Article III, Section 12 CASE DIGESTS AND BAR QUESTIONS process of custodial investigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer
nvestigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory
CASE DIGESTS
People vs. Jaime Ochoa, et.al, G.R. No. 157399, November 17, 2005
Facts: Petitioners were charged before the Sandiganbayan for allegedly having falsified the
NPC’s application for managers checks with the Philippine National Bank (PNB), NPC Branch in
the total amount of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIVE
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY ONE PESOS and TWENTY FIVE CENTAVOS
(P183,805,291.25), Philippine Currency, intended for the purchase of US dollars from the United
Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), and thus succeeded in diverting, collecting and receiving the
total amount mentioned), Philippine Currency from the National Power Corporation, which they
thereafter malverse, embezzle, misappropriate and convert to their own personal use and
benefit to the damage and prejudice of the National Power Corporation.
Issues: What is custodial investigation? Was the accused under custodial investigation? Was
his statement, taken without counsel, admissible in evidence?
Ruling: The “investigation” under Section 12 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution refers to a
“custodial” investigation where a suspect has already been taken into police custody and the
investigating officers begin to ask questions to elicit information and confessions or admissions
from the suspect. Thus, the accused, considering the circumstances that his statement was
taken during the administrative investigation of NPC’s audit team before he was taken into
custody and was still a general inquiry into an unsolved offense at the time and where there was
no specific suspect yet, was not under custodial investigation. And though it appears that
statement was taken without a counsel, the sworn statement was conducted by NPC personnel
for the NPC’s administrative investigation therefore does not fall in the ambit of Section 12, Art III
of the 1987 Constitution, and after having denied that he was coerced or intimidated, affirmed
the contents of the document as a true reflection of his statements and even signed the same,
the statement therefore is admissible.
People vs. Sayaboc, GR No. 147201, January 15, 2004
Facts: On December 2, 1994, accused, committed murder. On March 8, 1995, witnesses
identified Sayaboc at the PNP Headquarters as the gunman who shot victim to death. On the
afternoon of that day, SPO4 Cagungao was called to take the statement of Sayaboc. Before
taking the statement of Sayaboc, he advised the latter of his constitutional rights. Then Sayaboc
told him that he wanted to have a counsel of his own choice. But since Sayaboc could not name
one, Cagungao asked the police officers to get a lawyer wherein they brought Atty. Rodolfo
Cornejo of the PAO, who then conferred with Sayaboc for a while. After Cagungao heard
Sayaboc say, “okay,” he continued the investigation, during which Atty. Cornejo remained silent
the entire time. However, Cagungao would stop questioning Sayaboc whenever Atty. Cornejo
would leave to go to the comfort room. That night Sayaboc executed an extrajudicial confession
in Ilocano dialect. He therein confessed to killing Joseph Galam at the behest of Marlon
Buenviaje for the sum of P100,000. He likewise implicated Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio
Escorpiso. The confession was also signed by Atty. Cornejo and attested to by one Fiscal
Melvin Tiongson.
Issue: Did accused validly waive his right to counsel? Did the police afford the accused the right
to be inflormed?
Ruling: The SC ruled that Sayaboc was not afforded his constitutional right to counsel. The
facts show through the testimonies of Sayaboc and SPO4 Cagungao that Atty. Cornejo
remained silent throughout the duration of the custodial investigation. The right to a competent
and independent counsel means that the counsel should satisfy himself, during the conduct of
the investigation, that the suspect understands the import and consequences of answering the
questions propounded. In People v. Deniega, the SC said that “the desired role of counsel in the
advice as opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing questioning.
If the advice given is so cursory as to be useless, voluntariness is impaired.” The SC likewise
ruled that the police did not afford the accused the right to be informed. The right to be informed
requires “the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and
perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.” It should allow the suspect to
consider the effects and consequences of any waiver he might make of these rights. The police
failed in this regard.
People vs. Aleman, et.al, GR 185710, January 19, 2010
Facts: The accused Romulo Tuniaco, Jeffrey Datulayta, and Alex Aleman were charged with
murder. Police Officer Jaime Tabucon, on his arrival on the sub-station, noted the presence of
Atty. Ruperto Besinga, Jr. of PAO who was conversing with those taken in custody for the
offense. Tabucon took the statement of accused Aleman after informing him of his constitutional
rights. Since accused Aleman said he had no lawyer, Tabucon pointed to Atty. Besinga who
claimed that he was assisting all the suspects in the case. Based on Aleman’s statement, the
victim/deceased Dondon Cortez threatened to report his (Aleman) drinking companions’ illegal
activities to the police unless they gave him money. Since Datulayta and Tuniaco had already
planned to kill Cortez, they finally decided to do it. They got Cortez drunk and led him to a demp
site where Aleman stabbed him on the stomach, Datulayta shot him on the head using his single
shot homemade M16 pistol, and Tuniaco used the same gun on Cortez’s body. They covered
the body with rice husks. Accused Tuniaco filed a demurrer to evidence which resulted in the
dismissal of the case against him. On being re-arraigned at his request, accused Datulayta
pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide and he was sentenced by the trial court to
imprisonment (6 years, 1 day). RTC found accused Aleman guilty of the crime charged.
Issues: (a) What is the doctrine of “interlocking confessions”? (b) Did the accused Aleman
correctly invoke the Galit doctrine?
Ruling: (a) Under the doctrine of “interlocking confessions,” the corroboration of confessions is
circumstantial evidence against the person implicated in it. Thus, in the case at bar, accused
Datulayta’s confession corroborates that of Aleman in important details. Hence, the contention of
Aleman that his confession was fabricated and that the police forced him to sign it is improbable.
More importantly, the confession has details that only the person who committed the crime could
have possibly known.
(b) No. The accused Aleman incorrectly invoked the Galit doctrine. The doctrine laid down in
People v. Galit states that: long questions followed by monosyllabic answers do not satisfy the
requirement that the accused is amply informed of his rights. The court held that this doctrine
does not apply in the case at bar. Police Officer Tabucon testified that he spoke to Aleman
clearly in the language he knew. Aleman, joined by Atty. Besinga, even signed a certification
that the investigator sufficiently explained to him his constitutional rights and that he was still
willing to give his statement.
People vs. Guillermo, GR 147786 Jan 20, 2004
Facts: On March 22, 1998, Guillermo was arrested by police officers after he positively admitted
to the witness, Campos, he had just killed his employer, Victor Francisco Keyser, and asked for
his help to dispose of his body. During custodial investigation, the appellant was not apprised of
his constitutional rights, nor was he afforded a counsel. Appellant made a confession to the
police that he committed the crime. He also confessed to the media on two separate occasions
that he killed his employer. But during trial he recanted his confession. However, the Trial Court
found him guilty and sentenced him to death. Hence, this was committed for automatic review
before the Supreme Court.
Issue: If it’s Sunday and no lawyer is available, can this right be waived?
Ruling: No. The record does not show that appellant had waived his constitutional rights in
writing and in the presence of counsel. Article III Section 12(1) of the Constitution provides that
an admissible confession must satisfy the following requisites: that the confession must be (a)
voluntary; (b) made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (c) express; and
(d) in writing. The records clearly show that the requisites were not complied with. Even if the
admission or confession of an accused is gospel truth, even if it was voluntarily given, is still
inadmissible if it was made without the assistance of counsel (People v. Dano, G.R. No. 117690,
1 September 2000, 339 SCRA 515, 527). However, failing to prove treachery, the appellant was
still found guilty of homicide, because he made a spontaneous confession on several occasions
admitting his guilt.
People vs. Velarde, 384 SCRA 646
Facts: The RTC of Malolos, Bulacan found Crispin Velarde guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
rape with homicide. It was satisfied with the existence of enough circumstantial evidence
pointing to appellant as the culprit in the crime. It also found his written extrajudicial confession
admissible in evidence. As a consequence, it convicted him of rape with homicide and imposed
upon him the supreme penalty of death.
Issue: Is a lawyer, at the same time mayor, competent and independent?
Ruling: A municipal mayor cannot be considered a competent and independent counsel
qualified to assist a person under custodial investigation. Hence, the extrajudicial confession
taken from the accused with his honor as counsel is admissible in evidence. Without this
confession, the remaining evidence, which is circumstantial, fails under moral certainty, thus,
acquittal is inevitable. Under the circumstances, Atty. Domingo cannot be considered as an
independent counsel. He was the municipal mayor of Malolos, Bulacan that time. As such, he
exercised “Operational suspension and control” over the PNP unit in the aforesaid municipality.
His powers included the utilization of the elements thereof for the maintenance of peace and
order, the prevention of crimes, and the arrest of criminal offenders. As mayor of Malolos, his
duties were inconsistent of his responsibilities to appellant, who was already tagged as the main
suspect of the rape –slay case. Serving as counsel of appellant placed him in direct conflict with
his duty of “Operational suspension and control” over the police.
People vs. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432
Facts: Accused Eduardo Gomez, a bartender, and Felipe Immaculata, a stay-in Driver of David,
were implicated in the crime of transporting twenty (20) kilograms of heroin on a flight from
Bangkok to Manila sometime March 14, 1990. They were alleged to be in conspiracy with Aya
Yupangco, Art David, Lito Tuazon and Benito Cunanan, all business partners. Gomez, claiming
to be innocent of such travel he is into, surrendered himself to Drug Enforcement Agency(DEA)
of the United States in Manila. Meanwhile, Immaculata was imprisoned in Hongkong because of
an expired visa while he travels with David. He was visited by NBI agents for his implication in
the "heroin" case, of which he denied the accusation. Later, he agreed, without the assistance of
counsel, to execute a sworn statement at the Stanley Prison. After his prison term, Immaculata
was deported to Manila. Eventually, Gomez and Immaculata were then convicted by the RTC
which made them file for notices of appeal. In his appeal, Immaculata insists that the trial court
has erred in including him in the drug conspiracy and in admitting in evidence his sworn
statement taken, without the assistance of counsel, by an NBI agent at the Stanley Prison in
Hongkong. He contended that this is in violation of his constitutional rights as contemplated in
Section 12(1), Article III, of the Constitution.
Issue: Is an uncounselled confession executed in Hongkong admissible?
Ruling: No. The court ruled that Section 12(1), Article III, of the Constitution requires that 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. In the case at
bar, even if the appellant allowed himself to be investigated without a counsel, this does not
signify that he has waived his right of having one. Such right is for any Filipino citizen to exercise
even when abroad. Therefore, his sworn statement remains an inadmissible evidence in court.
Moreover, conspiracy to be the basis for a conviction, should be proved in the same manner as
the criminal act itself. It is also essential that a conscious design to commit an offense must be
established . Conspiracy is not the product of negligence but of intentionality on the part of the
cohorts. Under our laws, the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of an accused for a criminal
offense lies with the prosecution. There is no clear proof that appellant Immaculata was together
with the other accused in designing the commission of the crime charged.
People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009
Facts: On Aug. 11, 1999, Domingo Reyes y Paje, Alvin Arnaldo y Avena, and Joselito Flores y
Victorio were charged with the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide
penalized under Article 267 of RPC before the RTC. The accused, together with 3 other men
who remain at large, allegedly carried away and deprived Robert Yao, Yao San, Chua Ong Ping
Sim, Raymond Yao, Ronald Matthew Yao, Lennie Yao, Charlene Yao, Jona Abagatnan, and
Josephine Ortea against their will and consent on board their Mazda MVP van for the purpose of
extorting money (P5M) and during the detention, killed Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond Yao.
The Yao family arrived at their poultry farm the night of the kidnapping. Accused Arnaldo, on
July 26, 1999, surrendered to the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) and
identified his co-accused. Appellants claim that their written extra-judicial confessions should be
inadmissible as it was produced in violation of their constitutional rights.
Issues: (a) Was the Pasubali of the accused taken without counsel, admissible in evidence? (b)
Was he afforded the right to counsel at his own choice?
Ruling: (a) Yes. Since the prosecution has sufficiently established that the respective extra-
judicial confessions of appellant Arnaldo and appellant Flores were obtained in accordance with
the constitutional guarantees, these confessions are admissible. They are evidence of a high
order because of the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and
knowingly confess to a crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience. Consequently, the
burden of proving that undue pressure or duress was used to procure the confessions rests on
appellants, which they failed to do. Although extra-judicial confession is admissible only against
the confessant, jurisprudence makes it admissible as corroborative evidence of other facts that
tend to establish the guilt of his co-accused – appellant Reyes’ guilt.
(b) Yes. It is true that it was the PAOCTF which contacted and suggested the availability of Atty.
Uminga and Atty. Rous to appellants Arnaldo and Flores. Nonetheless, this does not
automatically imply that their right to counsel was violated. What the constitution requires is the
presence of competent and independent counsel, one who will effectively undertake his client’s
defense without any intervening conflict of interest. There was no conflict of interest and both
counsels had no interest adverse to appellants. Also, the phrase “preferably of his own choice”
under Section 12(1) does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person under
investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent attys from
handling the defense. Otherwise, the tempo of custodial investigation would be solely in the
hands of the accused who can impede or obstruct the progress of the interrogation by simply
selecting a lawyer who is not available to protect his interest. While the choice of a lawyer in
cases where the person under custodial interrogation cannot afford the services of counsel or
where the preferred lawyer is not available, is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the
suspect has the final choice, as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another
one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused when he does
not raise any objection to the counsel’s appointment. Appellants Arnaldo and Flores did not
object to the appointment of the lawyers during the custodial investigation. Hence, appellants
are deemed to have engaged the services of Atty. Uminga and Atty. Rous.
People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008
Facts: On Nov 26, 2002, a confidential informant reported to PDEA that Alfredo Concepcion
alias Totoy was engaged in selling SHABU. SPO1 Lopez(PDEA agent) instructed the
confidential agent to set a drug deal with Totoy. A buy-bust operation was planned and a team
was formed. The team then proceeded to the said area of transaction. At around 2:00 a.m. a
violet Hyundai van arrived. Dela Cruz was driving, while appellant Alfredo Concepcion, a.k.a.
Totoy, was seated beside him and appellant Henry was at the back. The confidential informant
introduced PO2 Sistemio to Totoy who asked the latter how much shabu he would buy. PO2
Sistemio replied he would buy two plastic packs of shabu equivalent to ten grams. Totoy
answered that each pack was worth P6,000.00 and got two plastic packs from the van’s
compartment and gave them to PO2 Sistemio. Appellant Henry Concepcion said, “Mura pa yan,
direkta kasi kami.”[8] PO2 Sistemio also heard someone say, “Magandang klase yang stuff na
yan.”[9] After receiving the two plastic packs, PO2 Sistemio lit a cigarette, the pre-arranged
signal for the other members of the buy-bust team to approach and arrest the culprits.
Issue: When must the accused raise the matter that his constitutional rights have been violated
during custodial investigation?
Ruling: The arresting officers’ alleged failure to inform them of their Miranda rights and violation
of their constitutional rights during custodial investigation should have had been raised before
arraignment which is usually for the first part of the criminal procedure that occurs before a
judge. The purpose of which is to provide the accused with a reading of the crime. In the case at
bar, it was too late in the day for appellants to raise these alleged illegalities after a valid
information had been filed, the accused arraigned, trial commenced and completed, and a
judgment of conviction rendered.
Lumanog vs. People, G.R. No. 182555, September 7, 2010
Facts: For review is the decision of the court of appeals which affirmed with modification the
joint decision dated July 30, 1999 of the RTC of Quezon City. The consolidated cases, arose in
connection with the killing of former Chief of Metropolitan Command Intelegence and security
Group of the Philippine Constabulary, now the PNP Colone l Polondo N. Abadilla who was
ambushed in a broad daylight while driving his car. Along Kalupunan Avenue, Quezon City.
Issues: (a) Was the accused under custodial investigation? (b) Was his extra-judicial confession
taken thereafter, admissible in evidence? (c) Was the accused afforded the right to an
independent and competent counsel preferably of his own choice?
Ruling: (a) Yes. Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus on a
particular person as a suspect. When appellants were arrested, they were already considered
suspects: Joel was pinpointed by security guard Alejo who went along with the PARAC squad to
Fairview on June 19, 1996, while the rest of appellants were taken by the same operatives in
follow-up operations after Joel provided them with the identities of his conspirators and where
they could be found.
(b) No. Joel de Jesus’ extra-judicial confession is not valid or admissible in evidence. P/Insp.
Castillo admitted that the initial questioning of Joel began in the morning of June 20, 1996, the
first time said suspect was presented to him at the CPDC station, even before he was brought to
the IBP office for the taking of his formal statement. The constitutional requirement obviously
had not been observed. Settled is the rule that the moment a police officer tries to elicit
admissions or confessions or even plain information from a suspect, the latter should, at that
juncture, be assisted by counsel, unless he waives his right in writing and in the presence of
counsel. A confession is not valid and not admissible in evidence when it is obtained in violation
of any of the rights of persons under custodial investigation.
(c) Yes. Atty. Sandano was secured by CPDC investigators from the IBP-Quezon chapter which
the accused never objected to. The phrase “preferably of his own choice” does not convey the
message that the choice of a lawyer is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and
independent attys from handling the defense. While the choice of a lawyer when accused cannot
afford the services of counsel or where the preferred lawyer is unavailable is naturally lodged in
the police investigators, the suspect has the final choice. The lawyer is deemed engaged by the
accused when he does not raise any objection against the counsel’s appointment and he
subscribes to the veracity of the statement before the swearing officer.
People vs. Lucero, G.R. No. 188705, March 2, 2011
Facts: Before this Court on appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 00469-MIN dated December 17, 2008, which upheld the conviction of accused
Federico Lucero in Criminal Case No. 10849, decided by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
30 in Tagum City on April 20, 2005. Before the RTC, the accused was charged with the crime of
Rape with Homicide in an Information dated July 31, 1997. In his appeal, Lucero questions the
positive identification made by witnesses Jao and Langgoy. He insists that the witnesses were
unable to see the face of the perpetrator, and identification was made solely on the basis of the
green short pants worn by the suspect. He also claims that Jao did not immediately report the
identity of the perpetrator to the police, and that this casts doubt on the witness’ credibility. In his
defense, he also claims that a DNA test should have been done to match the spermatozoa
found in the victim’s body to a sample taken from him, and that since no DNA test was done, he
cannot be linked to the crime.
Issues: (a) Was the accused denied of his rights under custodial investigation? (b) Is he entitled
to an acquittal?
Ruling: (a) Yes. The accused was denied of his rights under custodial investigation. Accused-
appellant was not informed of his rights, nor was there a waiver of said rights. The investigating
officer directly questioned the accused which he also answered. The questioning was made in
violation of Sec. 12(1), Article III. Thus, the information elicited is inadmissible, and the evidence
garnered as the result of that interrogation is also inadmissible.
(b) No. The Court held that even if the confession and evidence gathered are disregarded/held
inadmissible, the evidence that remains still supports the result of the conviction of accused-
appellant. Even if there are no direct evidence, in this case, it is the circumstantial evidence that
comes into play to reach a conclusion. As held in People vs. Pascual, in crimes of rape with
homicide, resort to circumstantial evidence is usually unavoidable since the crime of rape is
difficult to prove because it is generally unwitnessed and very often only the victim is left to
testify for herself. Under Sec. 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence shall be
sufficient for conviction when the ff. requisites are complied with: (1) there is more than one
circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved; (3) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
People vs. Bokingo, G.R. No. 187536, August 10, 2011
Facts: For review is the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals finding appellants Michael
Bokingco and Reynante Col guilty as conspirators beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In the trial court, an
Information was filed against appellants (construction workers) charging them of the crime of
murder committed against Noli Pasion (their employer and owner of the apartment they were
housed and a pawnshop). On arraignment, Bokingco entered a guilty plea while Col did not.
Bokingco confessed that he killed Pasion during the pre-trial and in the open court. Col, on the
other hand, was charged as a co-conspirator. Bokingco’s confession was admittedly taken
without the assistance of counsel in violation of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
Issue: Was the accused denied of his rights under custodial investigation? Is he entitled to an
acquittal?

Ruling: Yes. Bokingco’s extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against him because he was
not assisted at all by counsel during the time his confession was taken before a judge. “The right
to counsel applies in certain pretrial proceedings that can be deemed ‘critical stages’ in the
criminal process. The preliminary investigation can be no different from the in-custody
interrogations by the police, for a suspect who takes part in a preliminary investigation will be
subjected to no less than the State's processes, xxx” (People v. Sunga). Such confession is also
inadmissible against Col, specifically where Bokingco implicated him as a cohort. “The rights of a
party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another” (Sec 28, Rule 130,
Rules of Court). Thus, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not
admissible against his or her co-accused, and is considered as hearsay against them. Section
30 of the same Rule provides an exception - the act or declaration of the conspirator relating to
the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator
provided that the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than by such act or declaration. Here,
the court did not find any sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy. Col is acquitted on ground
of reasonable doubt. Bokingco is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Homicide.
Ho Wai Pang versus People, G. R. No. 176229, Oct. 19, 2011
Facts: Petitioner Ho Wai Pang assails the June 16, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals which
also affirmed the RTC decision, finding him and his co-accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for violation of Section 15, Article III of RA 6425 otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972. In this petition for certiorari, petitioner takes issue on the fact that he was not assisted by a
competent and independent lawyer during the custodial investigation. He also claimed that he
was not duly informed of his rights to remain silent and to have competent counsel of his choice.
Issue: Aside from extrajudicial confession, what are inadmissible in evidence if the rights of an
accused during custodial investigation have been violated?
Ruling: While there is no dispute that petitioner was subjected to all the rituals of a custodial
questioning by the customs authorities and the NBI in violation of his constitutional right under
Section 12 of Article III of the Constitution, we must not, however, lose sight of the fact that what
said constitutional provision prohibits as evidence are only confessions and admissions of the
accused as against himself. Thus, in Aquino v. Paiste, the Court categorically ruled that “the
infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render inadmissible ‘only the extrajudicial confession
or admission made during custodial investigation.’ The admissibility of other evidence, provided
they are relevant to the issue and are not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected
even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation.” In the present case, petitioner
did not make any confession or admission during his custodial investigation. The prosecution did
not present any extrajudicial confession extracted from him as evidence of his guilt. Moreover,
no statement was taken from petitioner during his detention and subsequently used in evidence
against him.
People vs. Ladiana, G.R. No. 174660, May 30, 2011
Facts: On or about the 27th day of June 2001, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines,
accused Antonio Manuel Uy y Suangan and John Doe, conspiring and confederating together
and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain, by means of force and intimidation, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away jewelries all belonging to
JEEPNEY SHOPPING CENTER, represented by RICARDO M. SALVADOR and an
ARMSCOR .38 caliber revolver with SERIAL No. 64517 amounting to P9,000.00, more or less,
belonging to ENERGETIC SECURITY AGENCY represented by ROMEO SOLANO, to the
damage and prejudice of Jeepney Shopping Center in the total amount ofP327,390.00 and
Energetic Security Agency in the total amount of P9,000.00 more or less; and on the occasion
thereof, accused stabbed Gilbert V. Esmaquilan and hit on the head with a 2x2 wood Felix
Arañez y Gida and Delfin Biniahan y Cahtong, Security Guard, Janitor and maintenance of
Jeepney Shopping Center(,) respectively, thereby causing their death; and accused to facilitate
their escape thereafter take, steal and drive away a (sic) one (1) Black Honda Civic with Plate
No. WFD-891 registered in the name of OLIVER GATCHALIAN.
Issue: Is the oral extrajudicial confession of the appellant to Eduardo admissible?
Ruling: Appellant's confession to Eduardo, who is not a police officer, is admissible in evidence.
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. Appellant's admissions are
not covered by Sections 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution, because they were not
extracted while he was under custodial investigation. The rule is that any person, otherwise
competent as a witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of
what he heard and understood all of it. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in
such case it must be given in its substance. And case law has it that whenever homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals in the
robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with
homicide, although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they
endeavored to prevent the same. There was no showing that appellant attempted to prevent the
killing.
People vs. Lara GR No. 199877, August 13, 2012
Facts: On or about May 31, 2001, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the accused, armed with a gun, conspiring and confederating together with one
unidentified person who is still at-large, and both of them mutually helping and aiding one
another, with intent to gain, and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and divest from Joselito M. Bautista cash money
amounting to P230,000.00 more or less and belonging to San Sebastian Allied Services, Inc.
represented by Enrique Sumulong.
Issue: Is the right to counsel available in a police lineup?
Ruling: Contrary to Lara’s claim, that he was not provided with counsel when he was placed in
a police line-up did not invalidate the proceedings leading to his conviction. That he stood at the
police line-up without the assistance of counsel did not render Sumulong’s identification of Lara
inadmissible. The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise moment custodial
investigation begins and being made to stand in a police line-up is not the starting point or a part
of custodial investigation.
People vs. Gustafsson, G.R. No. 179265, July 30, 2012
Facts: This is an appeal by Cristina Gustafsson y Nacua on the June 27, 2007 decision of the
CA which affirmed RTC Decision convicting her of violation of sec. 16, Art. III of RA 6425. She
was charged with possession of 2,626.49 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “Shabu”.
On Sept. 19, 2000, the plastic sachets of shabu appeared on the x-ray machine of the airport
and were found in the appellant’s luggage. The sachets were hidden in the soles of the shoes
and in a car air freshener cylinder. Thereafter, appellant was officially turned over to SPO2
Jerome Cause at the headquarters of the PNP Aviation Security Group Pildera II, Pasay City.
Issue: Was there a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to remain silent?
Ruling: Yes. The court believes that there was a violation of appellant’s constitutional rights
because she was not given the assistance of counsel when she signed the affidavit nor was she
apprised of her right against self-incrimination when she was made to admit her participation in
the commission of the offense. However, the court still affirmed the RTC’s decision of her
conviction.
BAR QUESTIONS
1988 Bar
Armando Salamanca, a notorious police character, came under custodial investigation for a
robbery in Caloocan City. From the outset, the police officers informed him of his right to remain
silent, and also his right to have a counsel of his choice, if he could afford one or if not, the
government would provide him with such counsel. He thanked the police investigators, and
declared that he fully understands the rights enumerated to him, but that, he is voluntarily
waiving them. Claiming that he sincerely desires to atone for his misdeeds, he gave a written
statement on his participation in the crime under investigation. In the course of the trial of the
criminal case for the same robbery, the written admission of Salamanca which he gave during
the custodial investigation, was presented as the only evidence of his guilt. If you were his
counsel, what would you do? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would object to it on the ground that the waiver of the rights to silence and to counsel is void,
having been made without the presence of counsel. (Art. III, Sec. 12 (1); People v. Galit, 135
SCRA 465 (1980)). The waiver must also be in writing, although this requirement might possibly
have been complied with in this case by embodying the waiver in the written confession. It
should also be noted that under Rule 134, sec. 3, even if the extrajudicial confession is valid, it is
not a sufficient ground for conviction if it is not corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
1989 Bar
Before interrogation, the policeman on duty informed the boy (who finished fifth grade) in English
that he does "have a right to remain silent and the right to counsel." However, there was no
counsel available as it was midnight. He declared orally that he did not need any lawyer as he
was innocent, since he was only bringing the marijuana leaves to his employer in Quezon City
and was not a drug user. He was charged with illegal possession of prohibited drugs. Is his
waiver of the right to counsel valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the waiver of the right to counsel is not valid, since it was not reduced in writing and made in
the presence of counsel. Under Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution to be valid, the
waiver must be made in writing and in the presence of counsel.
1997 Bar
A, while on board a passenger jeep one night, was held up by a group of three teenagers who
forcibly divested her of her watch, necklace and wallet containing P100.00. That done, the trio
jumped off the passenger jeep. In court, C and D set up, in defense, the illegality of their
apprehension, arrest and confinement based on the identification made of them by A and B at a
police line-up at which they were not assisted by counsel. How would you resolve the issues
raised by C and D?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The arguments of the accused are untenable. As held in People vs. Acot, 232 SCRA 406, the
warrantless arrest of accused robbers Immediately after their commission of the crime by police
officers sent to look for them on the basis of the information related by the victims is valid under
Section 5(b).Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. According to People vs. Lamsing,
248 SCRA 471, the right to counsel does not extend to police line-ups, because they are not
part of custodial investigations. However, according to People vs. Macan 238 SCRA 306, after
the start of custodial investigation, if the accused was not assisted by counsel, any identification
of the accused in a police line-up is inadmissible.
2000 Bar
On October 1, 1985, Ramos was arrested by a security guard because he appeared to be
"suspicious" and brought to a police precinct where in the course of the investigation he admitted
he was the killer in an unsolved homicide committed a week earlier. The proceedings of his
investigation were put in writing and dated October 1, 1985, and the only participation of counsel
assigned to him was his mere presence and signature on the statement. The admissibility of the
statement of Ramos was placed in issue but the prosecution claims that the confession was
taken on October 1, 1985 and the 1987 Constitution providing for the right tozcounsel of choice
and opportunity to retain, took effect only on February 2, 1987 and cannot be given retroactive
effect. Rule on this.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The confession of Ramos is not admissible, since the counsel assigned to him did not advise
him of his rights. The fact that his confession was taken before the effectivity of the 1987
Constitution is of no moment. Even prior to the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme
Court already laid down strict rules on waiver of the rights during investigation in the case of
People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985).
2001 Bar
Rafael, Carlos and Joseph were accused of before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Accused
Joseph turned state witness against his co-accused Rafael and Carlos, and was accordingly
discharged from the information. Among the evidence presented by the prosecution was an
extrajudicial confession made by Joseph during the custodial Investigation, implicating Rafael
and Carlos who, he said, together with him (Joseph), committed the crime. The extrajudicial
confession was executed without the assistance of counsel. Accused Rafael and Carlos
vehemently objected on the ground that said extrajudicial confession was inadmissible in
evidence against them. Rule on whether the said extrajudicial confession is admissible in
evidence or not.
FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
According to People vs. Balisteros, 237 SCRA 499 (1994), the confession is admissible. Under
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, the confession is inadmissible only against the one who
confessed. Only the one whose rights were violated can raise the objection as his right is
personal.
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
According to People vs. Jara, 144 SCRA 516(1986), the confession is inadmissible. If it is
inadmissible against the one who confessed, with more reason it should be inadmissible against
others.
2005 Bar
Mariano was arrested by the NBI as a suspect in the shopping mall bombings. Advised of his
rights, Mariano asked for the assistance of his relative, Atty. Santos. The NBI noticed that Atty.
Santos was inexperienced, incompetent and inattentive. Deeming him unsuited to protect the
rights of Mariano, the NBI dismissed Atty. Santos. Appointed in his place was Atty. Barroso, a
bar topnotcher who was in the premises visiting a relative. Atty. Barroso ably assisted Mariano
when the latter gave a statement. However, Mariano assailed the investigation claiming that he
was deprived of counsel of his choice. Was the NBI correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and
appointing Atty. Barroso in his stead? Is Mariano's statement, made with the assistance of Atty.
Barroso, admissible in evidence?
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The NBI was not correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and appointing Atty. Barroso in his stead.
Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution requires that a person under investigation for
the commission of an offense shall have no less than "competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice " This is meant to stress the primacy accorded to the voluntariness
of the choice under the uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial investigation' Thus, the
lawyer called to be present during such investigation should be as far as reasonably possible,
the choice of the individual undergoing questioning. The appointment of Atty. Barroso is
questionable because he was visiting a relative working in the NBI and thus his independence is
doubtful. Lawyers engaged by the police, whatever testimonials are given as proof of their
probity and supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in many areas, the relationship
between lawyers and law enforcement authorities can be symbiotic. Considering that Mariano
was deprived of counsel of his own choice, the statement is inadmissible in evidence. (People v.
Januario, G.R. No. 98252, February 7, 1997)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The NBI was correct in dismissing Atty. Santos as he was incompetent. The 1987 Constitution
requires counsel to be competent and independent. Atty. Barroso, being a bar topnotcher ably
assisted Mariano and there is no showing that his having a relative in the NBI affected his
independence. Moreover, the accused has the final choice of counsel as he may reject the one
chosen for him and ask for another. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged
by the accused where he raises no objection against the lawyer during the course of the
investigation, and the accused thereafter subscribes to the truth of his statement before the
swearing officer. Thus, once the prosecution shows there was compliance with the constitutional
requirement on pre-interrogation advisories, a confession is presumed to be voluntary and the
declarant bears the burden of proving that his confession is involuntary and untrue. A confession
is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence,
intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency which are not present in this case.
Accordingly, the statement is admissible. (People v. Jerez, G.R. No. 114385, January 29, 1998)
2008 Bar
Having received tips the accused was selling narcotics, two police officers forced open the door
of his room. Finding him sitting partly dressed on the side of the bed, the officers spied two
capsules on a night stand beside the bed. When asked, " Are these yours?", the accused seized
the capsules and put them in his mouth. A struggle ensued, in the course of which the officer
pounced on the accused, took him to a hospital where at their direction, a doctor forced an
emetic solution though a tube into the accused's stomach against his will. This process induced
vomiting. In the vomited matter were found two capsules which proved to contain heroin. In the
criminal case, the chief evidence against the accused was the two capsules.
a) As counsel for the accused, what constitutional rights will you invoke in his defense?
b) How should the court decide the case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) I will invoke my client’s right against unreasonable search and seizure (Art. III, Sec. 2 of the
Constitution) which guarantees: (1) sanctity of the home, (2) inadmissibility of the capsules
seized, (3) and inviolability of the person. A mere tip from a reliable source is not sufficient to
justify a warrantless arrest or search (People vs. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, February 22,
2007).
b) The court should declare the search and seizure illegal: (1) the entry into the accused’s home
was not a permissible warrantless action because the police had no personal knowledge that
any crime was taking place; (2) due to the invalid entry, whatever evidence the police
gathered would be inadmissible; and (3) the arrest of the accused was already invalid and
causing him to vomit while under custody was an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy
(US vs. Montoya, 473 US 531 [1985]).
2009 Bar
William, a private American citizen, a university graduate and frequent visitor to the Philippines,
was inside the U.S. embassy when he got into a heated argument with a private Filipino citizen.
Then, in front of many shocked witnesses, he killed the person he was arguing with. The police
came, and brought him to the nearest police station. Upon reaching the station, the police
investigator, in halting English, informed William of his Miranda rights, and assigned him an
independent local counsel. William refused the services of the lawyer, and insisted that he be
assisted by a Filipino lawyer currently based in the U.S. The request was denied, and the
counsel assigned by the police stayed for the duration of the investigation. William protested his
arrest. He claimed that his Miranda rights were violated because he was not given the lawyer of
his choice; that being an American, he should have been informed of his rights in proper
English; and that he should have been informed of his rights as soon as he was taken into
custody, not when he was already at the police station. Was William denied his Miranda rights?
Why or why not?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The fact that the police officer gave him the Miranda warning in halting English does not detract
from its validity. Under Section 2(b) of Republic Act No. 7438, it is sufficient that the language
used was known to and understood by him. William need not be given the Miranda warning
before the investigation started. William was not denied his Miranda rights. It is not practical to
require the police officer to provide a lawyer of his own choice from the United States (Gamboa
v. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 [1988]).
2010 Bar
Which statement best completes the following phrase: “Freedom from torture is a right
A. … subject to derogation when national security is threatened.”
B. … confined only during custodial investigation.”
C. … which is non-derogable both during peacetime and in a situation of armed conflict.”
D. both (a) and (b)
E. none of the above.
2011 Bar
After X, a rape suspect, was apprised of his right to silence and to counsel,he told the
investigators that he was waiving his right to have his own counsel orto be provided one. He
made his waiver in the presence of a retired Judge who was assigned to assist and explain to
him the consequences of such waiver. Is the waiver valid?
A. No, the waiver was not reduced in writing.
B. Yes, the mere fact that the lawyer was a retired judge does not cast doubt on
his competence and independence.
C. Yes, the waiver was made voluntarily, expressly, and with assistance of
counsel.
D. No, a retired Judge is not a competent and independent counsel.
2012 Bar
Under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent, etc.
The investigation referred to is called:
A. preliminary investigation;
B. summary investigation;
C. criminal investigation;
D. custodial investigation.