PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERMELINDA SEQUIO et.

al
264 SCRA 79 |. November 13, 1996
Davide Jr., J.

Doctrine: Once the primary source is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any
secondary or derivative evidence derived from it is also inadmissible.

FACTS
Accused-appellants in this case was found guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide.
According to the version presented by the prosecution, Godinez, the overlook of a hacienda went
to the bank to withdraw a certain amount of money for the wages of the hacienda workers. The
bank cashier instructed the janitor to drive the victim in a motorcycle back to the hacienda. As
they were nearing the hacienda, the accused-appellants, armed with guns, tried to block their
path and ordered them to stop. They soon heard a gunshot and saw one of their companions
falling off the motorcycle. Godinez recognized the accused-appellants for some of them worked
in the hacienda. They pinned Godinez, took the money bag and fled the scene. The police then
conducted an investigation in which they suspected Melvida and brought him to the station. He
was only allowed to leave the station when criminal charges have already been filed against him
and after he had posted bail. During the investigation, Melvida implicated accused-appellants
Tumangan and Sequio. Immediately thereafter, the police pursued the two and went they found
them, they noticed something bulging from the waist of Tumangan and upon examination, it
turned out to be a gun.
The accused-appellants denies the charges against them and posted their own alibis and
defense of frame-up. Notwithstanding this, the trial court convicted them of the crime charged.
On appeal, they allege that there has been non-observance of their rights during the investigation.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the constitutional rights of accused-appellants were violated? YES.
It is said that accused-appellant Nenito Melvida was arrested merely based on a suspicion
of the arresting officer that he was a suspect of robbery in the guise of inviting him for an
investigation. It is also alleged that the arrest was based on the bio-data sheet with Melvida’s
name on it that was found in the crime scene. Based from the foregoing, the arrest made was
by no means falls under the recognized exception of permissible warrantless arrests. Since
the arresting officer lack personal knowledge of facts indicating Melvida’s guilt and at best
relied on an unreasonable suspicion, the Court is compelled to declare the arrest unlawful.
It is also found that Melvida’s constitutional rights were violated during the custodial
investigation. He was not assisted by a lawyer during the entire course of the investigation.
Neither there was a showing that he was informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent
and to have his own counsel. Despite these findings, the trial court gave credence to the fact
of recovery of partition of the loot. However, the trial court made a mockery of the
Constitution when it ignored the well-settled doctrine that once the primary source is shown
to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence derived from it is
also inadmissible. In the present case, since the loot money was obtained due to the
admission during the custodial investigation without the assistance of a counsel, the loot
money should also be inadmissible against the accused.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2