PEOPLE V.

ABANO
G.R. No. L-57184-85 (1996)

From book: Confession obtained during preliminary investigation without the

assistance of counsel was held as inadmissible

FACTS:

That on or about the 7th day of February, 1980 accused Eugenia Abano,
then united in lawful wedlock with Agripino Abano, and conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another with

Eliseo Cabana alias Lucio Cabana and Pablo Cabana alias Teofilo Cabana,
armed with sharp bladed weapons, with evident premeditation and treachery
and in consideration of a prize or reward for the accomplishment of their
criminal purposes, with deliberate intent to kill, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and stab the said Agripino Abano
with the weapons aforecited thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple wounds
on the vital parts of the body which injuries caused, as a consequence, the
instantaneous death of the victim. The offense was committed with the aid of
armed men; superior strength and arms; night time; in consideration of the
prize or reward and perpetrated in the dwelling of the victim. Except for the
difference in the name of the accused, the absence of the allegation on the
accused's relationship to the victim and the fact that Bienvenida Cumad is
Identified as the victim, the information for murder in Criminal Case No. CCC-
XIV-2148 is also dated May 7, 1980 and couched in basically the same
language.

During the interrogation, without the presence of counsel throughout

the process, Eugenia testified that she only admitted everything the
investigator said so that her daughter-in-law will not be implicated and on the
promise that she will not be included in the case instead making her a
witness for prosecution.

ISSUE: WON the testimony of the accused be used as evidence against her
during trial?

HELD: No. The rule against self-incrimination positively intends to avoid and
prohibit the certainly inhuman procedure of compelling a person to furnish
the missing evidence necessary for his conviction. The absence of counsel
when she appeared as witness during the preliminary investigation is an
irreparable damage which rendered inadmissible accused’s alleged
confession.
RODIS, SR. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES proceedings what he is address, was returned "unserved"
which led to really protesting  Under Section 3, sub-section (d) of Rule
Petitioner Hermilo v. Rodis, Sr., former President of Philfinance was charged the filing of against is the 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
before the Sandiganbayan with five (5) counts of violation of Section 3(b) of the lost opportunity Procedure, "if the respondent cannot be
the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act.On May 31, 1985, petitioner filed information to participate subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not
a motion to quash said informations on the ground of lack of preliminary therein due to submit counter-affidavits within the ten
investigation, with the alternative prayer that the issue and/or enforcement of the alleged (10) day period, the investigating officer
the warrant of arrests against him be held in abeyance while he seeks a failure of the shall base his resolution on the evidence
reinvestigation by the Tanodbayan pursuant to his right to preliminary Tanodbayan to presented by the complainant." This
investigation. serve a provision does not require as a
subpoena upon condition sine qua non to the validity of
In its opposition, the Prosecution cited as basis Sec. 3, Rule 117 of the 1985 him, which did the proceedings the presence of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure enumerating the grounds for a motion to quash. not affect the accused for as long as efforts to reach
It argued that since lack of preliminary investigation is not among those regularity of the him were made.
enumerated thereunder, the motion to quash on this ground should be preliminary  However, considering that petitioner has
denied for lack of merit and instead, petitioner should be ordered to file his investigation. voluntarily appeared before the
Petition for Reinvestigation and/or Motion for Reconsideration in accordance Sandiganbayan in connection with the
with Section 13 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the Tanodbayan. criminal cases in question and has
appeared in other preliminary
investigations of other PHILFINANCE
Petitioner filed a petition for re-investigation with the Tanodbayan as
charges, to apply the full force and effect
suggested. While this was pending, the Sandiganbayan promulgated the
of the rule would greatly prejudice him.
assailed resolution denying petitioner's motion to quash for lack of merit,
 The avowed purposes of a preliminary
stating:
investigation are:
o to secure the innocent against
the alleged absence of preliminary investigation or his inability to hasty, malicious and oppressive
participate in the preliminary investigation for the reason that he was prosecution
not duly served with a subpoena is not a proper ground for a motion o to protect him from an open and
to quash. If the accused was not afforded due preliminary public accusation of crime, from the
investigation, the proper remedy for him is to file a Petition for trouble, expense and anxiety of a
Reinvestigation with the Office of the Tanodbayan, pursuant to public trial
Section (13) of Administrative Order No. 111 of the Revised Rules of o to protect the state from useless
Procedure of the Tanodbayan, promulgated on December 1, 1979. and expensive trials
 While the absence of preliminary
Issue: Whether the lack of preliminary investigation may quash an investigations does not affect the court's
information considering that it is not among those enumerated under Sec 3, jurisdiction over the case or do they
Rule 117. impair the validity of the information, but,
if there were no preliminary
Held-Ratio: No, but respondent Sandiganbayan is ordered to hold in investigations and the defendants,
abeyance the proceedings therein with respect to petitioner, subject to the before entering their plea, invite the
outcome of the reinvestigation of the Tanodbayan. attention of the court to their absence,
the court should conduct such
Petitioner Respondent SC investigation, order the fiscal to conduct
Lack of Petitioner does  It is not disputed that a preliminary it or remand the case to the inferior court
preliminary not dispute that investigation was conducted by the so that the preliminary investigation may
investigation a preliminary Tanodbayan. Petitioner, however, was be conducted. In this case, the
affects the investigation not able to participate as the subpoena Tanodbayan, has the duty to conduct
regularity of was indeed addressed to him at his last known the said investigation.
the conducted,