Bucu, Jorland Marvin H.

2E - 2014066836

People of the Philippines vs Rafael Olivares, Jr. and Danilo Arellano

G.R. No. 77865 December 4, 1998
Justice Martinez

Facts:
Respondents was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide and RTC ruled that
the respondents was guilty of said crime. The police officers followed-up on a robbery with
homicide at the victim’s factory. Upon investigation the officers learned that the Arellano did not
come in to work which prompted to find him. Then after he was found and admitted to the crime
of robbery, revealed his cohorts and killed 2 people while in the process of committing the said
crime. One of the witnesses testified that one of the police officers appraised him of his rights but
the accused denied any assistance of a lawyer during the investigation considering that he will
tell the truth about the incident.

Issue:
Whether or not the officers conducted a lawful warrantless arrest against the respondents

Ruling:
Supreme court reversed the decision and set aside the decision of the RTC and acquit the
petitioners. The Supreme court ruled that the said arrest was not valid because the type of arrest
conducted against the respondents was not enumerated in Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of court
on Valid warrantless arrests. The invitation made by the police officers to the respondents is a
nature of an arrest designed for the purpose of conducting an interrogation. Mere invitation is
covered by the proscription on a warrantless arrest because it is intended for no other reason than
to conduct an investigation.
Even if the respondent waived his right of counsel and has a extrajudicial confession, it
will be considered as inadmissible evidence because Under the Constitution, any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right, among other to have a
counsel, which right can be validly waived. In the case at hand, the respondent was not assisted
by a counsel and his waiver does not constitute a valid waiver of his right within the
contemplation of our criminal justice system. The valid waiver of the right to counsel during
custodial investigation makes the uncounselled confession, whether verbal or non-verbal,
obtained in violation thereof as also "inadmissible in evidence"
. The facts through a extrajudicial confession on how the victims were killed, how
appellants gained entrance into the premises, and how the alleged stolen properties were found in
the house where one of them was arrested. Without the foregoing facts a combination of the
remainder of the circumstantial evidence cannot sustain a conviction beyond the shadow of
reasonable doubt