People vs.
Lugod Facts: This case is about a robbery committed by 8
[GR 136253, 21 February 2001]
Facts: A case of rape with homicide was filed against
the accused, Clemente John Lugod, for allegedly
raping the eight-year old girl victim, Nairube J. Ramos
and dumping her dead body in the grassy coconut
plantation area.
Lugod was then brought to the police station where
he was temporarily incarcerated. Although he
admitted to SPO2 Gallardo that he raped and killed
Nairube without the assistance of a counsel, Lugud
refused to make a statement regarding the same.
On September 19, 1997, the Vice-Mayor
visited the accused in his cell. In the course of his
conversation with Lugod, Lugod allegedly confessed
to the commission of the offense. Lugod was charged
for rape with homicide. After trial, Lugod was found
guilty and was sentenced to death. Hence, the
automatic review.
Issue: Whether or not Lugod’s alleged confession
can be used against him?
Held: At the time of his arrest, records reveal that
accused-appellant was not informed of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and his rights to
counsel. There is also no evidence to indicate that he
intended to waive these rights. Consequently, the
accused-appellant’s act of confessing to SPO2
Gallardo that he raped and killed Nairube without the
assistance of counsel cannot be used against him for
having transgressed accused-appellant’s rights under
the Bill of Rights. This is a basic tenet of our
Constitution which cannot be disregarded or ignored
no matter how brutal the crime committed may be.
Even if we were to assume that accused-
appellant was not yet under interrogation and thus,
not entitled to his constitutional rights at the time he
was brought to the police station, the acts of accused-
appellant subsequent to his apprehension cannot be
characterized as having been voluntarily made
considering the peculiar circumstances surrounding
his detention. Amidst such a highly coercive
atmosphere, accused-appellant’s claim that he was
beaten up and maltreated by the police officers raises
a very serious doubt as to the voluntariness of his
alleged confession.
In addition, the records do not support the
confession allegedly made by the accused-appellant
to the Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Cavinti. Records
show that the Mayor of Cavinti did not testify in the
criminal trial. Moreover, the testimony of the Vice-
Mayor with respect to the alleged confession made by
the accused-appellant is not conclusive.
As can be seen from the testimony of the
Vice-Mayor, accused-appellant merely responded to
the ambiguous questions that the Vice-Mayor
propounded to him. He did not state in certain and
categorical terms that he raped and killed Nairube. In
fact, the Vice-Mayor admitted that the accused-
appellant did not tell him that he raped and killed
Nairube.
People vs. Amestuzo
G.R. No. 104383
armed men and on the course of the robbery, rape
was committed. They were all found guilty of the
complex crime of robbery in band with double rape.
From the judgment of conviction by the trial court,
only herein accused-appellant Bagas appealed to this
Court
Accused-appellant maintains that from the time he
was arrested until he was presented to the
complainants for identification, he was deprived of the
benefit of counsel.
Issue: Whether not not the accused was deprived of
his constitutional right to be represented by a counsel
during the identification stage.
Ruling: The contention is not meritorious. The
guarantees of Sec. 12 (1), Art. III of the 1987
Constitution, or the so-called Miranda rights, may be
invoked only by a person while he is under custodial
investigation. Custodial investigation starts when the
police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into
an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a
particular suspect taken into custody by the police
who starts the interrogation and propounds questions
to the person to elicit incriminating statements. Police
line-up is not part of the custodial investigation;
hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage
People vs. Dagpin
G.R. No. 149560
FACTS:
This is an appeal from the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 8,
convicting the appellant Quirico Dagpin  of murder
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
The killing incident took place on March 26,
1996 at 1:00 A.M. It was witnessed by the victim’s
nephew, Randy and his sisters Rona and Rena who
saw and recognized the appellant.
On March 27, 1996, Randy, Rona and Rena
went to the police station and saw the appellant,
whom they pointed to the police as the person who
shot their uncle. It was only then that they learned the
name of their uncle’s assassin, Quirico Dagpin. They
executed sworn statements of their respective
accounts of the killing.
During trial, the prosecution presented as
witnesses Randy and Rona and obtained their
testimonies. In defense, appellant raised alibi that on
the night the killing incident took place, he was in the
house of Pedro Elcamel and helped the latter in the
preparation of a graduation party for Pedro’s
daughter.
After trial, the court rendered judgment finding
the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder. 
The appellant avers that the trial court erred in
convicting him of the crime charged on the basis
mainly of his having been identified by Randy, Rona
and Rena at the police station on March 27, 1996. He
was not assisted by counsel when the three pointed
to him as the culprit in the police station. Hence,
according to the appellant, such identification is
inadmissible in evidence.
 For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General
asserts that Randy, Rona and Rena, saw and
recognized the appellant as the person who shot the
victim at the situs criminis. It also maintains that the
appellant was not deprived of his constitutional rights
when he was identified by the prosecution witnesses
at the police station without counsel, because he was
not then under custodial investigation. 
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant was denied of
his right under the Constitution when he was not
assisted by counsel at the time the prosecution
witnesses identified him as the culprit.
RULING:
The appellant was not deprived of his right
under the Constitution to be assisted by counsel
because the appellant was not subjected to a
custodial investigation where he was identified by the
prosecution’s witnesses in a police line-up. Indeed,
the appellant even denied that there was no police
line-up and that he was merely with the police officers
when the prosecution’s witnesses arrived in the police
station.

People vs. Escordial

G.R. No. 138934-35

Facts: This case is about robbery with rape

committed by a single person which is Escordial,

Descriptions about his physical appearance where

given by the victims to the police.

Then the police found the accused who matched the

description. He was then arrested without a warrant of
arrest.

Court of first instance ruled that accused is found

guilty of robbery and rape with no mitigating
circumstances and is hereby sentenced with
maximum penalty of death.

Issue: Whether or not accused was deprived of

counsel during custodial investigation and thus
making the answers of the accused to question a
mere hearsay.

Ruling: Yes. The accused-appellant, having been the

focus of attention by the police after he had being
pointed by a Ramie as the possible suspect of the
crime, was already under custodial investigation when
these out-of-court identifications were conducted by
the police. Thereby all questions answered by
accused-appellant is hereby deemed as hearsay.
Furthermore, his right to counsel was violated. Hence,
evidence is inadmissible in court.