42 Phil., 308.
3 People v. Garcia, L-8298, May 29, 1957.
4 U.S. v. Agatea, 40 Phil., 596; People v. Hernane, supra.
40
_______________
5 77 Phil., 572.
6 37 SCRA 450.
41
II
The purpose of requiring the presence of counsel in police
custodial investigation in Section 20, of Article IV, of the
New Constitution, is to serve as an effective deterrent to
lawless police action. W e canno t say th at th is purpose
would be advanced by making the requirement
retrospective. If any misconduct had been committed by the
police in connection with the taking of state men ts of
suspects du ring custodial interrogation prior to the
effectivity of the New Constitution, it will not be corrected
by making this proscription retroactive.
III
There are interests in th e administration of justice and the
integrity of the judicial process to consider. To make the
proscription in Article IV, Section 2 0, of th e New Con stitu
tio n retrosp ectiv e wou ld certain ly i mpair the effective
prosecution of cases and tax to the utmo st the
administration of justice. Custodial interrogation has lo ng
been recognized as an essential tool in effective law
enforcement. The detection and solution of crime is a
difficult and arduous task requiring determination and
persistence on the part of all responsible officers charged
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
IV
It is a funda mental rule in th e construction of
constitutions th at co n stitutio n al p rov isio n s sh ou ld
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
_______________
43
_______________
8 Supra.
9 Article 8, Civil Code .
44
V
It is, however, asserted that under Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, any incriminatory statements given by
a person detained, in the course of a police custodial
interrogation, is inadmissible in evidence, if the same is
done without the assistance of the declarant’s counsel. This
novel theory cannot be squared either with the clear
wordings of the statutory provision or with the existing
jurisprudence on the matter. While it may be conceded that
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code requires the
detaining officer to in form the person detained th e cause
of his detention and of his right, if he so desires, to
communicate and confer with his counsel, it does not
necessarily follow that an additional obligation is imposed
upon said officer to allow the susp ect to be assisted by his
counsel during the custodial in terrogation. Neither does it
provide that any incriminatory statement given by him,
even if voluntary, would be inadmissible in evidence, if the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
VI
The final authority of this Cour t rests upon public respect
for Its decisions. That public respect is based upon an
image which represents this Court as declaring legal
principles with an authority and certainty that the people
ma y place upon it their bona fide reliance and reasonable
expectations. To hold now that public officers, who have
acted in justifiable reliance on Our aforecited doctrines,
have tr ansgressed th e Constitution, would certainly not
strengthen public respect on the authority of Our
judgments.
45
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/47
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063
——o0o——
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fa94aebd486d0ab5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 47/47