custodial 1.

1 Notes: Introduction to
Criminal Investigation
DEFINITION OF TERMS: 
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION – is an art that deals with the identity and location of the
offender and provides evidence of guilt through criminal proceedings.
INVESTIGATION DEFINED: The collection of facts to accomplish a three-fold aim:

1. to identify the guilty party;

2. to locate the guilty party; and
3. to provide evidence of his guilt.

NATURE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS:

 an art based on intuition and sometimes by chance.

 a science because it involves the application of knowledge of forensic
sciences.
 a process because it involves systematic procedure.

ARREST - To take a person into the custody of the law for him to be bound for the
commission of an offense (Section 1, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure).

o 1987 CONSTITUTION, SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION - It is an investigation conducted after an arrested person

is taken into police custody and interrogated for a crime. The custodial investigation also
includes any questioning or probe of a person “invited” by a law enforcement officer in
connection with an offense, he or she is suspected to have committed in accordance
with Republic Act No. 7438. 

o 1987 CONSTITUTION, SECTION 12. 

(1) 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.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations
of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of
victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - 1987 CONSTITUTION, SECTION 2. The right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
- "is the process of discovering, collecting, preparing, identifying and presenting evidence to
determine what happened and who is responsible."
- whodunit
CRIME
- is an act in violation of penal law and an offense against the state.

OVERVIEW OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

The goals of criminal investigation are:
- Determine whether a crime has been committed.
- Legally obtain information and evidence to identify the responsible
person.
- Arrest the suspect.
- Recover stolen property.
- Present the best possible case to the prosecutor.

ARREST (NON-LEGAL ASPECTS)

- "interfering with the freedom(freedom of action or liberty) of a person
who is suspected of criminal conduct to the extent of taking him to the
police station for some purpose"
- When you are restrained there is interference of your freedom or liberty
- "the taking of custody upon sufficient and proper evidence for the
purpose of prosecution"
NATURE OF ARREST
Requisites of Arrest. Classification
- Intent - Arrest under competent authority (existence of
warrant of arrest/summons)

- Authority - Arrest permitted by law or Constitution

- Custody - Arrest neither under competent authority or

permitted by law or Constitution

WHEN DO INVESTIGATORS ENCOUNTER POTENTIAL OFFENDER?

 Initial Response
(Preliminary Investigation)
- high probability of arrest
1. A suspect at or near the scene
2. If the suspect has recently fled [hot pursuit (direct pursuit of personal
knowledge of the crime committed)]

WHEN DO INVESTIGATORS ENCOUNTER POTENTIAL OFFENDER?

o Follow-up investigation - whether a case is filed or not
Suspects are developed through the following suggested means:
 Information provided by victims, witnesses and other persons likely to know about the
crime or the suspect
 Physical evidence left at the crime scene
 Psychological profiling
 Information in police files
 Information in the files of other agencies (PDEA,NBI,etc.)
 Informants
o Instances whereby you will not encounter potential offenders at all? – Yes,
specifically when offenders are great at hiding and during investigation where
there is insufficient evidences.

SAFELY HANDCUFFING A SUSPECT

 In standing position
 In kneeling position
 Against a wall
 On the ground

If a person is under custody

1. Physical Restrained/ Physical Deprivation of the Liberty of a person
2. Voluntary surrenders at the custody of the arresting officer
SAFELY HANDCUFFING A
SUSPECT: KEY POINTS
 Attitude
o Approach from side - direct, rear and side (advantageous)
o Active guard position (do not remove your focus)
o Vigilance (intimate/red zone) be aware, check your location
 Protection – 2nd officer should have the responsibility to protect(protecting officer)
o Check the surroundings
o Allow goof vision of the suspect
o Good awareness
 Communication (arresting officer b/n arrested offender)
o Maintain visual contact
o Verbal contact
 Support
o Handcuffing and protection officer

SAFELY HANDCUFFING BA SUSPECT: STANDING POSITION

Standing Kneeling Against the On the Ground
Wall
WHO Compliant Potentially Potentially Potentially
dangerous or dangerous or dangerous or
high risk high risk high risk
situation situation situation
NATURE Disadvantage Disadvantage Disadvantage Disadvantage
(the offender is (offender is not
balanced and out balanced)
can move freely
but limited and
may turn back
and attack
arresting officer)
NOTE: MEMORIZE BY HEART THE “MIRANDA RIGHTS”
“You  have the right to remain silent. Anything you say
can and will be used against you in a court of law. You
have a right to an attorney.

2.1 Custodial Investigation

Custodial Investigation.
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. The custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived
of his freedom of action in any significant way. [People vs. Marra, G.R. No. 108494,
September 20, 1994]
 
When does it commence?
Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled
out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation and the police officers
begin to ask questions on the suspect's participation therein and which tend to elicit an
admission. [People vs. Pasudag, G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001]
 
The police lineup is not a custodial investigation.
A police lineup is not considered part of the custodial inquest because the process has
not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory stage, and it is the witness or
complainant who is usually interrogated. Hence, the right to counsel does not yet attach
at this stage. (People v Bravo; People v. Amestuzo) 
 
A preliminary investigation is not a custodial investigation.
Likewise, the preliminary investigation is not part of the custodial investigation which
will entitle the person under investigation to his Miranda rights. (Ladiana v. People)
Extra-Judicial Confession
is a declaration made voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement by a person
under custodial investigation, stating or acknowledging that he had committed or
participated in the commission of a crime

Eighth Congress

Republic Act No. 7438             April 27, 1992

AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING
AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled:

Section 1. Statement of Policy. – It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every human
being and guarantee full respect for human rights.

Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of

Public Officers.–

(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be
assisted by counsel.
 (b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who
arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the
latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all
times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be
provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer. lawphi1Ÿ

(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer,
provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or
detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to
him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the
language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation
report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or
in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder
brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school
supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial
confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.

(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no
effect.

(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by
or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or
religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel,
or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on
Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the
Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse,
fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt,
nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.

As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a
person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without
prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.

Section 3. Assisting Counsel. – Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly affected by
the case, those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the
prosecution of crimes.

The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the following fees;

(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with light felonies;
lawphi1 ©alf

(b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with less grave or grave felonies;
 (c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with a capital offense.

The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial
investigation is conducted, provided that if the municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the
province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal
or City Treasurer must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel
before the province pays said fees.

In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected
person can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code.

Section 4. Penalty Clause. – (a) Any arresting public officer or employee, or any investigating
officer, who fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his right
to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall
suffer a fine of Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight
(8) years but not more than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification
shall also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been previously convicted of a similar
offense.

The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee, or anyone acting
upon orders of such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and
independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation for the
commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.

(b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the
immediate family of a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any
medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his
immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring privately with him, or from
examining and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day
or, in urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four
(4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00). lawphi1 ©

The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with custodial responsibility
over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to
secure his safety and prevent his escape.

Section 5. Repealing Clause. – Republic Act No. No. 857, as amended, is hereby repealed. Other
laws, presidential decrees, executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 6. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the
Official Gazette or in any daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

Approved: April 27, 1992. lawphi1 Ÿ

Facts
The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona  addressed four different cases
involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was
questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which
he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a
full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all
the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed
statements that were admitted at trial.

 Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a
police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then
interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed,
written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to
the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to
20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of
Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining
the confession.
 Vignera v. New York: Vignera was picked up by New York police in connection
with the robbery of a dress shop that had occurred three days prior. He was first
taken to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters. He was then taken to the 66th
Detective Squad, where he orally admitted the robbery and was placed under
formal arrest. He was then taken to the 70th Precinct for detention, where he was
questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter
who transcribed the questions and answers. At trial, the oral confession and the
transcript were presented to the jury. Vignera was found guilty of first degree
robbery and sentenced to 30-60 years imprisonment. The conviction was
affirmed without opinion by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals.
 Westover v. United States:  Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City
as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies and taken to a local police station. A
report was also received from the FBI that Westover was wanted on a felony
charge in California. Westover was interrogated the night of the arrest and the
next morning by local police. Then, FBI agents continued the interrogation at the
station. After two-and-a-half hours of interrogation by the FBI, Westover signed
separate confessions, which had been prepared by one of the agents during the
interrogation, to each of the two robberies in California. These statements were
introduced at trial. Westover was convicted of the California robberies and
sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on each count. The conviction was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  California v. Stewart: In the course of investigating a series of purse-snatch
robberies in which one of the victims died of injuries inflicted by her assailant,
Stewart was identified as the endorser of checks stolen in one of the robberies.
Steward was arrested at his home. Police also arrested Stewart’s wife and three
other people who were visiting him. Stewart was placed in a cell, and, over the
next five days, was interrogated on nine different occasions. During the ninth
interrogation session, Stewart stated that he had robbed the deceased, but had
not meant to hurt her. At that time, police released the four other people arrested
with Stewart because there was no evidence to connect any of them with the
crime. At trial, Stewart’s statements were introduced. Stewart was convicted of
robbery and first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of
California reversed, holding that Stewart should have been advised of his right to
remain silent and his right to counsel.

Issues
Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police
interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether “procedures
which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to
the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary.

Supreme Court holding

The Court held that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is
available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all
settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being
compelled to incriminate themselves.” As such, “the prosecution may not use
statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation
of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to
secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”

The Court further held that “without proper safeguards the process of in-custody
interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling
pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to
speak where he would otherwise do so freely.” Therefore, a defendant “must be warned
prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can
be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an
attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to
any questioning if he so desires.”

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda,
reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera, reversed the
judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover, and affirmed the
judgment of the Supreme Court of California in Stewart.

Argued: Feb. 28, March 1 and 2, 1966

Decided: June 13, 1966

Vote: 5-4

Majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren and joined by Justices Black, Douglas,
Brennan, and Fortas.

Dissenting opinion written by Justice Harlan and joined by Justices Stewart and White.

Dissenting in part opinion written by Justice Clark.

Follow-Up
Miranda v. Arizona: After Miranda’s conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court,
the State of Arizona retried him. At the second trial, Miranda’s confession was not
introduced into evidence. Miranda was once again convicted and sentenced to 20-30
years in prison.

Republic Act No. 7438             April 27, 1992

AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING
AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled:

Section 1. Statement of Policy. – It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every human
being and guarantee full respect for human rights.

Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of

Public Officers.–
 (a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be
assisted by counsel.

(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who
arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the
latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all
times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be
provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer. lawphi1Ÿ

(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer,
provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or
detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to
him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the
language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation
report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or
in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder
brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school
supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial
confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.

(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no
effect.

(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by
or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or
religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel,
or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on
Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the
Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse,
fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt,
nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.

As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a
person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without
prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.

Section 3. Assisting Counsel. – Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly affected by
the case, those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the
prosecution of crimes.

The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the following fees;

(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with light felonies;
lawphi1 ©alf
 (b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with less grave or grave felonies;

(c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with a capital offense.

The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial
investigation is conducted, provided that if the municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the
province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal
or City Treasurer must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel
before the province pays said fees.

In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected
person can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code.

Section 4. Penalty Clause. – (a) Any arresting public officer or employee, or any investigating
officer, who fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his right
to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall
suffer a fine of Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight
(8) years but not more than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification
shall also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been previously convicted of a similar
offense.

The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee, or anyone acting
upon orders of such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and
independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation for the
commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.

(b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the
immediate family of a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any
medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his
immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring privately with him, or from
examining and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day
or, in urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four
(4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00). lawphi1 ©

The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with custodial responsibility
over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to
secure his safety and prevent his escape.

Section 5. Repealing Clause. – Republic Act No. No. 857, as amended, is hereby repealed. Other
laws, presidential decrees, executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent
with the provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 6. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the
Official Gazette or in any daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

Approved: April 27, 1992. lawphi1 Ÿ

U.S. Supreme Court
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Miranda v. Arizona

No. 759

Argued February 28-March 1, 1966

Decided June 13, 1966*

384 U.S. 436

Syllabus

In each of these cases, the defendant, while in police custody, was questioned by
police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut
off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective
warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all four cases, the
questioning elicited oral admissions, and, in three of them, signed statements as
well, which were admitted at their trials. All defendants were convicted, and all
convictions, except in No. 584, were affirmed on appeal.

Held:

1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory,

stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective
to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491.

(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists

today is inherently intimidating, and works to undermine the privilege against self-
incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the
compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the
defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. Pp. 445-458.

(b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive
historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system, and
guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak
in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial
interrogation 

437

as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. Pp. 458-
465.

(c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, stressed the need for protective
devices to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the
privilege. Pp. 465-466.

(d) In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to

safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: the person in custody
must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain
silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be
clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the
lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be
appointed to represent him. Pp. 467-473.

(e) If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to

remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he states that he wants an attorney,
the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Pp. 473-474.

(f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a

statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that
the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. P. 475.

(g) Where the individual answers some questions during in-custody interrogation,
he has not waived his privilege, and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter.
Pp. 475-476.
(h) The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in the absence of a fully
effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory
or exculpatory, made by a defendant. Pp. 476-477.

2. The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of the
individual's constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with a
proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI
and the safeguards afforded in other jurisdictions. Pp. 479-491.

3. In each of these cases, the statements were obtained under circumstances that
did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self-
incrimination. Pp. 491-499.

98 Ariz. 18, 401 P.2d 721; 15 N.Y.2d 970, 207 N.E.2d 527; 16 N.Y.2d 614, 209 N.E.2d
110; 342 F.2d 684, reversed; 62 Cal. 2d 571, 400 P.2d 97, affirmed.

G.R. No. 179190               January 20, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs.
ALBERTO L. MAHINAY, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated 26 October 2006 in CA-G.R. CR
H.C. 00172, affirming with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu in
Criminal Case No. CBU-48322 dated 14 January 2000, finding accused-appellant Alberto L.
Mahinay (Mahinay) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. 

Mahinay was charged with rape in an Amended Information which reads:

That on the 5th day of April, 1998, at around 8:00 o’clock in the evening, at Barangay Lawaan II,
Municipality of Talisay, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and succeed in having carnal knowledge of [AAA], a
mentally retarded minor, fifteen (15) years of age, against her will and consent.2

Mahinay entered a plea of not guilty. Trial ensued.

The prosecution presented the testimonies of Dr. Susan Casinio of the Don Vicente Sotto Memorial
Medical Center, the private complainant AAA,3 and her mother BBB. The evidence of the
prosecution tends to establish the following course of events:

On 5 April 1998, at around 8:00 p.m., AAA went to the cornfield near her residence in order to
defecate. A neighbor, Sidra, approached her and told her that Mahinay wanted to talk to her. Sidra
dragged AAA towards Sidra’s house. Mahinay met them just outside the house, and forced AAA
inside the kitchen of Sidra’s house. While in the kitchen, Mahinay told AAA that his cousin, Joseph,
wanted to court her. While saying this, Mahinay started touching AAA’s breast. Mahinay then forced
AAA to lie down. He removed her shorts and underwear. AAA tried to break the hold of Mahinay,
who responded by tightening his grip. Mahinay threatened to kill her, and this prevented her from
shouting. Mahinay then raped her. AAA felt helpless, and all she was able to do was cry.

Thereafter, AAA went home. At 11:00 p.m., BBB arrived home. AAA did not tell BBB what
happened, afraid that Mahinay would kill her. It was only five days later, or on 10 April 1998, that
BBB learned about what happened to her daughter, when she was informed by a barangay tanod
named Belbin.

On the same day, BBB brought AAA to the San Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center where the
latter underwent physical examination. Dr. Nueva Tagalogin examined AAA and noted that there
was an incomplete healed laceration at the 8 and 5 o’clock positions.

The defense, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of Mahinay; Sidra’s neighbor, Rose
Rabadon; and Sidra’s daughter, Rosalina Aboyme. The evidence of the defense was intended to
establish the following:

On 5 April 1998, at around 8:00 p.m., Mahinay was in the house of his aunt Remedios Lauron. He
was not able to talk to AAA that night. On 10 April 1998, Mahinay’s mother told him that he was
being accused of impregnating AAA. He went to BBB to ask why he was being accused as such, but
BBB attempted to strike him with a piece of wood. He went back to the house of Lauron, who
advised him to stay in the house of his father in Tabunok, because BBB asked the intercession of
her relatives. He found out about the rape charge when he was arrested on 11 March 1999 near the
bridge of Tabunok.

In his defense, Mahinay alleged that BBB fabricated stories against him since the family of AAA and
his family were not in good terms due to an incident in which the latter family had called the former
family patay gutom. BBB and Mahinay’s mother also had a conflict with regard to the possession of
a place for vending. AAA once told witness Rabadon that it was AAA’s stepfather who raped her.

Mahinay further alleged that there was also a time when the family of AAA was not in good terms
with the family of Sidra because of a certain stoning incident. The two families had since then
reconciled.

On 14 January 2000, the RTC rendered its judgment convicting Mahinay of the crime of rape. The
dispositive portion of the Decision is as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Alberto Mahinay guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentences him to reclusion perpetua. He is likewise
directed to indemnify [AAA] the sum of ₱50,000.00 and another sum of ₱30,000.00 as and for moral
damages.

With cost against the accused.4

The records of the case were transmitted to this Court for automatic review. However, conformably
with the ruling of this Court in People v. Mateo,5 the case was referred to the Court of Appeals.
On 26 October 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming the conviction of Mahinay,
with modification as to the amount of damages. The dispositive portion of the Decision states:

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION
that accused-appellant Alberto Mahinay is hereby ordered to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as moral
damages.

Costs de oficio.6

Mahinay appealed to this Court, claiming that it is highly improbable for him to have committed the
crime of rape because other persons were in the house where the alleged rape took place.
Furthermore, Mahinay claims that AAA failed to put up sufficient resistance against the alleged acts
of Mahinay. Finally, Mahinay also contends that AAA’s delay in reporting the incident to her mother
was tantamount to giving consent to the sexual act.

We are not persuaded.

Prevailing jurisprudence uniformly holds that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court.7 As a general rule, when the question
is raised as to whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial
court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more
competent to conclude so, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and
deportment on the witness stand and the manner in which they gave their testimonies, and therefore
could better discern if such witnesses were telling the truth; the trial court is thus in the best position
to weigh conflicting testimonies.8 In the instant case, the trial court even categorically stated that
Mahinay "was hesitant, uneasy and evasive in his answers to the questions propounded by the
prosecutor."

There is no merit in Mahinay’s contention that it is highly improbable for him to have committed the
crime of rape because other persons were in the house where the alleged rape took place.
According to Mahinay, AAA herself testified that there were other people present when the alleged
rape took place. This is misleading. AAA clearly stated that the people referred to were outside the
house during the incident:

ATTY. PORIO (cross examination)

Q: And there were no people around inside the house of Sidra at that time?

A: The children were outside the house while both of us were inside the house.

Q: Inside the house at the kitchen, is that right?

A: Yes, Ma’am.9

Either way, this Court has observed in numerous cases that lust does not respect either time or
place.10 The evil in man has no conscience -- the beast in him bears no respect for time and place,
driving him to commit rape anywhere, even in places where people congregate such as in parks,
along the roadside, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.11

Neither do we find merit in Mahinay’s insistence that AAA’s failure to report the incident immediately
was tantamount to giving consent to the alleged act of Mahinay. Delay in revealing the commission
of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file
criminal charges against the rapist, for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain, rather than
reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender’s making good his threats.12

Mahinay counters that the offended party in rape cases must have put up resistance not only in the
initial stage of the commission of rape, but during the entire time that the act was perpetuated upon
her. Citing People v. Tapao,13Mahinay claims that AAA should have resisted to the last ounce of her
strength. Mahinay avers that AAA could have kicked Mahinay, or kept on pushing or struggling to
prevent him from forcing her to enter the house. Also, Mahinay points out that, based on AAA’s
testimony, her mouth was not covered when he was allegedly on top of her, allowing her to shout for
help if she had wanted to, and she would have been heard by persons who were nearby.

As correctly argued by the appellee, the fact that AAA did not shout or make an outcry when there
were nearby persons does not mean that she was not raped by Mahinay. The workings of the
human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable; people react differently in such situations:
some may shout; some may faint; some may be shocked into insensibility; others may openly
welcome their intrusion.14

Furthermore, the testimony of AAA was bereft of any manifestation of consent on her part. On the
contrary, AAA’s repulsion for Mahinay’s lewd advances was clearly demonstrated:

Q: Then after that, what did Berto Mahinay do, if any?

A: He kept on touching my breast.

Q: Then what was your reaction when Berto touched your breast?

A: He kept on touching inspite of telling him no.

Q: Then what happened next if any?

A: He forced me to lie down, I don’t want to but he still forced me.

Q: Then when you are already lying down, what did Berto Mahinay do, if any?

A: He removed my short and panty.

xxxx

Q: Then after Berto Mahinay removed your shortpants and panty, did you not shout?

A: I wanted to shout but he stopped me.

Q: How did he stop you from shouting?

A: He told me that if I will shout he will kill me.

Q: Then what happened next if any after that?

A: He inserted his private part unto my private part. I resisted but he forced me.
 Q: Did you not make any resistance?

A: I resisted but he hold (sic) me tight.

Q: Then once the penis of Berto Mahinay was already in your vagina, what did you do?

A: When he was finished, I wanted to get out ahead of him but he stopped me, he did not
want me to get out.

COURT: By the way, what did you feel when his private organ was inside your private
organ?

A: I felt pain.

COURT: Did you bleed?

A: A little.15 (Emphasis supplied.)

All that Mahinay was able to offer against the positive identification and imputation by the
prosecution was his alibi of being in his aunt’s house at the time of the incident. In itself, the defense
of alibi is already considered inherently weak since it is very easy to concoct.16 Mahinay’s alibi is,
however, rendered even weaker by the fact that the only witness to his allegedly being in his aunt’s
house at the time of the rape, was himself. None of the occupants of the house, not even Mahinay’s
aunt, Remedios Lauron, was presented to testify that Mahinay was, indeed, there at the time of the
alleged rape. Alibi must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses; and
where the defense of alibi is not corroborated, it is fatal to the accused.17

As furthermore testified to by Mahinay himself, he left his residence after he had been accused of
raping AAA, and stayed in the house of his father in Tabunok. It is settled that the flight of an
accused is an indication of his guilt or of a guilty mind.18

Finally, AAA’s testimony is corroborated by the findings of the examining physician. It is settled that
when the victim's testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physician's findings of penetration,
there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal
knowledge.19

As regards the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals, we find the same to be proper. The
award of civil indemnity is mandatory in rape convictions.20 A civil indemnity of ₱50,000.00 is
automatically given to the offended party without need of further evidence other than the commission
of rape. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of ₱50,000.00 for moral damages is
likewise appropriate.21

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 October 2006 in CA-G.R. CR H.C.
00172 affirming with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu in Criminal Case
No. CBU-48322 dated 14 January 2000 finding accused-appellant Alberto L. Mahinay guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO*

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. 

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it
is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. 

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 122485. February 1, 1999]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LARRY MAHINAY Y

AMPARADO, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

A violation of the dignity, purity and privacy of a child who is still innocent and
unexposed to the ways of worldly pleasures is a harrowing experience that destroys not
only her future but of the youth population as well, who in the teachings of our national
hero, are considered the hope of the fatherland. Once again, the Court is confronted by
another tragic desecration of human dignity, committed no less upon a child, who at
the salad age of a few days past 12 years, has yet to knock on the portals of
womanhood, and met her untimely death as a result of the "intrinsically evil act" of
non-consensual sex called rape. Burdened with the supreme penalty of death, rape is
an ignominious crime for which necessity is neither an excuse nor does there exist any
other rational justification other than lust. But those who lust ought not to lust.

The Court quotes with approval from the People's Brief, the facts narrating the horrible
experience and the tragic demise of a young and innocent child in the bloody hands of
appellant, as such facts are ably supported by evidence on record:1 *

"Appellant Larry Mahinay started working as houseboy with Maria Isip on November 20,
1993. His task was to take care of Isip's house which was under construction adjacent
to her old residence situated inside a compound at No. 4165 Dian Street, Gen. T. de
Leon, Valenzuela , Metro Manila. But he stayed and slept in an apartment also owned
by Isip, located 10 meters away from the unfinished house (TSN, September 6, 1995,
pp. 5-10).

"The victim, Ma. Victoria Chan, 12 years old, was Isip's neighbor in Dian Street. She
used to pass by Isip's house on her way to school and play inside the compound yard,
catching maya birds together with other children. While they were playing, appellant
was always around washing his clothes. Inside the compound yard was a septic tank
(TSN, August 22, 1995, pp. 29-31; September 6, 1995, pp. 17; 20-22).

"On June 25, 1995, at 8 o'clock a.m., appellant joined Gregorio Rivera in a drinking
spree. Around 10 o'clock in the morning, appellant, who was already drunk, left
Gregorio Rivera and asked permission from Isip to go out with his friends (TSN,
September 6, 1995, pp. 9-11).

"Meantime, Isip's sister-in-law, Norgina Rivera, who also owned a store fronting the
compound, saw Ma. Victoria on that same day three to four times catching birds inside
Isip's unfinished house around 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The unfinished house was
about 8 meters away from Rivera's store (TSN, September 18, 1995, pp.9-11).

"On the other hand, Sgt. Roberto Suni, also a resident of Dian Street, went to his in-
law's house between 6 to 7 o'clock p.m. to call his office regarding changes on the trip
of President Fidel V. Ramos. The house of his in-laws was near the house of Isip. On his
way to his in-law's house, Sgt. Suni met appellant along Dian Street. That same
evening, between 8 to 9 o'clock p.m., he saw Ma. Victoria standing in front of the gate
of the unfinished house (TSN, September 27, 1995, pp. 3-7; 14-17).

"Later, at 9 o'clock in the evening, appellant showed up at Norgina Rivera's store to buy
lugaw. Norgina Rivera informed appellant that there was none left of it. She notice that
appellant appeared to be uneasy and in deep thought. His hair was disarrayed; he was
drunk and was walking in a dazed manner. She asked why he looked so worried but he
did not answer. Then he left and walked back to the compound (TSN, September 18,
1995, pp. 4-8; 12-14).

"Meanwhile, Elvira Chan noticed that her daughter, Ma. Victoria, was missing. She last
saw her daughter wearing a pair of white shorts, brown belt, a yellow hair ribbon,
printed blue blouse, dirty white panty, white lady sando and blue rubber slippers (TSN,
August 23, 1995, pp. 22, 33).
"Isip testified that appellant failed to show up for supper that night. On the following
day, June 26, 1995, at 2 o'clock in the morning, appellant boarded a passenger jeepney
driven by Fernando Trinidad at the talipapa. Appellant alighted at the top of the bridge
of the North Expressway and had thereafter disappeared (TSN, September 20, 1995,
pp. 4-9; September 27, 1995; pp. 14-17).

"That same morning, around 7:30, a certain Boy found the dead body of Ma. Victoria
inside the septic tank. Boy immediately reported what he saw to the victim's parents,
Eduardo and Elvira Chan (TSN, September 6, 1995, p. 13).

"With the help of the Valenzuela Police, the lifeless body of Ma. Victoria was retrieved
from the septic tank. She was wearing a printed blouse without underwear. Her face
bore bruises. Results of the autopsy revealed the following findings:

Cyanosis, lips and nailbeds,

Contusions, supra pubic area, 6.0 x 3.0 cm., thigh right,

Anterior aspect, middle third, 4.5 x 3.0 cm.

Contused-abrasions on the forehead, 5.0 x 5.0 cm, angle of the left eye, lateral aspect,
2.5 x 1.5 cm. left jaw, 13.5 x 7.0 cm. neck, antero-lateral aspect, right, 2.0 x 1.0 cm.
and left, 7.0 x 6.0 cm., left iliac area, 9.0 x 5.5 cm. intraclavicular area, left, posterior
aspect, 4.0 x 2.0 cm. scapular area, right 4.0 x 4.0 cm. subscapular area, left, 1.5 x
1.5 cm. lumbar area, left 7.0 x 8.0 cm. arm, left, posterior aspect, middle third, 11.00
x 4.0 cm. elbows, right, 4.0 x 3.0 cm. and left 6.0 x 5.0 cm. forearms, left, posterior
aspect, lower rd, 5.2 x 4.0 cm. hand, left, dorsal aspect, 0.8 x 0.9 cm. thighs; right
antero-lateral aspect, upper 33rd, 12.0 x 10.0 cm. right anterior aspect, lower 3rd 5.0 x
2.0 cm. and left antero-lower 3rd , 5.5 x 2.5 cm. knee, right, lateral aspect, 1.5 x 1.0
cm. lateral mallcolum, left, 3.0 x 3.5 cm. foot, left, dorsal aspect 2.2 x 1.0 cm.

Hematoma, forehead, and scalp, left, 3.5 x 3.0 cm.

Hemorrhage, interstitial, underneath nailmarks, neck, subepicardial, subpleural

petechial hemorrhages.

Hemorrhage, subdural, left fronto-parietal area.

Tracheo-bronchial tree, congested.

Other visceral organs, congested.

Stomach, contain 1/4 rice and other food particles.

CAUSE OF DEATH - Asphyxia by Manual Strangulation; Traumatic Head Injury,

Contributory.
REMARKS: Hymen: tall, thick with complete lacerations at 4:00 and 8:00 o'clock
position corresponding to the face of a watch edges congested with blood clots. (TSN,
August 18, 1995; p. 4; Record, p. 126)

"Back in the compound, SPO1 Arsenio Nacis and SPO1 Arnold Alabastro were informed
by Isip that her houseboy, appellant Larry Mahinay, was missing. According to her, it
was unlikely for appellant to just disappear from the apartment since whenever he
would go out, he would normally return on the same day or early morning of the
following day (TSN, September 6, 1995, pp. 6-11-27).

"SPO1 Nacis and SPO1 Alabastro were also informed that a townmate of appellant was
working in a pancit factory at Barangay Reparo, Caloocan City. They proceeded to said
place. The owner of the factory confirmed to them that appellant used to work at the
factory but she did not know his present whereabouts. Appellant's townmate, on the
other hand, informed them that appellant could possibly be found on 8  Street, Grace
th

Park, Caloocan City (TSN, August 14, 1995, pp. 8-9).

"The policemen returned to the scene of the crime. At the second floor of the house
under construction, they retrieved from one of the rooms a pair of dirty white short
pants, a brown belt and a yellow hair ribbon which was identified by Elvira Chan to
belong to her daughter, Ma. Victoria. They also found inside another room a pair of blue
slippers which Isip identified as that of Appellant. Also found in the yard, three
armslength away from the septic tank were an underwear, a leather wallet, a pair of
dirty long pants and a pliers positively identified by Isip as appellant's belongings.
These items were brought to the police station (TSN, August 14, 1995, pp. 10-13;
August 18, 1995, pp. 3-8; August 23, 1995, pp. 21-25).

"A police report was subsequently prepared including a referral slip addressed to the
office of the Valenzuela Prosecutor. The next day, SPO1 Virgilio Villano retrieved the
victim's underwear from the septic tank (TSN, August 23, 1995, pp. 3-8; 14-17).

"After a series of follow-up operations, appellant was finally arrested in Barangay

Obario Matala, Ibaan, Batangas. He was brought to Valenzuela Police Station. On July
7, 1995, with the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes, appellant executed an extra-
judicial confession wherein he narrated in detail how he raped and killed the victim.
Also, when appellant came face to face with the victim's mother and aunt, he confided
to them that he was not alone in raping and killing the victim. He pointed to Zaldy and
Boyet as his co-conspirators (TSN, August 14, 1995, pp. 13-21)."

Thus, on July 10, 1995, appellant was charged with rape with homicide in an
Information which reads:2 cräläwvirtualibräry

"That on or about the 26  day of June 1995 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila and within the
th

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, by means of force and
intimidation employed upon the person of MARIA VICTORIA CHAN y CABALLERO, age
12 years old, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have
sexual intercourse with said MARIA VICTORIA CHAN y CABALLERO against her will and
without her consent; that on the occasion of said sexual assault, the above-named
accused, choke and strangle said MARIA VICTORIA CHAN y CABALLERO as a result of
which, said victim died.
"Contrary to law."3

to which he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the lower court rendered a decision
convicting appellant of the crime charged, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death
and to pay a total of P73,000.00 to the victim's heirs. The dispositive portion of the trial
court's decision states:

"WHEREFORE, finding accused Larry Mahinay y Amparado guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime charged, he is hereby sentenced to death by electricution (sic). He is
likewise condemned to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Ma. Victoria Chan the amount
of P50,000.00 and to pay the further sum of P23,000.00 for the funeral, burial and
wake of the victim.

"Let the complete records of the case be immediately forwarded to the Honorable
Supreme Court for the automatic review in accordance to Article 47 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659.

"SO ORDERED."4

Upon automatic review by the court en banc pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC), as amended,5 appellant insists that the circumstantial evidence presented
by the prosecution against him is insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. In his testimony summarized by the trial court, appellant offered his version of
what transpired as follows:

(T)hat on June 25, 1995, around 9:30 a.m. on Dian Street, Gen. T. de Leon,
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, he joined Gregorio Rivera and a certain Totoy in a drinking
spree. Gregorio Rivera is the brother of Maria Isip, appellants employer. After
consuming three cases of red horse beer, he was summoned by Isip to clean the
jeepney. He finished cleaning the jeepney at 12 oclock noon. Then he had lunch and
took a bath. Later, he asked permission from Isip to go out with his friends to see a
movie. He also asked for a cash advance of P300.00 (TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 4-5).

At 2 oclock in the afternoon, appellant, instead of going out with his friend, opted to
rejoin Gregorio Rivera and Totoy for another drinking session. They consumed one case
of red horse beer. Around 6 oclock p.m., Zaldy, a co-worker, fetched him at Gregorio
Riveras house. They went to Zaldys house and bought a bottle of gin. They finished
drinking gin around 8 oclock p.m. After consuming the bottle of gin, they went out and
bought another bottle of gin from a nearby store. It was already 9 oclock in the
evening. While they were at the store, appellant and Zaldy met Boyet. After giving the
bottle of gin to Zaldy and Boyet, appellant left (TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 6-7).

On his way home, appellant passed by Norgina Riveras store to buy lugaw. Norgina

Rivera informed him that there was none left of it. He left the store and proceeded to
Isips apartment. But because it was already closed, he decided to sleep at the second
floor of Isips unfinished house. Around 10 oclock p.m., Zaldy and Boyet arrived carrying
a cadaver. The two placed the body inside the room where appellant was sleeping. As
appellant stood up, Zaldy pointed to him a knife. Zaldy and Boyet directed him to rape
the dead body of the child or they would kill him. He, However, refused to follow. Then,
he was asked by Zaldy and Boyet to assist them in bringing the dead body downstairs.
He obliged and helped dump the body into the septic tank. Thereupon, Zaldy and Boyet
warned him that should they ever see him again, they would kill him. At 4 oclock the
following morning, he left the compound and proceeded first to Navotas and later to
Batangas (TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 4-13).

Subsequently, appellant was apprehended by the police officers in Ibaan, Batangas. The
police officers allegedly brought him to a big house somewhere in Manila. There,
appellant heard the police officers plan to salvage him if he would not admit that he
was the one who raped and killed the victim. Scared, he executed an extra-judicial
confession. He claimed that he was assisted by Atty. Restituto Viernes only when he
was forced to sign the extra-judicial confession (TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 9-11).6

This being a death penalty case, the Court exercises the greatest circumspection in the
review thereof since there can be no stake higher and no penalty more severe x x x
than the termination of a human life.7 For life, once taken is like virginity, which once
defiled can never be restored. In order therefore, that appellants guilty mind be
satisfied, the Court states the reasons why, as the records are not shy, for him to
verify.

The proven circumstances of this case when juxtaposed with appellants proffered
excuse are sufficient to sustain his conviction beyond reasonable doubt,
notwithstanding the absence of any direct evidence relative to the commission of the
crime for which he was prosecuted. Absence of direct proof does not necessarily
absolve him from any liability because under the Rules on evidence8 and pursuant to
settled jurisprudence,9 conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence provided that
the following requisites concur:

1. there is more than one circumstance;

2. the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

3. the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond

reasonable doubt.

Simply put, for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all

circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that
the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is
innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.10 Facts and
circumstances consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, constitute evidence
which, in weight and probative force, may surpass even direct evidence in its effect
upon the court.11cräläwvirtualibräry

In the case at bench, the trial court gave credence to several circumstantial evidence,
which upon thorough review of the Court is more than enough to prove appellants guilt
beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. These circumstantial evidence are as follows:

FIRST Prosecution witness Norgina Rivera, sister-in-law of Maria Isip, owner of the
unfinished big house where the crime happened and the septic tank where the body of
Maria Victoria Chan was found in the morning of June 26, 1995 is located, categorically
testified that at about 9:00 in the evening on June 25, 1995, accused Larry Mahinay
was in her store located in front portion of the compound of her sister-in-law Maria Isip
where the unfinished big house is situated buying rice noodle (lugaw). That she noticed
the accuseds hair was disarranged, drunk and walking in sigsaging manner. That the
accused appeared uneasy and seems to be thinking deeply. That the accused did not
reply to her queries why he looked worried but went inside the compound.

SECOND Prosecution witness Sgt. Roberto G. Suni, categorically, testified that on June
25, 1995 between 6:00 and 7:00 in the evening, on his way to his in-laws house, he
met accused Larry Mahinay walking on the road leading to his in-laws residence which
is about 50 to 75 meters away to the unfinished big house of Maria Isip. That he also
saw victim Maria Victoria Chan standing at the gate of the unfinished big house of Maria
Isip between 8:00 and 9:00 in the same evening.

THIRD Prosecution witness Maria Isip, owner of the unfinished big house where victims
body was found inside the septic tank, testified that accused Larry Mahinay is her
houseboy since November 20, 1993. That in the morning of June 25, 1995, a Sunday,
Larry Mahinay asked permission from her to leave. That after finishing some work she
asked him to do accused Larry Mahinay left. That it is customary on the part of Larry
Mahinay to return in the afternoon of the same day or sometimes in the next morning.
That accused Larry Mahinay did not return until he was arrested in Batangas on July 7,
1995.

FOURTH Prosecution witness Fernando Trinidad, a passenger jeepney driver plying the
route Karuhatan-Ugong and vice versa which include Diam St., Gen. T. de Leon,
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, pinpointed the accused Larry Mahinay as one of the
passengers who boarded his passenger jeepney on June 26, 1995 at 2:00 early
morning and alighted on top of the overpass of the North Expressway.

FIFTH Personal belongings of the victim was found in the unfinished big house of Maria
Isip where accused Larry Mahinay slept on the night of the incident. This is a clear
indication that the victim was raped and killed in the said premises.

There is no showing that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (sic) fabricated or
there was any reason for them to testify falsely against the accused. The absence of
any evidence as to the existence of improper motive sustain the conclusion that no
such improper motive exists and that the testimonies of the witnesses, therefore,
should be given full faith and credit. (People vs. Retubado, 58585 January 20, 1988 162
SCRA 276, 284; People vs. Ali L-18512 October 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 756).

SIXTH Accused Larry Mahinay during the custodial investigation and after having been
informed of his constitutional rights with the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes of the
Public Attorneys Office voluntarily gave his statement admitting the commission of the
crime. Said confession of accused Larry Mahinay given with the assistance of Atty.
Restituto Viernes is believed to have been freely and voluntarily given. That accused did
not complain to the proper authorities of any maltreatment on his person (People vs.
delos Santos L-3398 May 29, 1984; 150 SCRA 311). He did not even informed the
Inquest Prosecutor when he sworn to the truth of his statement on July 8, 1995 that he
was forced, coersed or was promised of reward or leniency. That his confession abound
with details know only to him. The Court noted that a lawyer from the Public Attorneys
Office Atty. Restituto Viernes and as testified by said Atty. Viernes he informed and
explained to the accused his constitutional rights and was present all throughout the
giving of the testimony. That he signed the statement given by the accused. Lawyer
from the Public Attorneys Office is expected to be watchful and vigilant to notice any
irregularity in the manner of the investigation and the physical conditions of the
accused. The post mortem findings shows that the cause of death Asphyxia by manual
strangulation; Traumatic Head injury Contributory substantiate. Consistent with the
testimony of the accused that he pushed the victim and the latters head hit the table
and the victim lost consciousness.

Pagpasok niya sa kuwarto, hinawakan ko siya sa kamay tapos tinulak ko siya, tapos
tumama iyong ulo niya sa mesa. Ayon na, nakatulog na siya tapos ni-rape ko na siya.

There is no clear proof of maltreatment and/or tortured in giving the statement. There
were no medical certificate submitted by the accused to sustain his claim that he was
mauled by the police officers.

There being no evidence presented to show that said confession were obtained as a
result of violence, torture, maltreatment, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or
leniency nor that the investigating officer could have been motivated to concoct the
facts narrated in said affidavit; the confession of the accused is held to be true, correct
and freely or voluntarily given. (People v. Tuazon 6 SCRA 249; People v. Tiongson 6
SCRA 431, People v. Baluran 52 SCRA 71, People v. Pingol 35 SCRA 73.)

SEVENTH Accused Larry Mahinay testified in open Court that he was not able to enter
the apartment where he is sleeping because it was already closed and he proceeded to
the second floor of the unfinished house and slept. He said while sleeping Zaldy and
Boyet arrived carrying the cadaver of the victim and dumped it inside his room. That at
the point of a knife, the two ordered him to have sex with the dead body but he
refused. That the two asked him to assist them in dumping the dead body of the victim
in the septic tank downstairs. (Tsn pp8-9 October 16, 1995). This is unbelievable and
unnatural. Accused Larry Mahinay is staying in the apartment and not in the unfinished
house. That he slept in the said unfinished house only that night of June 25, 1995
because the apartment where he was staying was already closed. The Court is at a loss
how would Zaldy and Boyet knew he (Larry Mahinay) was in the second floor of the
unfinished house.

Furthermore, if the child is already dead when brought by Zaldy and Boyet in the room
at the second floor of the unfinished house where accused Larry Mahinay was sleeping,
why will Boyet and Zaldy still brought the cadaver upstairs only to be disposed/dumped
later in the septic tank located in the ground floor. Boyet and Zaldy can easily disposed
and dumped the body in the septic tank by themselves.

It is likewise strange that the dead body of the child was taken to the room where
accused Larry Mahinay was sleeping only to force the latter to have sex with the dead
body of the child.

We have no test to the truth of human testimony except its conformity to aver
knowledge observation and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the
miraculous. (People vs. Santos L-385 Nov. 16, 1979)
EIGHT If the accused did not commit the crime and was only forced to
disposed/dumpted the body of the victim in the septic tank, he could have apprise Col.
Maganto, a high ranking police officer or the lady reporter who interviewed him. His
failure and omission to reveal the same is unnatural. An innocent person will at once
naturally and emphatically repel an accusation of crime as a matter of preservation and
self-defense and as a precaution against prejudicing himself. A persons silence
therefore, particularly when it is persistent will justify an inference that he is not
innocent. (People vs. Pilones, L-32754-5 July 21, 1978).

NINTH The circumstance of flight of the accused strongly indicate his consciousness of
guilt. He left the crime scene on the early morning after the incident and did not return
until he was arrested in Batangas on July 7, 1995.12

Guided by the three principles in the review of rape cases, to wit:13cräläwvirtualibräry

1). An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more
difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove;

2). In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape, where only two persons are
usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution;
and

3). The evidence of the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.

the foregoing circumstantial evidence clearly establishes the felony of rape with
homicide defined and penalized under Section 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Section 11, R.A. 7659, which provides:

When and how rape is committed Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a

woman under any of the following circumstances.

1.) By using force or intimidation;

2.) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

3.) When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or
more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the
penalty shall be death.

When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on

the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty
shall be death.

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of
the following attendant circumstances:

1.) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

2.) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities.

3.) When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children
or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.

4.) When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.

5.) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) disease.

6.) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or
Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency.

7.) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent
physical mutilation.14

At the time of the commission of this heinous act, rape was still considered a crime
against chastity,15 although under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (R.A. No. 8353), rape has
since been re-classified as a crime against persons under Articles 266-A and 266-B, and
thus, may be prosecuted even without a complaint filed by the offended party.

The gravamen of the offense of rape, prior to R.A. 8353, is sexual congress with a
woman by force and without consent.16 (Under the new law, rape may be committed
even by a woman and the victim may even be a man.)17 If the woman is under 12
years of age, proof of force and consent becomes immaterial18 not only because force is
not an element of statutory rape,19 but the absence of a free consent is presumed when
the woman is below such age. Conviction will therefore lie, provided sexual intercourse
is be proven. But if the woman is 12 years of age or over at the time she was violated,
as in this case, not only the first element of sexual intercourse must be proven but also
the other element that the perpetrators evil acts with the offended party was done
through force, violence, intimidation or threat needs to be established. Both elements
are present in this case.

Based on the evidence on record, sexual intercourse with the victim was adequately
proven. This is shown from the testimony of the medical doctor who conducted post
mortem examination on the childs body:

Q: And after that what other parts of the victim did you examine?
A: Then I examined the genitalia of the victim.

Q: And what did you find out after you examined the genitalia of the victim?

A: The hymen was tall-thick with complete laceration at 4:00 oclock and 8:00 oclock
position and that the edges were congested.

Q: Now, what might have caused the laceration?

A: Under normal circumstances this might have (sic) caused by a penetration of an

organ.

Q: So, the laceration was caused by the penetration of a male organ?

A: Adult male organ, sir.

Q: You are very sure of that, Mr. Witness?

A: I am very sure of that.20

Besides, as may be gleaned from his extrajudicial confession, appellant himself

admitted that he had sexual congress with the unconscious child.

15. T: Ano ang nangyari ng mga sandali o oras na iyon?

S: Natutulog po ako sa itaas ng bahay ni ATE MARIA, yung malaking bahay na

ginagawa, tapos dumating yung batang babae. Pag-pasok niya sa kuwarto hinawakan
ko siya sa kamay tapos tinulak ko siya. Tapos tumama yung ulo niya sa mesa. Ayon na,
nakakatulog na siya tapos ni rape ko na siya.

16. T: Ano ang suot nung batang babae na sinasabi mo?

S: Itong short na ito, (pointing to a dirty white short placed atop this investigators
table. Subject evidence were part of evidences recovered at the crime scene).

17. T: Bakit mo naman ni rape yung batang babae?

S: Eh nasobrahan ako ng lasing. Hindi ko na alam ang ginagawa ko.

18. T: Ano ba ang inyong ininom bakit ka nasobrahan ng lasing?

S: Red Horse po at saka GIN.

19. T: Saan lugar ng malaking bahay ni ATE MARIA mo ni rape yung batang babae?

S: Sa kuwarto ko po sa itaas.

20. T: Kailan ito at anong oras nangyari?

S: Mga bandang alas 8:00 ng gabi, araw ng Linggo, hindi ko na matandaan kung anong
petsa, basta araw ng Linggo.

21. T: Saan lugar ito nangyari?

S: Sa Diam, Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela, M.M.

22. T: Alam mo na ba ang pangalan ng batang babae na ni rape mo?

S: Hindi ko po alam.

23. T: Ngayon, nais kong ipaalam sa iyo na ang pangalan ng batang babae na iyong ni
rape at pinatay ay si MA. VICTORIA CHAN? Matatandaan mo ba ito?

S: Oho.

24. T: Nung ma-rape mo, nakaraos ka ba?

S: Naka-isa po.

25. T: Nais kong liwanagin sa iyo kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng NAKARAOS, maaari
bang ipaliwanag mo ito?

S: Nilabasan po ako ng tamod.

26. T: Nung nakaraos ka, nasaan parte ng katawan ng batang babae yung iyong ari?

S: Nakapasok po doon sa ari nung babae.

27. T: Natapos mong ma-rape si MA. VICTORIA CHAN, ano pa ang sumunod mong
ginawa?

S: Natulak ko siya sa terrace.

28. T: Ano ang nangyari kay MA. VICTORIA matapos mong itulak sa terrace?

S: Inilagay ko po sa poso-negra.

29. T: Saan makikita yung poso-negra na sinasabi mo?

S: Doon din sa malaking bahay ni ATE MARIA.

30. T: Bakit mo namang naisipang ilagay si MA. VICTORIA sa poso-negra?

S: Doon ko lang po inilagay.

31. T: Bakit nga doon mo inilagay siya?

S: Natatakot po ako.

32. T: Kanino ka natatakot?

S: Natatakot po ako sa ginawa kong masama, natatakot ako sa mga pulis.

33. T: Buhay pa ba si MA. VICTORIA nung ilagay mo siya sa poso-negra?

S: Hindi ko po alam dahil nung pagbagsak niya inilagay ko na siya sa poso-negra.

34. T: Nung gawin mo ba itong krimen na ito, mayroon ka kasama?

S: Nag-iisa lang po ako.

35. T: Noong mga oras o sandaling gahasain mo si MA. VICTORIA CHAN, buhay pa ba
siya o patay na?

S: Buhay pa po.

36. T: Papaano mo siya pinatay?

S: Tinulak ko nga po siya sa terrace.21

In proving sexual intercourse, it is not full or deep penetration of the victims vagina;
rather the slightest penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ is enough
to consummate the sexual intercourse.22 The mere touching by the males organ or
instrument of sex of the labia of the pudendum of the womans private parts is sufficient
to consummate rape.

From the wounds, contusions and abrasions suffered by the victim, force was indeed
employed upon her to satisfy carnal lust. Moreover, from appellants own account, he
pushed the victim causing the latter to hit her head on the table and fell unconscious. It
was at that instance that he ravished her and satisfied his salacious and prurient
desires. Considering that the victim, at the time of her penile invasion, was
unconscious, it could safely be concluded that she had not given free and voluntary
consent to her defilement, whether before or during the sexual act.

Another thing that militates against appellant is his extrajudicial confession, which he,
however, claims was executed in violation of his constitutional right to counsel. But his
contention is belied by the records as well as the testimony of the lawyer who assisted,
warned and explained to him his constitutionally guaranteed pre-interrogatory and
custodial rights. As testified to by the assisting lawyer:

Q Will you please inform the Court what was that call about?

A We went to the station, police investigation together with Atty. Froilan Zapanta and
we were told by Police Officer Alabastro that one Larry Mahinay would like to confess of
the crime of, I think, rape with homicide.
Q And upon reaching the investigation room of Valenzuela PNP who were the other
person present?

A Police Officer Alabastro, sir, Police Officer Nacis and other investigator inside the
investigation room and the parents of the child who was allegedly raped.

Q- And when you reached the investigation room do you notice whether the accused
already there?

A The accused was already there.

Q Was he alone?

A he was alone, sir.

Q So, when you were already infront of SPO1 Arnold Alabastro and the other PNP
Officers, what did they tell you, if any?

A They told us together with Atty. Zapanta that this Larry Mahinay would like to confess
of the crime charged, sir.

Q By the way, who was that Atty. Zapanta?

A Our immediate Superior of the Public Attorneys Office.

Q Was he also present at the start of the question and answer period to the accused?

A No more, sir, he already went to our office. I was left alone.

Q But he saw the accused, Larry Mahinay?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, when Atty. Zapanta left at what time did the question and answer period start?

A If I am not mistaken at around 4:05 of July 7, 1995 in the afternoon, sir.

Q And when this question and answer period started, what was the first thing that you
did as assisting lawyer to the accused?

A First, I tried to explain to him his right, sir, under the constitution.

Q What are those right?

A That he has the right to remain silent. That he has the right of a counsel of his own
choice and that if he has no counsel a lawyer will be appointed to him and that he has
the right to refuse to answer any question that would incriminate him.
Q Now, after enumerating these constitutional rights of accused Larry Mahinay, do you
recall whether this constitutional right enumerated by you were reduced in writing?

A Yes, sir, and it was also explained to him one by one by Police Officer Alabastro.

Q I show to you this constitutional right which you said were reduced into writing, will
you be able to recognize the same?

A Yes, sir.

Q Will you please go over this and tell the Court whether that is the same document
you mentioned?

A Yes, sir, these were the said rights reduced into writing.

ATTY. PRINCIPE:

May we request, Your Honor, that this document be marked as our Exhibit A proper.

Q Do you recall after reducing into writing this constitutional right of the accused
whether you asked him to sign to acknowledge or to conform?

A I was the one who asked him, sir. It was Police Officer Alabastro.

Q But you were present?

A I was then present when he signed.

Q There is a signature in this constitutional right after the enumeration, before and
after there are two (2) signatures, will you please recognize the two (2) signatures?

A These were the same signatures signed in my presence, sir.

Q The signature of whom?

A The signature of Larry Mahinay, sir.

ATTY. PRINCIPE:

May we request, Your Honor, that the two (2) signatures identified by my compaero be
encircled and marked as Exhibit A-1 and A-2.

Q After you said that you apprised the accused of his constitutional right explaining to
him in Filipino, in local dialect, what was the respond of the accused?

A- Larry Mahinay said that we will proceed with his statement.

Q What was the reply?

A He said Opo.

Q Did you ask him of his educational attainment?

A It was the Police Officer who asked him.

Q In your presence?

A In my presence, sir.

Q And when he said or when he replied Opo so the question started?

A Yes, sir.

Q I noticed in this Exhibit A that there is also a waiver of rights, were you present also
when he signed this waiver?

A Yes, sir, I was also present.

Q Did you explain to him the meaning of this waiver?

A I had also explained to him, sir.

Q In Filipino?

A In Tagalog, sir.

Q And there is also a signature after the waiver in Filipino over the typewritten name
Larry Mahinay, Nagsasalaysay, whose signature is that?

A This is also signed in my presence.

Q Why are you sure that this is his signature?

A He signed in my presence, sir.

Q And below immediately are the two (2) signatures. The first one is when Larry
Mahinay subscribed and sworn to, there is a signature here, do you recognize this
signature?

A This is my signature, sir.

Q And immediately after your first signature is a Certification that you have personally
examined the accused Larry Mahinay and testified that he voluntary executed the Extra
Judicial Confession, do you recognize the signature?

A This is also my signature, sir.23 (emphasis supplied).

Appellants defense that two other persons brought to him the dead body of the victim
and forced him to rape the cadaver is too unbelievable. In the words of Vice-Chancellor
Van Fleet of New Jersey,24 cräläwvirtualibräry

Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness,
but must be credible in itself- such as the common experience and observation of
mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the
truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation and
experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous, and is outside of
judicial cognizance.

Ultimately, all the foregoing boils down to the issue of credibility of witnesses. Settled is
the rule that the findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is a matter
best left to the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive
and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses department on the stand while
testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts.25 In this case, the trial
courts findings, conclusions and evaluation of the testimony of witnesses is received on
appeal with the highest respect,26 the same being supported by substantial evidence on
record. There was no showing that the court a quo had overlooked or disregarded
relevant facts and circumstances which when considered would have affected the
outcome of this case27 or justify a departure from the assessments and findings of the
court below. The absence of any improper or ill-motive on the part of the principal
witnesses for the prosecution all the more strengthens the conclusion that no such
motive exists.28 Neither was any wrong motive attributed to the police officers who
testified against appellant.

Coming now to the penalty, the sentence imposed by the trial court is correct. Under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. 7659 when by reason
or on occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. This
special complex crime is treated by law in the same degree as qualified rape -- that is,
when any of the 7 (now 10) attendant circumstances enumerated in the law is alleged
and proven, in which instances, the penalty is death. In cases where any of those
circumstances is proven though not alleged, the penalty cannot be death except if the
circumstance proven can be properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance under
Articles 14 and 15 of the RPC which will affect the imposition of the proper penalty in
accordance with Article 63 of the RPC. However, if any of those circumstances proven
but not alleged cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance under Articles 14
and 15, the same cannot affect the imposition of the penalty because Articles 63 of the
RPC in mentioning aggravating circumstances refers to those defined in Articles 14 and
15. Under R.A. No. 8353, if any of the 10 circumstances is alleged in the
information/complaint, it may be treated as a qualifying circumstance. But if it is not so
alleged, it may be considered as an aggravating circumstance, in which case the only
penalty is death subject to the usual proof of such circumstance in either case.

Death being a single indivisible penalty and the only penalty prescribed by law for the
crime of rape with homicide, the court has no option but to apply the same regardless
of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance that may have attended the commission
of the crime29 in accordance with Article 63 of the RPC, as amended.30 This case of rape
with homicide carries with it penalty of death which is mandatorily imposed by law
within the import of Article 47 of the RPC, as amended, which provides:
The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under
existing laws, except when the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years of age at the
time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years of age or when upon
appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority
vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua. (emphasis supplied).

In an apparent but futile attempt to escape the imposition of the death penalty,
appellant tried to alter his date of birth to show that he was only 17 years and a few
months old at the time he committed the rape and thus, covered by the proscription on
the imposition of death if the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years at the time of
the commission of the crime.31 Again, the record rebuffs appellant on this point
considering that he was proven to be already more than 20 years of age when he did
the heinous act.

Pursuant to current case law, a victim of simple rape is entitled to a civil indemnity of
fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) but if the crime of rape is committed or effectively
qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by
present amended law, the civil indemnity for the victim shall be not less than seventy-
five thousand pesos (P75,000.00).32 In addition to such indemnity, she can also recover
moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code33 in such amount as the court
deems just, without the necessity for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.34 Civil
Indemnity is different from the award of moral and exemplary damages.35 The
requirement of proof of mental and physical suffering provided in Article 2217 of the
Civil Code is dispensed with because it is recognized that the victims injury is inherently
concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape to warrant per
se the award of moral damages.36 Thus, it was held that a conviction for rape carries
with it the award of moral damages to the victim without need for pleading or proof of
the basis thereof.37
cräläwvirtualibräry

Exemplary damages can also be awarded if the commission of the crime was attended
by one or more aggravating circumstances pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil
Code38 after proof that the offended party is entitled to moral, temperate and
compensatory damages.39 Under the circumstances of this case, appellant is liable to
the victims heirs for the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as
moral damages.

Lastly, considering the heavy penalty of death and in order to ensure that the evidence
against and accused were obtained through lawful means, the Court, as guardian of the
rights of the people lays down the procedure, guidelines and duties which the arresting,
detaining, inviting, or investigating officer or his companions must do and observe at
the time of making an arrest and again at and during the time of the custodial
interrogation40 in accordance with the Constitution, jurisprudence and Republic Act No.
7438:41 It is high-time to educate our law-enforcement agencies who neglect either by
ignorance or indifference the so-called Miranda rights which had become insufficient
and which the Court must update in the light of new legal developments:

1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must be

informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest
and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other warnings, information
or communication must be in a language known to and understood by said person;

2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he
makes may be used as evidence against him;

3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the
presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice;

4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a

lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any
person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person
arrested or one acting in his behalf;

5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed that no
custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his
counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;

6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to
communicate or confer by the most expedient means telephone, radio, letter or
messenger with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any member of his
immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any
one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly
accredited national or international non-government organization. It shall be the
responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished;

7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is
made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same;

8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be informed
that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be
warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak;

9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at
any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be questioned with warning
that once he makes such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the same had
not yet commenced, or the interrogation must ceased if it has already begun;

10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain
silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any
time during the process, regardless of whether he may have answered some questions
or volunteered some statements;

11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may be,
obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in
whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.

Four members of the Court although maintaining their adherence to the separate
opinions expressed in People v. Echegaray42 that R.A. No. 7659, insofar as it prescribes
the death penalty, is unconstitutional nevertheless submit to the ruling of the Court, by
a majority vote, that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should
accordingly be imposed.

WHEREFORE, the conviction of appellant is hereby AFFIRMED except for the award of
civil indemnity for the heinous rape which is INCREASED to P75,000.00,
PLUS P50,000.00 moral damages.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the
Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of this case be
forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning
power.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,

Panganiban, Quisumbing, Martinez, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, and Gonzaga-
Reyes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1
 Rollo, pp. 146-154; Appellees Brief filed by the Solicitor General, pp. 2-10.

* Sic is no longer indicated so as not to clutter the narration and other quotations from the records and the transcript of
Stenographic Notes (TSN).

2
 Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 4974-V-95 filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela, Metro
Manila.

3
 Rollo, p. 8; RTC Records, p. 2.

4
 Decision dated October 25, 1995 penned by Judge Adriano R. Osorio of Branch 171 of the RTC of Valenzuela; Rollo, p.
130.

5
 Article 47, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 22, R.A. 7659 provides: In what cases the death penalty shall not
be imposed; automatic review of death penalty cases. x x x In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by the trial
court, the records shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment by the Court en
banc, within twenty (20) days but not earlier than fifteen (15) days after promulgation of the judgment or notice of denial
of any motion for new trial or reconsideration. The transcript shall also be forwarded within ten (10) days after the filing
thereof by the stenographic reporter. (Emphasis supplied).

6
 Rollo, pp. 152-154.

7
 People v. Galera, 280 SCRA 492.

8
 Section 4, Rule 133, Revised Rules on Evidence.

9
 People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 117471, September 3, 1998; People v. Quitorio, et. al., G.R. No. 116765, January 28, 1998;
People v. Berroya, 283 SCRA 111; People v. Abrera, 283 SCRA 1; People v. Doro, 282 SCRA 1; People v. Dabbay, 277
SCRA 432; People v. Bonola, 274 SCRA 238; People v. Grefaldia, 273 SCRA 591.

10
 People v. De Guia, 280 SCRA 141.
11
 People v. Alberca, 257 SCRA 613 citing People v. Abitona, 240 SCRA 335.

12
 Rollo, pp. 126-129; RTC Decision pp. 15-18.

13
 People v. Gallo, 284 SCRA (1998) 590.

14
 Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. No. 7659 and further amended by R.A. No. 8353, was
renumbered to Articles 266-A and 266-B of the RPC which reads:

Art. 266-A. Rape; When and how committed. - Rape is committed -

1.) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

a.) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

b.) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c.) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

d.) When the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.

2.) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual
assault by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or
anal orifice of another person.

Art. 266-B. Penalties. Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the rape is committed with use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to
death.

When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:

1.) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;

2.) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution;

3.) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third
degree of consanguinity.

4.) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by
the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;

5.) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;

6.) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim;
7.) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or Philippine National Police or any law
enforcement agency.

8.) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation.

9.) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime; and

10.) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at
the time of the commission of the crime.

Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding Article shall be punished by prision mayor.

Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision
mayor to reclusion temporal.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.

When the rape is attempted and the homicide is committed by reason or on occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion
temporal or reclusion perpetua.

"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances
mentioned in this article.

15
 This case occurred after the passing of the Death Penalty Law (R.A. No. 7659) which took effect on December 31, 1993.

16
 People v. Philip Tan, Jr. 264 SCRA 425.

17
 Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353,

18
 People v. Lagrosa, Jr., 230 SCRA 298; The two elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal
knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below twelve years of age. (People v. Andres, 253 SCRA 751).

19
 People v. Abordo, 328 Phil. 80; People v. Oarga, 328 Phil. 395; People v. Ligotan, 331 Phil 98.

20
 TSN, September 1, 1995, Dr. Antonio Vertido, pp. 18-19.

21
 Sinumpaang Salaysay of appellant Larry Mahinay, dated July 8, 1995; RTC Records p. 20.

22
 People v. Ligotan, 331 Phil 98; People v. Lazaro, 249 SCRA 234.

23
 TSN, August 11, 1995, morning session, Atty. Restituto Viernes, pp. 6-11.

24
 Cited in Daggers v. Van Dyck, 37 N.J. Eq., 130, 132; See also People v. Cara, 283 SCRA 96.

25
 People v. Philip Tan, Jr. 264 SCRA 425.

26
 People v. Baccay, 284 SCRA 296; People v. Tenorio, 284 SCRA 420.

27
 People v. Dio, 44 SCAD 559; People v. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613.

28
 People v. Ravanes, 284 SCRA 634.

29
 People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998.
30
 Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, It
shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance that may have attended the
commission of the deed. X x x

31
 Article 47, RPC, as amended.

32
 People v. Perez, G.R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998; People v. Bernaldez, G.R. No. 109780, August 17, 1998 citing
People v. Victor y Penis, G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998.

33
 Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

xxx

(3) seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts;

xxx

The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this Article, may also recover moral
damages.

34
 People v. De los Santos, G.R. No. 121906, September 17, 1998; People v. Victor y Penis, supra.

35
 People v. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998 cited in People v. Mostrales, G.R. No. 125937, August 28, 1998.

36
 People v. Perez, supra.

37
 People v. Bartolome, G.R. No. 129054, September 29, 1998 citing People v. Prades, People v. Alfeche, G.R. No. 124213,
August 17, 1998; See also Article 2219(3), New Civil Code.

38
 People v. Bernaldez, supra.

39
 People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998; People v. Tabugoca, 285 SCRA 312.

40
 People v. Dicierdo, 149 SCRA 496.

41
 Under R.A. No. 7438 (AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING, AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF) which took effect only on July 7, 1992, custodial investigation includes
the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed.

42
 267 SCRA 682 (1997).
3.1 Notes: Raid, Entrapment, and
Search
DEFINITION OF TERMS: 
A. Entrapment - it is a legally sanctioned method resorted to by the police to trap and
capture lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plans. 
B. Instigation - the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the
offense charged to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of
such ways and means to trap or capture a lawbreaker. 
Excerpt from People vs. Bajo: ENTRAPMENT VS. INSTIGATION
Thus, in instigation, officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an
accused into committing an offense that they would otherwise not commit and has no
intention of committing. But in entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the
offense charged originates in the mind of the accused, and law enforcement officials
merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes; thus,
the accused cannot justify his or her conduct.
In instigation, where law enforcers act as co-principals, the accused will have to be
acquitted. But entrapment cannot bar prosecution and conviction. As has been said,
instigation is a "trap for the unwary innocent," while entrapment is a "trap for the
unwary criminal."
Buy-bust operation and decoy solicitations are valid forms of entrapment: People vs. Bajo.
A buy-bust operation has been recognized in this jurisdiction as a legitimate form of
entrapment of the culprit. It is distinct from Instigation in that the accused who is
otherwise not predisposed to commit the crime is enticed or lured or talked into
committing the crime. While entrapment is legal, Instigation is not.
As a general rule, a buy-bust operation, considered as a form of entrapment, is a valid
means of arresting violators of Republic Act No. 9165. It is an effective way of
apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation,
the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or
prodding him to commit the offense.

A police officer's act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or
what is known as a "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited by law and does not render
invalid the buy-bust operations. The sale of contraband is a kind of offense habitually
committed, and the solicitation furnishes evidence of the criminal's course of conduct. In
short, a "decoy solicitation" is not tantamount to inducement or instigation. People v. Sta.
Maria
COORDINATION REQUIREMENT DURING ENTRAPMENT (BUY-BUST
OPERATIONS): Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation

1. PNP Units, before any anti-illegal drugs operations, shall, as far as practicable,
coordinate with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency

“As far as practicable,” as stated in Section 86, IRR, RA 9165, means that prior
coordination with PDEA may be done, practiced, or accomplished when feasible and
possible to be performed. Nonetheless, it admits exceptions. The following instances,
among others, are deemed not practicable for prior coordination:
a. In remote places where coordination is not possible;
b. When coordination will compromise the lives of police operatives, informants and
witnesses, involved in
anti-illegal drugs operations;
c. When coordination will prejudice the apprehension of drug suspects and confiscation
of illegal drugs and Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals (CPECs);
d. When prior coordination will compromise the entire police operation.
2. In any case, PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Units shall coordinate/inform the PDEA of anti-
illegal drugs operations within 24 hours from the time of the actual custody of the
suspects or seizure of said drugs and substances as well as paraphernalia and transport
equipment used in illegal activities involving illegal drugs and/or substances and shall
regularly update the PDEA on the status of cases involving said anti-illegal drugs
operations (Section 86 (a) IRR RA 9165).
PLANNING AND PREPARATION:

 All operations must be preceded by adequate planning and preparation to

ensure the successful prosecution of cases, observance of the rights of
suspects, the safety of operating elements, and the security and integrity of
seized items/evidence.
 Without sacrificing operational security, coordination must be done with local
Police Units in the area of operation to prevent any possible confrontation in
 consonance to Rule5 (Inter Unit Coordination) of the Revised PNP
Operational Procedures.
 No PNP personnel shall be allowed to conduct a planned anti-illegal drugs
operation unless he is a member of an AntiIllegal Drugs Unit.

CONDUCT OF OPERATION

 Any arrested suspect shall be apprised of his/her CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

(I/We are Police Officers. I/we are arresting you for violation of RA 9165. You
are hereby informed that you have the right to remain silent. Anything that
you say can and will be used for or against you in any Court of Law. You have
the right to a counsel of your own choice, and if you cannot afford one, you
shall be provided with counsel to assist you. You can waive all these rights in
the presence of a Lawyer and writing. Do you understand these rights?)  

“Kami ay alagad ng batas, inaaresto ka namin sa paglabag sa Republic Act 9165.

Pinapaalalahanan ka namin na ikaw ay may karapatang manahimik o magsawalang kibo.
Anuman ang iyong sasabihin ay maaring gamitin pabor o laban sa iyo sa anumang hukuman.
Ikaw ay mayroon ding karapatang kumuha ng tagapagtanggol na iyong pinili at kung wala
kang kakayahan, ito ay ipagkakaloob sa iyo. Nauunawaan mo ba ito?”
In instances wherein arrested suspects are foreign nationals or persons with impaired
senses, Police Officers must inform them of their rights in a manner understood by
them or through an interpreter, if practicable.
C. Raid - A raid is a surprise invasion of a building or area. The purpose of a raid is usually
to: Effect an apprehension; Obtain evidence of illegal activity by surprising the offenders
in flagrante delicto; or Recover stolen property
LEGAL BASIS OF RAID
A raid must be legal, having its basis in lawful process, and be conducted legally. This will
be in the form of a search warrant or warrant of arrest. The raid may be in pursuit of a
person reasonably believed to be guilty of a felony and when it is known that the felony
has just been committed.
COORDINATION BEFORE THE CONDUCT OF RAID
It is imperative that immediately before the service of a search warrant, the team leader
should see that proper coordination is made with the commander of the local police
station having jurisdiction over the target premises. The coordinating party will inform
the local station that their team is conducting an operation in their area. This gesture of
coordination is a manifestation of courtesy and a safety measure to avoid the
possibility of a mistaken encounter. 
BASIC REQUIREMENTS IN THE CONDUCT OF RAID
Generally, all police operations (arrest, raid, search and seizure, checkpoint, etc.) shall be
conducted:

 With a marked police vehicle; The exception to this rule is when using a marked
police vehicle will jeopardize the safety of the raiding team and greatly affect the
operation's success.
 Preferably led by a Commissioned Officer;
 With personnel in proper police uniform (Rule 3, PNP Operational Procedures)

DONT'S IN RAID

 Don‟t take unnecessary chances.

Don‟t underestimate the ability or courage of the subject(s)
 Don‟t raid when not properly prepared.
 Don‟t endanger the lives of bystanders.
 Don‟t use police personnel who are not well-acquainted with each other.
 Don‟t forget gas masks when employing teargas.
 Don‟t be unnecessarily violent on the subject(s).
 Don‟t shoot unless very imperative.
 Don‟t touch the evidence unless seen by witnesses or by the owner or
occupant of the place.

D. Search and Seizure

Search is an examination of an individual's person, house papers or effects, or other
buildings and premises to discover contraband or some evidence of guilt to be used in
the prosecution of a criminal act.
Seizure – is the confiscation of personal property under a search warrant issued for the
purpose. A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of the following
personal properties:
a. Subject of the offense;
b. Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
c. Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS: 
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable. No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized. [Section 2, Article III, 1987
Constitution]
GENERAL RULE: 
THERE MUST BE A SEARCH WARRANT: A search warrant is an order in writing issued
in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace
officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and to bring
it before the court. (Sec 1, Rule 126) 
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
The Heads of the Agency shall personally endorse all applications for Search Warrant to
search places and the things to be seized to be particularly described therein. The
application shall be recorded in a logbook. The application shall likewise indicate the
following data:

 Office applying for the Search Warrant;

 Name of officer-applicant;
 Name of the Subject, if known;
 Address/place(s) to be searched;
 A specific statement of things/articles to be seized;
 Sketch of the place to be searched.

VALID SEARCHES WITHOUT WARRANT

The general rule is that a judicial warrant must first be duly obtained before search and
seizure may be conducted. The only allowable instances in which a search may be
conducted without a warrant are:
a. When there is consent or waiver. To be a valid waiver, the right must exist, the owner
must be aware of such right, and he must have an intention to
relinquish it.
b. When evidence to be seized is in “plain view.” The discovery of the evidence must be
inadvertent or unintentional.
c. Customs search or searches made at airports/seaports to collect duties. This
warrantless search is allowed due to urgency.
d. Search of moving vehicles may be made without a warrant because it would be
impracticable to secure a warrant before engaging in “hot pursuit.”
e. Routine searches made at or in the interest of national security, such as border checks
or checkpoints.
f. Stop-and-search or stop-and-frisk, where the search precedes the arrest and is allowed
on the grounds of reasonable suspicion.
g. Search incidental to a lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything that may be used to prove the commission of an offense
without a search warrant. (Sec 12, Rule 126
h. Search of Vessels – Search of vessels and aircraft because of their mobility and the
relative ease in fleeing the state‟s jurisdiction (Roldan vs. Arca, 65 SCRA 336).
i. Exigent Circumstances – Justice Reynato Puno proposed this exception as a catch-all
category that would encompass a number of diverse situations where some emergency
makes obtaining a search warrant impractical, useless, dangerous, or unnecessary