Professional Documents
Culture Documents
not stand for there were no other evidence linking him of the crime
charge.
G.R. No. 110290 – January 25, 1995
Issue: W/N the Extrajudicial confession of the respondent should be
Facts: considered by the court at the case at bar as an admissible evidence?
There were five separate information filed with the court wherein Ruling: No
the accused were charged with Murder, Frustrated Murder and
Attempted Murder. The crime resulted to the death of Dr. Confession is an acknowledgement in express terms by the party in
Napoleon Bayquen and Anna Francisco, and the wounding of a criminal case of his guilt of the crime charged, while an
Anthony Bayquen, Dominic Bayquen and Danny Ancheta. admission is a statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts
The information in the murder case charged that the accused acted pertinent to the issue, and tending, in connection with proof of
in conspiracy and alleged the presence of treachery and evident other facts, to prove his guilt.
premeditation as aggravating circumstances. Admission is something less than a confession. It tends only to
Respondents, pleaded not guilty establish ultimate facts.
The Trial Court acquitted the accused on the frustrated and Nothing in the extrajudicial statement of the respondent indicates
attempted murder charges due to insufficiency of evidence but that he expressly acknowledge his guilt, he merely admitted some
convicted him as guilty for two counts of murder. facts or circumstances which in themselves are insufficient to
The conviction of the Trial court was base on the extrajudicial authorize a conviction and which can only tend to establish the
confession made by the respondent with the city Fiscal. ultimate facts of guilt.
The respondent insist that his extrajudicial confession was taken in
Order of the Lower Court was reversed.
violation of his rights under Section 11 Article III if the
constitution. He argues that the lawyer who assisted him was not of
Confession or admission obtained in violation of the constitution
his own choice but was foisted upon him by the city Fiscal, and
shell be inadmissible in evidence.
that it was only conferred with him in English and tagalog
Respondent’s extrajudicial statement is inadmissible in evidence
although he only understood only Ilocano. Also he mentioned that
because it was obtained in violation of Section 12 Article II of the
the lawyer who assisted him was a law partner of the private
constitution. Since it was only evidence which links him to the
prosecutor and had only conferred to him briefly and when he was
crime of which he was convicted, he must then be acquitted.
interrogated by the fiscal, the later was with his military escorts.
Respondent asserts that the lawyer who assist the suspect under
custodial investigation should be of the latters choice and not
foisted on him by police investigators or other parties, and that Tuazon v. Court of Appeals
there were doubts on the voluntariness of his extrajudicial (G.R. No. 113779-80, February 23, 1995)
confession and it was inadmissible, and that his conviction should
FACTS: Madarog, Cipriana Torres‘ maid, was often left alone in Cipriana‘s
house. The incident happened when somebody pretended to buy ice in their
residence. When Madarog was about to hand over the ice to the buyer, one left in the skin by a new connective tissue that replaces tissue injured. On
of the robbers jumped in the house and pointed a gun on Jovina. Four of the the other hand, a mole is a small often pigmented spot or protuberance on
assailants then went inside the house and demanded the keys to the car and the skin.
vault. Petitioner Ochoa was their lookout. While ransacking the house, they Second, the court resulted to wild guess work when it mentioned that Ochoa
were able to find the keys to the car as well as valuable items. They then could have covered up the scar to make it look like a mole. This is a grave
escaped using Cipriana‘s car. Madarog then cried for help and the error. The trial court cannot convict petitioner on the basis of a deduction
neighbours, Quintal and Garcia responded and told Cipriana what that is irrational because it is not derived from an established fact. The
happened. Cipriana then reported the robbery to the police. Madarog and records do not show any fact from which the trial court can logically deduce
Quintal described the features of the robbers to the NBI. Subsequently, the conclusion that petitioner covered up his scar with black coloring to
Ochoa was then arrested and was pointed by Madarog and other witnesses make it appear as a mole. And thirdly, corroborating witness Barbieto has
namely Quintal and Barbietoas one of the perpetrators. Quintal says that she serious lapses in her testimony that diluted her credibility. she and Quintal
saw petitioner allegedly among the three (3) men whiling away their time in merely testified they saw petitioner within the vicinity where the crimes
front of Alabang's store some time before the crimes were committed. were committed. By itself, this circumstance cannot lead to the conclusion
Quintal is a neighbouring maid. Barbieto likewise declared that she saw that petitioner truly committed the crimes at bench. Petitioner, we note,
petitioner allegedly with several companions standing-by at Torres' house lives in the same vicinity as the victim. To use his words, he lives some six
that morning of July 19, 1988. She is a teacher and lives within the block (6) posts from the house of Torres. His presence in the said vicinity is thus
where the crimes were committed. Ochoa anchored his defence on alibi and not unnatural. The respondent appellate court, however, dismissed this
insufficiency of identification by the prosecution. The court however claim of petitioner as self-serving. Again, the ruling misconstrues the
rendered a decision convicting Ochoa. CA affirmed. meaning of self-serving evidence. Self-serving evidence is not to be literally
taken as evidence that serves one's selfish interest. Under our law of
ISSUE: Whether the court erred in convicting Ochoa based on evidence, self-serving evidence is one made by a party out of court at one
thewitnesses? time; it does not include a party's testimony as a witness in court. It is
excluded on the same ground as any hearsay evidence, that is the lack of
HELD: No. evidence to be believed, must proceed not only from the mouth opportunity for cross-examination by the adverse party, and on the
of a credible witness but the same must be credible in itself. The trial court consideration that its admission would open the door to fraud and to
and respondent appellate court relied mainly on the testimony of fabrication of testimony.
prosecution witness Madaraog that from her vantage position near the door
of the bedroom she clearly saw how petitioner allegedly participated in the Manuel v. N.C. Construction Supply
robbery. After a careful review of the evidence, we find that the G.R. No. 127553
identification of petitioner made by Madaraog and Quintal is open to doubt November 28, 1997
and cannot serve as a basis for conviction of petitioner. Firstly, it must be
emphasized that of the four (4) prosecution witnesses, only the maid J. Puno
Madaraog actually saw petitioner in the act of committing the crimes at
bench. Witnesses Quintal and Barbieto testified they only saw petitioner at FACTS: Petitioners Eddie Manuel, Romeo Bana, Rogelio Pagtama, Jr. and
the vicinity of the crimes before they happened. There is, however, a serious Joel Rea were employed as drivers at N.C. Construction Supply owned by
doubt whether Madaraog and Quintal have correctly identified petitioner. private respondents Johnny Lim (Lao Ching Eng) and Anita Sy.
At the NBI headquarters, Madaraog described petitioner as 5'3" tall and
with a big mole between his eyebrows.As it turned out, petitioner has no On June 3, 1995, the security guards of respondent company caught Aurelio
mole but only a scar between his eyes. Moreover, he is 5'8 1/2" and not 5'3" Guevara, a company driver, and Jay Calso, his helper ("pahinante"), taking
tall. There is a big difference between a mole and a scar. A scar is a mark out from the company premises two rolls of electrical wire worth P500.00
without authority. Calso was brought to the Pasig Police station for
questioning. During the investigation, Calso named seven other employees ISSUE: Whether the admission may be admitted in evidence
who were allegedly involved in a series of thefts, among them petitioners
Manuel, Bana, Pagtama, Jr. and Rea. HELD: NO. We are not convinced by petitioners' allegation that such
admission was obtained by means of threat or intimidation as such
Petitioners then received separate notices from company informing them allegation is couched in general terms and is unsupported by evidence.
that they were positively identified by their co-worker, Jay Calso, as We also reject petitioners' argument that said admission is inadmissible as
perpetrators of the series of thefts committed at respondent company. They evidence against them under Section 12 Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
were thus invited to the Pasig police station for investigation regarding their The right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to
alleged involvement in the offense. protect a suspect in a criminal case under custodial investigation. Custodial
investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a
Atty. Ramon Reyes, private respondents' counsel conducted in their behalf general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a
an investigation regarding petitioners' involvement in the theft. Atty. Reyes particular suspect who had been taken into custody by the police to carry
interrogated the petitioners on their alleged participation in the series of out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating
thefts committed at respondent company. Petitioners initially denied the statements. It is when questions are initiated by law enforcement officers
charge. However, after being positively identified by Jay Calso, petitioners after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
admitted their guilt and offered to resign. Petitioners Bana and Rea filed freedom of action in any significant way. The right to counsel attaches only
separate resignation letters while petitioners Manuel and Pagtama, Jr. upon the start of such investigation. Therefore, the exclusionary rule under
tendered their resignations orally. paragraph (3) Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions
made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative
Atty. Reyes accepted petitioners' resignation effective June 5, 1995. On July investigation.
17, 1995, petitioners filed a complaint against private respondents for illegal
dismissal. Petitioners alleged that they were not informed of the charge In the case at bar, the admission was made by petitioners during the course
against them nor were they given an opportunity to dispute the same. They of the investigation conducted by private respondents' counsel to determine
also alleged that their admission made at the Pasig police station regarding whether there is sufficient ground to terminate their employment.
their involvement in the theft as well as their resignation were not voluntary Petitioners were not under custodial investigation as they were not yet
but were obtained by private respondents' lawyer by means of threat and accused by the police of committing a crime. The investigation was merely
intimidation. an administrative investigation conducted by the employer, not a criminal
investigation. The questions were propounded by the employer's lawyer, not
LA ruled in favour of petitioners and found their dismissal to be illegal. He by police officers. The fact that the investigation was conducted at the
held that private respondents failed to show a just cause for the termination police station did not necessarily put petitioners under custodial
of petitioners' services. He declared that petitioners' admission regarding investigation as the venue of the investigation was merely incidental.
their involvement in the theft was inadmissible in evidence as it was taken Hence, the admissions made by petitioners during such investigation may
without the assistance of counsel, in violation of Section 12 of the Bill of be used as evidence to justify their dismissal.
Rights.
We likewise agree that employees were dismissed for a just cause.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed and ruled that petitioners were dismissed for Petitioners' culpability in the instant case was sufficiently proved by private
a just cause. It further stated that such admission may be admitted in respondents. Jay Calso, an employee of respondent company who has
evidence because Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to criminal personal knowledge about the series of thefts that has been going on at
proceedings but not to administrative proceedings. respondent company, positively identified petitioners. In addition,
petitioners admitted their participation in the theft during an investigation Salayao appealed to the Supreme Court.
conducted by private respondents' lawyer.
Issue:
However, the employer failed to observe due process in terminating the
employment of petitioners. The TWO-NOTICE requirement was not Whether the Solayao’s admission that he had no permission to possess the
complied with. firearm is sufficient to convict him of illegal possession of firearms
Issue: WHEREFORE, except for the above observations with respect to the
aggravating circumstance of nighttime, and the modification of the
Whether the accused offer to settle can be used against him?
indemnity which is hereby increased from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00, the
Held: challenged Decision of Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate in
Criminal Case No. 5557 finding the accused-appellant ALBERTO LASE,
Yes alias "BERT" guilty of the crime charged, is hereby AFFIRMED.
Ratio:
The alleged contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of Cpl. Mitra G.R. No. 109172 August 19, 1994
relate to minor, if not inconsequential, matters. The rule is settled that minor TRANS-PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES, INC., petitioner, vs.The
inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of witnesses; on the contrary, COURT OF APPEALS and ASSOCIATED BANK, respondents.
they may even heighten their credibility.
BIDIN, J.:
Then too, accused-appellant offered to compromise the case for the sum
of P10,000.00. The second paragraph of Section 27, Rule 130 of the petition for review on certiorari (reversal of the decision of respondent
court)
Revised Rules of Court expressly provides that:
FACTS:
"In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal 1. Petitioner applied for and was granted several financial accommodations
negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of by respondent Associated Bank, which were secured by 4 PNs, a REM
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied (three parcels of land) and a chattel mortgage over petitioner's stock and
admission of guilt." inventories.
2. Unable to settle, petitioner requested, and was granted by respondent
The accused merely provided alibi as a defense wherein he was identified bank, a restructuring of the remaining indebtedness. To secure, 3 new
positively, there is no motive against him. The testimony of the witness are PNs were executed by Trans-Pacific as follows: (1) Promissory Note
given respect since credibility of the witness are left with the trial court to No. TL-9077-82 for the amount of P1,050,000.00 denominated as
working capital; (2) Promissory Note No. TL-9078-82 for the amount of
be observed and respected by this Court except if there are apparent mistake
P121,166.00 denominated as restructured interest; (3) Promissory Note
in the interpretation or appreciation of the testiomony.
No. TL-9079-82 for the amount of P42,234.00 denominated similarly as admitted in evidence when the original is in the possession of the party
restructured interest. against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
3. The released parcels of land were sold and the proceeds were applied to reasonable notice (Sec. 2[b], Rule 130), as in the case of respondent bank.
Trans-Pacific's restructured loan. Respondent bank returned the
duplicate original copies of the 3 PNs to Trans-Pacific with the word This notwithstanding, we find no reversible error committed by the
"PAID" stamped thereon. respondent court in disposing of the appealed decision. The presumption
4. Despite the return of the notes, Associated Bank demanded from Trans- created by the Art. 1271 of the Civil Code is not conclusive but
Pacific payment of the amount of P492,100.00 representing accrued merely prima facie. If there be no evidence to the contrary, the presumption
interest on PN No. TL-9077-82. According to the bank, the promissory stands. Conversely, the presumption loses its legal efficacy in the face of
note PNs were erroneously released. proof or evidence to the contrary. In the case before us, we find sufficient
5. Trans-Pacific initiated an action before the RTC praying that the justification to overthrow the presumption of payment generated by the
mortgage over the two parcels of land be released and its stock delivery of the documents evidencing petitioners indebtedness.
inventory be lifted and that its obligation to the bank be declared as
having been fully paid. It may not be amiss to add that Article 1271 of the Civil Code raises a
6. RTC ruled in favor of Trans-Pacific. On appeal, CA reversed the presumption, not of payment, but of the renunciation of the credit where
decision of the trial court. more convincing evidence would be required than what normally would be
called for to prove payment. The rationale for allowing the presumption of
ISSUE: renunciation in the delivery of a private instrument is that, unlike that of a
Whether or not petitioner has indeed paid in full its obligation to respondent public instrument, there could be just one copy of the evidence of credit.
bank. Where several originals are made out of a private document, the intendment
of the law would thus be to refer to the delivery only of the
HELD: original original rather than to the original duplicate of which the debtor
would normally retain a copy. It would thus be absurd if Article 1271 were
No. to be applied differently.
Held: YES.
Well settled is the rule that the defense of alibi is weak where the
prosecution witnesses positively identified the accused. To prosper such a
defense, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence and not
merely supported by witnesses who bear close ties of relationship to the
accused. The degree of the evidence trust be such as to preclude any doubt
that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the
crime or its immediate vicinity, at the time of its commission.
Ponente: J. CONCEPCION
FACTS:
On October 9 1958, MATIGNAS SERRANO,a security guard in a
guard post in “Pisok” (a small plateau) near Clark Airfield, was
forcibly taken by FIVE men shortly after dusk. The security guard
was then found dead two days later in a sugarcane plantation near
the post, with a broken jaw and spine.
On December 2 1958, an Information was filed charging (1) Jose
Messina, (2) Leonard David, (3) PAN PROVO, and two other John
Does for the offense of kidnapping with murder.
The prosecution presented the testimony of Armstrong, the
superintendent of the police at CLARK AIRFIELD, and some
other people, including the testimony of the victim’s brother
Anastacio, and the victim’s wife Benita (the testimony of the
second group were lumped together).
o ARMSTRONG testimony –
Clark Airfield used to maintain communications
with Camp O’Donnel by radio and underground
cables. To protect the installation of the cables,
the US engaged the PH Scouts and a non-
Christian Tribe (the BALUGA, of which the
victim Serrano is a member).
Early 1958, the comms were experiencing
technical difficulty, due to the pilferage of
cables.
He saw Pan Provo conversing with Jose Messina
on several occasions.
Pan Provo is another BALUGA chief in the
region, and that Provo asked Armstrong to
engage the services of Matignas Serrano as
sentry.
o Second group’s testimonies –
Anastacio claimed that Jose Mesina once went to investigation, claimed that Jose Mesina frequently met
him with 3 other people on the morning of that with his father Pan Provo. Apparently In 1958, Pan Provo
fateful day, and after having lunch, asked was the supervisor in the digging of cables in Clark
Anastacio to let him get some “pipes” (referring Airfield, along with Jose Mesina and Emilio, and that
to the cables) near the area guarded by his they were selling the stolen cables to a Chinaman in
brother. Pampanga.
Anastacio refused, to which Jose Messina ON the fateful day, just after twilight, Emilio and
remarked that “if you don’t know how to talk Pan Provo went to the house of Jose Mesina,
with people, you will not live long”. Mesina left whom the latter invited to go to “Pisok”, the area
at 3PM guarded by Matignas; that on the way thereto,
Benita claimed that she gave a flashlight to her Federico David, alias "Pedring," and Leonardo
husband just after sunset. Afterwards, Jose David, alias "Benaring," joined them; that before
Mesina arrived with four other masked men, and reaching the place, Emilio's companion said that
asked for a light for his cigarette from Matignas, they would get Matignas Serrano, the guard in
and then grabbed hold of Matignas’ rifle and that place, "because of the tubes" they were
dragged him down the hill. taking "and that one that was enclosed in a tank
Benita screamed for help, and her nephew called which were being guarded by Matignas Serrano.
Anastacio, who reported the kidnapping to the Then the kidnapping and killing of Matignas was
Air Base. The next morning a search team again narrated. Afterwards, Emilio and Pan
looked for clues. Provo fled to the mountains after the body of
The story of the search team’s efforts were Matignas was found.
relayed by LAXAMANA. Apparently, Jose Emilio Provo DENIED however that this
Mesina joined the search team. At a certain testimony in the lower court, and merely claimed
juncture, he implored the team to go a left he gave it upon the instructions of an Angel
(despite Laxamana wanting to turn right to Manipon who assured him he would free after
follow a small set of footprints), at which point giving the same.
the team found nothing. Upon their return, o Jose Messina claimed he did go to Anastacio’s house on
Benita for the first time claimed Jose Mesina the fateful day, but claimed he attended religious service
is the one who kidnapped Matignas. with the INC which lasted until 8PM that day. At about
The defense presented these testimonies: 8:30 p.m. he and Ruben Villas attended a barrio meeting
o Leonard David claimed his brother Federico, was the one called by barrio lieutenant Remigio Ocampo; that, upon
who urged him to come with Jose Mesina. His brother adjournment of the meeting, around 10:00 p.m., they
was the one who apparently held Matignas on the returned to the house of Mesina and then went to bed.
shoulder before wresting the Carbine rifle from the RTC acquitted Leonard David and Pan Provo based on reasonable
victim. Matignas was then led to the bottom of the hill doubt, but CONVICTED Jose Mesina.
and hit with fist blows and the butt of the rifle until he Jose Mesina filed the appeal.
was unconscious. This was subscribed and sworn before
the Justice of Peace in Pampanga. ISSUE: Whether or not Mesina’s case can be harmed by the
o Emilio Provo, the son of the accused PAN PROVO , in his admissions/confessions of David and Provo.
statement before the Fiscal of Tarlac at the preliminary
HELD: YES. The circumstantial evidence of the David and Provo People v. Puesca (87 SCRA 761)
admissions are admissible against Mesina.
Nature of the case: Automatic review of the judgment
RULING:
It should be noted that, although extrajudicial confessions are in general Facts:
admissible only against those who made the same, this rule is subject to an
exception. Puesca, Apa, Gustilo, Macalinao, Dairo, Montano (6 in all)were
charged with robbery in band with homicide, to which they pleaded not
Extra-judicial confessions independently made without collusion, which are guilty. Sgt. Lucio Bano, testified as a prosecution witness regarding the
identical with each other in their essential details and are corroborated by extrajudicial confession made to him by the accused Arcadio Puesca. He
other evidence on record, are admissible as circumstantial evidence against said that Puesca, aside from admitting his participation in the commission
the person implicated to show the probability of the latter's actual of the offense charged, revealed that other persons conspired with him to
participation in the commission of the crime. commit the offense, mentioning the name of each and everyone of them.
Following up to the testimony, the prosecuting officer asked the witness to
The applicability of the foregoing exception — which has been repeatedly mention in court the names of Puesca's alleged co-conspirators. Counsel for
acknowledged and applied by this Court — to the case at bar becomes the accused Macalinao, Gustilo and Dairo objected to this, upon the ground
apparent when we bear in mind that the statements contained in the that whatever the witness would say would be hearsay as far as his clients
statements of Leonardo David and Emilio Provo were made — obviously were concerned. The judge resolved the objection directing the witness to
without collusion and independently of each other — for the purpose of answer the question but without mentioning or giving the names of the
establishing the guilt of Federico David and Pan Provo, respectively, and accused who had interposed the objection. In other words, the witness was
that they corroborate one another and the testimony of Benita Mayuyu, allowed to answer the question and name his co-conspirators except those
Anastacio Serrano and Kudiaru Laxamana with respect to the fact that who had raised the objection. The prosecution filed a certiorari to allow the
Matignas Serrano was dragged away from his guard post in the evening of witness to answer in full.
October 9, 1958, by Mesina and several other persons — apparently for not
allowing them to steal and take away electric cables from Clark Field Air ISSUES:
Base — and then killed. Hence, said Exhibits were properly admitted as
circumstantial evidence tending to show the probability of the participation WON Sgt. Bano should be allowed to mention all the names of the alleged
of appellant in the commission of said offense, as testified to by said conspirators
witnesses for the prosecution.
RULING:
Furthermore, this is coupled with the weak defense of the appellant, which
cannot stand as against the evidence stacked against him by the prosecution, Yes, he should be allowed.
namely the positive identification by the wife, and corroborated by the
extrajudicial admissions/confessions. RATIO:
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: the Decision of the Court of FIRST - Hearsay evidence, if timely objected to, may not be admitted. But while
INSTANCE is AFFIRMED, with modification on the indemnity. the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person, if
intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the statement, is
clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the
statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was Respondent was later on arrested by Felimon. Respondent claimed
made. his innocence and that he was force by Bulan to come with them
for fear of his life.
Respondent assert that he was only apprehended by Felimon for
People of the Philippines VS. Marcelino Cedon
the latter wanted him to testify against Bulan, from which he
G.R. No. 101117 – June 15, 1994 refused.
RTC find the respondent guilty of Kidnapping for Ransom
Facts:
Issue: W/N Respondent should be held liable as conspirator for the crime of
The Respondent Accused, who being a member of a terrorist group Kidnapping for Ransom in relation to the testimony for Felimon Gerona and
and armed with assorted firearms, conspiring, confederating Pedro Comeque?
together and mutually helping and aiding one another with other
individuals who are still at large, did and there wilfully, Ruling: No
unlawfully, feloniously and illegally kidnap and carry away the
Testimony of Felimon cas doubt as to whether respondent was
person of Felimon Gerona from his house to an unknown island
really an active participant on the said crime.
and kept the same under heavy guard to better secure the consent
Comeque’s testimony had an admission that his testimony that
of the victim through fear the ransom in the amount of 5,000 pesos.
respondent was a member of the group of Bulan was based on
Felimon while having lunch in his house, several armed men
heasay.
ordered him to go down his house. His hands were bound and he
Another witness (Rudito Basilan) supports the respondent’s
recognize some of them as Teofilo Bulan and Ruben Bolito who
protestation of innocence. According to him he was also forced to
belong to a gang of robbers called “Sabarra”. He also noticed
go to the said barangay by Bulan to gather bamboo.
appellant standing on the concrete pavement near the beach.
If respondent’s culpability was based on the sole fact that he was
Felimon was being accussed by the perpetrators on being an
seen near the house of Felimon when the latter was kidnapped,
intelligent agent which he denied, and he was taken eventually to
then Basilan should have been indicted also for he was also in the
Aripuyok island known as the killing fields.
crime scene.
Felimon agreed to give 5,000 pesos and he was taken back to his
Conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court
Barangay. When they arrived on the said barangay he again saw
does not find respondent to be a conspirator for his was a passive
the respondent sitting on the concrete fence near the beach.
presence in the scene of the crime. Mere presence of the accused at
Felimon withdrew the ransom money and had his wife sent it to
the scene of the crime does not imply conspiracy.
Bulan.
The prosecution failed to prove any overt act showing that
Felimon did not immediately report the incident to the police
respondent joined the gang of Bulan to perpetrate the crime. Mere
authorities but informed the same only after the town people had
knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement to cooperate is not
organized the “alsa masa” as a counter insurgency movement. He
enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent an
also enlisted as a CAFGU as a means to retaliate against the
active participation in the commission of the crime.
extortionist.
SC reverse decision of the lower court and Acquit the accused.
The testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution is substantially as
follows: That the complaining witness and the accused are neighbors: that
about 7 o'clock in the evening of June 7, when turning from her rice field
People v. Camiling (424 SCRA 698) she was joined by the accused, and that a short distance from the mouth of
Subaan River he caught hold of her, picked her up, and carried her to the
edge of some thickets, where he threw her on the ground and attempted to
FACTS: have carnal intercourse with her; that angered by her resistance he drew his
dagger, and forced her under threat of her life to accede to his desires; that a
Masterline Grocery was robbed by men with firearms. Upon escaping they party who were passing near the place where the crime was committed
killed a cop and wounding the owner of a nearby bread store. When an heard her cries, and put into shore; that one of the parties stepped ashore,
investigation was being conducted after the apprehension of theaccused and seeing the accused get up from the place where the woman claims the
robbers, one NatyPanimbaan testified that she was present when all the crime was committed, asked "What's this?"; that the accused made no
other robbers were planning the heist. Camiling, among the robbers, denied explanation of his conduct or his presence there, and left the place
liability and impugned the credibility of Naty, as she was allegedly a forthwith; that immediately thereafter the woman, accompanied by some of
polluted source, hence making her testimony inadmissible. the party from the boat, went to the councilman of the barrio and made the
complaint; that the accused, having been brought before the councilman and
asked had he committed the crime of which he was charged, admitted that
ISSUE: he had; that thereafter the accused was sent to the justice of the peace, who
Whether Naty‘s testimony is admissible? held him for trial.
Counsel for appellant lays great stress upon certain apparent contradictions
RULING: and inconsistencies in the testimony of some of the witnesses for the
The rules on Admission by Conspirator prescribe that any declaration made prosecution, and vigorously contends that the trial court erred in accepting
by a conspirator relating to the conspiracy is admissible against him alone as true the testimony of the complaining witness and of the witnesses called
but not against his co-conspirators unless the conspiracy is first shown by by the prosecution to corroborate her. He emphasizes what he calls the
other independent evidence. However, such rule only applies to inherent improbability of the story told by the offended woman, and points
extrajudicial declarations or admissions and not to testimony given on the to the facts that she appears to be much more than twice the age of the
witness stand where the party adversely affected has the opportunity to accused, and anything but attractive in her personal appearance . His
cross-examine the declarant. Naty made the testimony in open court contention is that the charge of rape is a pure fabrication, and that it was
sooo....alamna. brought by the woman for the sole purpose of wreaking her vengeance and
spite upon the accused, with whom she had a quarrel over the trespass of
one of his carabaos on her land.
US v. Bay
G.R. No. L-9341 ISSUE: Whether the conduct of the accused on the day he was brought to
August 14, 1914 the councilman showed his attempt to establish his innocence
J. Carson
HELD: NO. It is true that there are some apparent contradictions and
FACTS: The information in this case charges the appellant, Servando Bay, inconsistencies in the testimony of some of the ignorant witnesses called for
with the crime of rape committed against Florentina Alcones. the prosecution, and that it is somewhat difficult to understand how the
accused, a young married man, could have been so lost to all sense of right The witnesses called both for the prosecution and the defense go into
and decency as to assault a woman so much older than himself, a neighbor, considerable detail as to all that occurred at the time when the party on
and an old friend of his family. But her evidence, supported by that of other board the boat responded to the calls of the woman and immediately
witnesses for the prosecution, is so convincing and conclusive that we are thereafter, and yet there is not the slightest indication in the evidence that
forced to believe that he did it in fact commit the atrocious crime with there was on the part of the accused any such indignant denials and protests
which he is charged. as would be expected from an innocent man suddenly confronted with such
a charge under such circumstances. Indeed his conduct at that time was, to
It conclusively appears that the offended woman sought assistance and our minds, wholly at variance with that which might fairly be expected from
made formal and official complaint immediately after the commission of him, granting the truth of his testimony and that of the other witnesses for
crime under such conditions as practically to preclude the possibility of a the defense.
conspiracy between herself and the other prosecuting witnesses to press a
false charge against the accused.
There can be no possible doubt that the party passing in a boat the deserted
place where the crime was committed was attracted by her cries and
G.R. No. L-59551 August 19, 1986
complaints, and that the arrival of those aboard was a fortunate coincidence
which she could not well have anticipated, had she planned the filing of
false charges against the accused. There can be no question also that she PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,laintiff-Appellee, vs. MANUEL
went immediately to the councilman of her barrio to make complaint NAVOA y MARTINEZ and BERNARDO LIM y RAMIREZ alias
against the accused, accompanied by some of the passengers on the boat. "Jack Robertson," alias "Lim Ming Tak," alias "Christopher Kelly,"
And there can be no question also that as a result, these proceedings were Defendants-Appellants.
instituted forthwith in the court of the justice of the peace.
This is an automatic review of the decision of the then Court of First
There is a direct conflict in the testimony as to whether the accused, when Instance of Manila, Sixth Judicial District, Branch XXX convicting
the complaint was made to the councilman of the barrio, did or did not defendants-appellants Manuel Navoa and Bernardo Lim of the crime of
admit his guilt, and this evidence is so contradictory that it would be Arson.
difficult if not possible to make an express finding on this point. But
whatever be the truth as to these alleged admissions of his guilt, the Allegedly, Navoa and his companions, set fire to and burn the MANILA
evidence leaves no room for doubt that neither at the moment when the CINEMA BUILDING with the use of gasoline, which resulted to
party in the boat came upon him in company with his victim nor when he substantial loss of property and the death of fourteen (14) victims
appeared before the councilman upon her complaint did he claim, as he
does now, that her charge that he had assaulted her was a pure fabrication, Defendant-appellant Bernardo Lim informed the latter that it was Manuel
invented for the purpose of wreaking vengeance upon him. Navoa who was responsible for the fire that destroyed Manila Cinema 1 and
2.
Under such circumstances, we are convinced that an innocent man would
instantly and indignantly repudiate such a charge, and attempt there and
then to establish his innocence, explaining how he came to be there present Relying solely on the credibility of Bernardo Lim and without first securing
with the woman, and the conditions under which she had made the false a warrant of arrest, Corporals Palmon and Harrison Tolosa arrested
charge. appellant Manuel Navoa. At the police headquarters, appellant Navoa
allegedly executed statements waiving his constitutional rights to silence as to be exactly suited to meet legal objections that it could have been
and to counsel and giving an extra-judicial confession prepared only by a veteran police investigator and not by an ordinary
layman like appellant Manuel Navoa.
Appellant Bernardo Lim likewise executed a waiver of his constitutional
rights to silence and to counsel and also gave an extra-judicial confession When Navoa waived his right to counsel and executed the extra-judicial
confession, he was alone in the company of the police interrogators,
Solely on the basis of the extra-judicial confessions of both defendants- deprived of outside support. The Supreme Court is far from satisfied that
appellants the trial court rendered the appealed judgment of conviction. the waiver of counsel and the subsequent confession were indeed products
of Navoa's free will.
Thus, both defendants appealed to the Supreme Court
Further, the alibi of Navoa is well-supported by the collective testimonies
Issue: of his teachers who categorically testified that on those dates, he was
present in their classes based on their recollections and evidenced by their
class records.
Whether the defendants’ extra judicial confession is sufficient to sustain a
conviction
aIn this particular case, the police should have been more aware of the
protections afforded by Article IV, Section 20 of the Bill of Rights to
Ruling: persons undergoing custodial interrogation. In the belief that the
extrajudicial confession and the re-enactment, taken without the required
No. The main thrust of the defendants-appellants' arguments on appeal is constitutional safeguards, were enough to sustain conviction, determined
that they were not afforded the opportunity to avail of their rights under efforts to apprehend the six other arsonists or to get admissible and more
Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution; that there was no intelligent convincing evidence were no longer taken.
waiver of their rights, and as such, their extra-judicial confessions are
inadmissible against them. Section 20 of the Bill of Rights which provides:
The records show that the extra-judicial confessions of the accused No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person
formed the only basis for the judgment of conviction. The confessions under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
were taken without the assistance of any counsel for the accused. The remain silent and to counsel and to be informed of such right. No force,
confessions were preceded by waivers of the right to counsel. During the violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free
trial, accused Navoa repudiated the waivers and the confessions. He will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this
testified that the police investigators employed force and intimidation, section shall be inadmissible in evidence.
including outright torture to secure his confession. Navoa's confession was
far from being the product of his free will. Assuming there was no torture,
there was, at the very least, improper pressure and intimidation. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Appellants Manuel Navoa and Bernardo Lim are ACQUITTED of
the crime charged on grounds of reasonable doubt.
The written waiver of appellant Navoa purportedly waiving his
constitutional rights to silence and to counsel should have been excluded by
the trial court.ch In the case at bar, there was no such voluntary, knowing,
and intelligent waiver. Exhibit "O" is so pat and aptly worded, so contrived
G.R. No. 69971. July 3, 1992. had not only admitted his presence in the commission of the crime
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO but had likewise admitted he was with Borca in abusing Rowena.
LUVENDINO y COTAS, Accused-Appellant. Significantly, the evidence for the prosecution in this regard was
not rebutted nor denied by the accused.
Facts: TC: found that the accused was informed of his constitutional
rights "before he was investigated by Sgt. Galang in the police
Lifeless body of Rowena Capcap was found in a grassy vacant lot
headquarters" and cited the "Salaysay" 11 of appellant
within the Deva Village Subdivision, Autopsy report stated that the
Luvendino.
victim’s death was due to asphyxia by manual strangulation.
An information has been filed in the trial court charging Luvendino For the extrajudicial confession of Luvendino – No.
, Borca and de Guzman with the crime of rape with murder.
Warrants of arrest were issued against all the accused. Luvendino, Appellant Luvendino: claimed first of all that the extrajudicial
who was apprehended, pleaded not guilty at the arraignment where confession had been extracted from him by means of a beating
his counsel, Atty. Sardillo, assisted him. administered by many policemen at the police station and that a
TC - found Luvendino guilty and sentenced him to death. chain had been wrapped around his neck.
Luvendino contends that TC committed grievous error in admitting TC: disbelieved and rejected Luvendino’s claim that he had been
and giving credence to the evidence of re-enactment and admission beaten into making his confession. In an extra-judicial
of guilt, both of which were uncounseled. confession, the confessant carries the burden of convincing the
court that his admissions are involuntary and untrue. (People
Issue: Did the court err in holding that his "demonstration" or re-enactment v. Manabo, 18 SCRA 30). This Luvendino had failed to do.
of the crime as well as his confession and subsequent written admission of
guilt as admissible for having been made without the benefit of counsel. Ratio:
Held: For the re-enactment of the crime – Yes. The Supreme Court declined to uphold the admissibility of
evidence relating to the re-enactment. The decision of the trial court itself,
Appellant Luvendino: contends that the "demonstration" or re- however, states that the re-enactment took place before Luvendino was
enactment and his extrajudicial confession were effected and brought to the police station. Thus, it is not clear from the record that before
secured in the absence of a valid waiver by him of his the re-enactment was staged by Luvendino, he had been informed of his
constitutional rights and that the re-enactment and the confession constitutional rights including, specifically, his right to counsel and that he
should be held inadmissible in evidence because they had been had waived such right before proceeding with the demonstration.
involuntarily made.
TC: records indicate that immediately after his apprehension, the The presumption of the law is one of spontaneity and voluntariness
police officers brought him to the Deva Subdivision where he of an extrajudicial confession of an accused in a criminal case, for no
demonstrated how the victim was boxed, dragged and taken to the person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to being
vacant lot, where she was raped and throttled to death. According the perpetrator of a crime, especially a heinous crime, unless prompted by
to the evidence for the prosecution, Luvendino in the re-enactment, truth and conscience.
Court has ruled that where the confessant failed to present any c. The gunman immediately returned to the parked car
evidence of compulsion or duress or violence on his person for purposes of which then sped away
extracting a confession; where he failed to complain to the officers who 3. All those in the car were hit and Dr. Bayqueen and Anna Theresa
administered the oaths, such as the Fiscal in this case; where he did not died on the spot
a. Dominic was able to get out of the Brasilia to run to the
institute any criminal or administrative action against his alleged
Alabanza store where she telephoned her mother and told
intimidators for maltreatment; where he did not have himself examined by a her what had happened
reputable physician to buttress his claim of maltreatment; and where the b. Later, she and her mother brought her father and Anthony
assailed confession is replete with details which could not have been known to the hospital
to the police officers if they merely concocted the confession, since the c. Danny Ancheta went home and was then brought to the
statements were inculpatory in character, the extrajudicial confession may Notre Dame Hospital for treatment
be admitted, the above circumstances being considered as factors d. Anna Theresa Francisco was brought to the funeral parlor
indicating voluntariness.
4. The police later arrived at the crime scene and conducted an
investigation
Disposition: The decision of TC was modified changing the enforceable 5. Later, accused Wilfredo “Sonny” Quiano, an alleged former
military agent or asset who had been picked up by the police
penalty from death to reclusion perpetua; Luvendino was required to pay
authorities, confessed during the investigation that he was the
heirs of Rowena Capcap actual and moral damages. triggerman in the fatal shooting of Dr. Bayqueen and Anna
Theresa Francisco
People v. Agustin (People v. Jaime “Jimmy Agustin, Wilfredo “Sonny” a. He implicated Manuel “Jun” Abenoja, Jr., allegedely a
Quiano, Manuel “Jun” Abenoja, Jr., and Freddie “Boy” Cartel, accused. fellow military agent and the “bagman” who engaged him
Jaime “Jimmy” Agustin, accused-appellan) to kill Dr. Bayqueen for a fee, Freddie “Boy” Cargel, who
G.R. No. 110290 | Janaury 25, 1995 provided the armalite, and certain “Jimmy.”
Davide, Jr., J.: 6. Subsequently, “Jimmy,” who turned out to be appellant Jaime
Agustin, was picked up by military personnel and was investigated
Nature: in connection with the crime
Appeal from a decision of the RTC 7. The defense presented the appellant and his wife
a. The appellant impugned the validity of his extrajudicial
Facts: statement
1. Dr. Napoleon Bayquen, a dentist, together with his son, Anthony; b. He alleged that on the day of the crime, he went to buy
Anthony’s girlfriend, Anna Theresa Francisco; his daughter, some fertilizer and upon his return he was met by 2 armed
Dominic; and Danny Ancheta, a family friend, were on their way men who took him to their car where 2 other companions,
aboard their Brasilia to the doctor’s residence from his clinic armed with armalites, were waiting
a. Anthony as driving the car c. Inside the car, he was asked if he knew Boy and Jun, and
2. While they were cruising, near a Baptist Church, a man came out he answered that he did not
from the right side of a car parked about 2 meters to the church d. He was also made to kneel at gunpoint in order to force
a. The man approached the Brasilia, aimed his armalite rifle him to admit his involvement in the shooting, which he
through its window, and fired at the passengers finally did out of fear
b. The Brasilia swerved and hit a fence e. While giving his statement at the fiscal’s office, the armed
men stayed with him and their presence deterred him
from telling the investigating fiscal that he was being Held:
threatened No. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged decision of the
f. He further declared that although he was given a lawyer RTC and acquitted Jaime “Jimmy” Agustin.
to assist him, he, nevertheless, asked for his uncle who is
a lawyer, Atty. Oliver Tabin, and that Atty. Cajucom, 1. Contrary to the pronouncement of the trial court and the
assisting counsel, interviewed him for only 2 minutes in characterization given by the appellant himself, the assailed
English and Tagalog but not in Ilocano, the dialect he extrajudicial statement is not an extrajudicial confession. It is only
understands an extrajudicial admission. We take this opportunity to once more
g. He eventually asserted that he was promised by his distinguish one from the other. Sections 26 and 33, Rule 30 of the
captors that he would be discharged as a state witness if Rules of Court clearly show such a distinction. In a confession,
he cooperates, but the plan did not push through because there is an acknowledgment of guilt. Admission is usually applied
his co-accused, Quiano, escaped in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not
8. Elizabeth Agustin corroborated her husband’s story directly involve an acknowledgment of guilt of the accused or of
9. The Trial Court admitted the appellant’s extrajudicial statement the criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is charged
and gave scant consideration to his claim of force, intimidation, 2. Wharton defines a confession as follows: “A confession is an
and other irregularities acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of
10. The trial court then concluded that there was conspiracy and the his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement by
accused was a direct participant in the crime, and that while he the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue, and
tried to minimize his culpability, his extrajudicial confesion shows tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt.
that he was in on the plan, and even expected to be paid, to be In other words, an admission is something less than a confession,
rewarded monetarily; and that he decided to give a statement only and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which
when he was not given the money in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction, and which tends
a. Since the proof of corpus delicti required in Section 3, only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt.”
Rule 133 of the Rules of Court was established by the 3. It was examined the assailed extrajudicial statement of the
prosecution’s evidence, it found his conviction for murder appellant, and we are satisfied that nothing therein indicates that he
inevitable expressly acknowledged his guilt; he merely admitted some facts
11. On appeal, the appellant insists that his extrajudicial confession or circumstances which in themselves are insufficient to authorize
was taken in violation of his rights under Section 11, Article III of a conviction and which can only tend to establish the ultimate fact
the Constitution of guilt. Nevertheless, when what is involved is the issue of
a. He argues that the lawyer who assisted him, Atty. admissibility in evidence under Section 12, Article III of the
Reynaldo, was not of his own choice but was foisted upon Constitution, the distinction is irrelevant because Paragraph thereof
him by the City Fiscal expressly refers to both confession and admission. Thus: “(3) Any
b. Worse, the said lawyer is a law partner of the private confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17
prosecutor and conferred with him in English and Tagalog hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.”
although he understood only Ilocano. 4. The first two paragraphs of Section 12, Article III of the present
Constitution have broadened the aforesaid Section 20 in these
Issue: respects: (1) the right to counsel means not just any counsel, but a
WON accused-appellant’s extrajudicial statements are admissible “competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own
as evidence to warrant conviction choice”; (2) the right to remain silent and to counsel can only be
waived in writing and in the presence of counsel; and (3) the rule who took down the stenographic notes, but for reasons not
on inadmissibility expressly includes admissions, not just explained in the records, the transcript of the notes (Exhibit “C”),
confessions. 9. Secondly, Atty. Cajucom can hardly be said to have been
5. The right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to voluntarily and intelligently “accepted” by the appellant as his
counsel contemplates “the transmission of meaningful information counsel to assist him in the investigation. Atty. Cajucom’s
rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an presence in the Office of the City Fiscal at the time the appellant
abstract constitutional principle.” It is not enough for the was brought there for investigation is unclear to us. At least two
investigator to merely repeat to the person under investigation the possibilities may explain it: it was a mere coincidence in the sense
provisions of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution or that he happened to be attending to some professional matter, or he
Section 12, Article III of the present Constitution; the former must was earlier called by the City Fiscal for the purpose of giving free
also explain the effects of such provision inpractical terms, e.g., legal aid to the appellant, These possibilities are not remote but
what the person under investigation may or may not do? and in a whether it was one or the other, it is clear to us that Atty. Cajucom
language the subject fairly understands. The right to be informed was in fact foisted upon the appellant, for as shown in the
carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of the abovequoted portion of Exhibit “C,” the City Fiscal immediately
investigator to explain, and contemplates effective communication suggested the availability of Atty. Cajucom without first distinctly
which results in the subject understanding what is conveyed. Since asking the appellant if he had a counsel of his own choice and if he
it is comprehension that is sought to be attained, the degree of had one, whether he could hire such counsel; and if he could not,
explanation required will necessarily vary and depend on the whether he would agree to have one provided for him; or whether
education, intelligence, and other relevant personal circumstances he would simply exercise his right to remain silent and to counsel.
of the person undergoing the investigation. In short, after the appellant said that he wanted to be assisted by
6. In further ensuring the right to counsel, it is not enough that the counsel, the City Fiscal, through suggestive language, immediately
subject is informed of such right; he should also be asked if he informed him that Atty. Cajucom was ready to assist him. While it
wants to avail of the same and should be told that he can ask for is true that in custodial investigations the party to be investigated
counsel if he so desires or that one will be provided him at his has the final choice of counsel and may reject the counsel chosen
request. If he decides not to retain counsel of his choice or avail of for him by the investigator and ask for another one, the
one to be provided for him and, therefore, chooses to waive his circumstances obtaining in the custodial interrogation of the
right to counsel, such waiver, to be valid and effective, must be appellant left him no freedom to intelligently and freely do so. For
made with the assistance of counsel. That counsel must be a as earlier stated, he was not even asked if he had a lawyer of his
lawyer. own choice and whether he could afford to hire such lawyer; on the
7. The waiver of the right to counsel must be voluntary, knowing, and other hand, the CityFiscal clearly suggested the availability of
intelligent. Consequently, even if the confession of an accused Atty. Cajucom.
speaks the truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it 10. Then too, present at that time were Capt. Antonio Ayat and Sgt.
is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or Roberto Rambac, military officers of RUCI, who brought him to
even if it had been voluntarily given. the City Fiscal’s Office for investigation in the afternoon of the
8. The extrajudicial admission of the appellant, contained in twenty- day when he was unlawfully arrested in Sto. Tomas, Pangasinan.
two pages of yellow pad, does, indeed, appear to be signed by him Along Kennon Road, on the way to Baguio City, he was coerced
and Atty. Reynaldo Cajucom. What we find in these yellow pads and threatened with death if he would not admit knowing “Jun”
are stenographic notes. These were transcribed by the stenographer and “Sonny” and his participation in the crime. This testimony was
unrebutted by the prosecution. The presence of the military officers
and the continuing fear that if he did not cooperate, something sign the piece of bond paper which was used to wrap the marijuana sticks
would happen to him, was like a Damocles sword which vitiated before they were submitted to the laboratory for examination.
his free will.
The Trial court find the accused, Salazar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
selling a prohibited drug without being authorized by law, she is hereby
G.R. No. 98060. January 27, 1997 sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SATURNINA The accused appeal that arguing the her right to counsel has been violated.
SALAZAR y PALANAS, accused-appellant.
Issue
DECISION
Whether the right of the accused to counsel has been violated, hence any
PANGANIBAN, J.: confession made by her is inadmissible.
NATURE OF THE CASE Ruling:
This appeal seeks the reversal of the Decision in Criminal Case No. 925 of Yes. But there is still enough evidence to convict the accused
the Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Branch 13, finding appellant
Saturnina Salazar y Palanas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Ratio:
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972), as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1675, and imposing upon her Violation of Appellant's Right to Counsel
the penalty of life imprisonment and payment of P20,000.00 as fine, with
We find appellant's claim that she was not informed of her right to
costs.
counsel during custodial investigation to be correct. Moreover, the
NARCOM agent's admission that they made her sign and thumbmark
the bond paper which they used to wrap the marijuana found in her
The Facts possession was violative of her constitutional right to counsel. While the
bond paper does not appear to have been considered as a pivotal piece of
In a buy-bust operation, the accused Salazar sold and delivered to a evidence against appellant, such act of the NARCOM agents is worth
NARCOM Agent posing as a buyer, marijuana sticks and leaves. Found in noting if only to provide guidance to law enforcement operatives. In People
Salazar’s possession was the 5.00 marked bill and marijuana. Salazar was vs. Simon, where the accused was made to sign the booking sheet and arrest
then arrested. report stating that he was arrested for selling two tea bags of suspected
marijuana and the receipt for the seized property, the Court said:
At the PC headquarters in Camp Naranjo, Sgt. Cubillan interrogated
appellant while Cpl. de Guzman took her bio-data. Her fingerprints were "x x x. Appellant's conformance to these documents are declarations
also taken. Thereafter, Cpl. de Guzman made her sign her bio-data and the against interest and tacit admissions of the crime charged. They were
paper containing her fingerprints. It was Sgt. Cubillan who instructed her to obtained in violation of his right as a person under custodial
investigation for the commission of an offense, there being nothing in in the Decision of March 1, 1991, it based its findings on evidence
the records to show that he was assisted by counsel. Although appellant presented by both the prosecution and the defense and not on the fact that
manifested during the custodial investigation that he waived his right to appellant was a probationer convicted of engaging in the abominable trade
counsel, the waiver was not made in writing and in the presence of of illegal drugs when she committed the offense.
counsel, hence whatever incriminatory admission or confession may be
extracted from him, either verbally or in writing, is not allowable in WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision convicting appellant Saturnina
evidence. Besides, the arrest report is self-serving and hearsay and can Salazar y Palanas of the crime of violation of Section 4, Article II of
easily be concocted to implicate a suspect." Republic Act. No 6425, as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED.
DISPOSITIVE: This Court has consistently ruled that waiver of right to counsel to be valid,
must be in writing and in the presence of counsel. Extra-judicial confessions
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered MODIFYING the subject taken without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence (People
decision of the trial court, and as Modified, FINDING the accused-appellant v. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123 [1987]). Hence, while the right to counsel may
EUTROPIO TIOZON Y ACID guilty beyond all reasonable doubt of the be waived, such waiver must be done voluntarily, knowingly and
crime of HOMICIDE, as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the
intelligently, and made in the presence of the accused’s lawyer. If the
Revised Penal Code… be given full credit for the period of his preventive
imprisonment. records do not show that the accused was assisted by counsel in making his
waiver, this defect nullifies and renders inadmissible in evidence his
People vs. Tujon confession (People v. Nolasco, 163 SCRA 623, [1988]). In the case of
[G.R. No. 66034. November 13, 1992.] People v. Hizon, 163 SCRA 760 {1988}, this Court, citing the procedure
laid down in the case of People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 [1985]), ruled that
the suspect must be informed that he has a right to the assistance of counsel
Facts: and assured that he will be provided with one for free. While he may choose
to waive the right, such waiver must be a knowing and intelligent one and in
Tujon, Parola and Paredes were charged with Robbery with Homicide.
any case must be made only with the assistance of counsel. Any waiver
Paredes remained at large. Tujon and Parola were convicted. They allegedly
made without observance of these requirements is null and void. Indeed, the
robbed and killed a taxi driver.
ban against uncounselled confessions is even more pronounced under Sec.
There is no eyewitness for the prosecution. To establish the case against the 12, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution.
accused, the prosecution relied mainly on the extra-judicial confession of
It is a matter of record that the interrogation was made in the absence of
counsel de parte or de oficio and the waiver of counsel, if made at all, was
not made with the assistance of counsel as required. Defense’s version:
It is not clear that the accused were actually offered the services of a lawyer
Danilo Roque stated that he being a tricycle driver drove the 4 accused to
and they refused. In any event, it is undisputed that the waiver of the
Benito’s house for a fee of P50.00. Instead of paying him, he was given a
accused of their right to counsel was made without the assistance of calling card by Eduardo Macam so that he can be paid the following day.
counsel. Upon arriving, he went with the accused inside the house to have lunch.
Thereafter he washed the dishes and swept the floor. When Eugenio
Furthermore, this Court has consistently ruled that waiver of right to Cawilan pulled a gun and announced the hold-up, he was asked to gather
counsel to be valid, must be in writing and in the presence of counsel. some things and which he abided out of fear. While putting the said thins
Extra-judicial confessions taken without the assistance of counsel is inside the car of Benito (victim) he heard the accused saying “kailangan
inadmissible in evidence patayin ang mga taong yan dahil kilala ako ng mga yan”. Upon hearing
such phrase he escaped and went home using his tricycle. He also testified
that his brother Ernesto Roque has just arrived from the province and in no
PEOPLE VS. MACAM way can be involved in the case at bar. On the following day, together with
his brother, they went to the factory of the Zesto Juice (owned by the father
Facts: of Eduardo Macam) for him to get his payment (50.00) . He and his brother
was suddenly apprehended by the security guards and brought to the police
Prosecution’s version: headquarters in Q.C. They were also forced to admit certain things.
After which, he together with all the accused, in handcuffs and bore
On Aug 18,1987, Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro, Eugenio Cawilan Jr., contusions on their faces caused by blows inflicted in their faces during
Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque went to the house of Benito Macam investigation, was brought to the QC General Hospital before each
(uncle of Eduardo Macam) located at 43 Ferma Road QC. Upon the arrival surviving victims and made to line-up for identification. Eugenio Cawilan
of the accused, Benito invited the former to have lunch. Benito asked his was also charged with Anti-fencing Law but was acquitted in the said case.
maid Salvacion Enrera to call the companions of Eduardo who were waiting
in a tricycle outside the house. A. Cedro, E. Cawilan and D. Roque entered Issue:
the house while E. Roque remained in the tricycle. After all the accused had
taken their lunch, Eduardo Macam grabbed the clutch bag of Benito Macam Whether or Not their right to counsel has been violated. WON the arrest
and pulled out his uncle’s gun then declared a hold-up. They tied up the was valid. WON the evidence from the line-up is admissible.
wife (Leticia Macam), children, maid (Salvacion) and Nilo Alcantara and
brought them to the room upstairs. After a while Leticia was brought to the Held:
bathroom and after she screamed she was stabbed and killed by A. Cedro. It is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of
Benito, Nilo and Salvacion was also stabbed but survived. The total value prosecution even before trial. A police line-up is considered a “critical”
of the items taken was P536, 700.00. stage of the proceedings. Any identification of an uncounseled accused
made in a police line-up is inadmissible. After the start of the custodial
investigation, any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police
line-up is inadmissible. This is particularly true in the case at bench where
the police officers first talked to the victims before the confrontation was Prosecution witness Sgt. Eduardo Marcelo testified that he took the
held. The circumstances were such as to impart improper suggestions on the statements of appellant Rafael Olivares, Jr. and Purisimo Macaoili and
minds of the victims that may lead to a mistaken identification. Appellants verbal investigation of appellant Danilo Arellano because the latter refused
were handcuffed and had contusions on their faces. However, the to give any statement.
prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellant's identification at
the police line-up. Hence, the exclusionary sanctions against the admission Prosecution witness Cpl. Tomas Juan testified that in the morning of
in evidence of custodial identification of an uncounseled accused can not be December 28, 1981, he was assigned by his station commander to follow-up
applied. On the other hand, appellants did not object to the in-court the robbery with homicide that took place at Tanada Subdivision. He
identification made by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution learned from Patrolman Bote that a regular employee of the Cardinal Plastic
witnesses, who made the identification of appellants at the police line-up at Industries (where the crime was committed) had not yet reported for work.
the hospital, again identified appellants in open court. Appellants did not With that information, Cpl. Juan and others proceeded to the business
object to the in-court identification as being tainted by the illegal line-up. In establishment and were able to confirm from the workers that appellant
the absence of such objection, the prosecution need not show that said Danilo Arellano failed to report for work since the commission of the crime.
identifications were of independent origin elchor Salle (cousin of appellant Arellano) volunteered to bring them to
Danilo Arellano, in a factory situated in San Juan. Melchor Salle was able
The arrest of the appellants was without a warrant. However, they are to secure information from the barkada of appellant Arellano who turned
estopped from questioning the legality of such arrest because they have not out to be appellant Olivares, Jr. Appellant Olivares accompanied them to
moved to quash the said information and any irregularity attendant to their Broadway where they found appellant Arellano. After being asked about the
arrest was cured when they voluntarily submitted themselves to the incident that took place at the Cardinal Plastic Industries, appellant Arellano
jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a plea of not guilty and by readily admitted to the police authorities his participation in the commission
participating in the trial of the crime. Thereafter, appellant Arellano was invited to the police station.
On further direct examination, Cpl. Juan identified in open court the Sanyo
The court believed the version of the prosecution. Ernesto Roque, while cassettes, the tapes and the wristwatch they recovered from the place where
remaining outside the house served as a look out. appellant Arellano pointed to them.
Wherefore, decision of lower court is Affirmed. Danilo Roque and Ernesto Prosecution witness Purisimo Macaoili testified that he found the dead body
Roque is guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide as co-conspirators of of Mr. Sy in the morning of December 26, 1981 inside the building where
the other accused to suffer reclusion perpetua. the business establishment is situated. Mr. Sy was residing alone inside his
room because at that time his wife was in Hongkong. Some of the workers
also reside inside the business establishment. Mr. Macaoili also saw the
dead body of the father of Mr. Sy in the same building. is companion
Erning phoned Mr. Sys brother. The same brother asked for the assistance
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RAFAEL OLIVAREZ, of the police who arrived at the scene of the crime and who conducted on-
JR., and DANILO ARELLANO, appellants. the-spot investigation.
G.R. No. 77865. December 4, 1998 Mr. Macaoili testified that he came to know that the wristwatch, the
cassettes, and other personal items of the victims were missing when
appellants were apprehended. He knew the cassette and the wristwatch
FACTS: A case for robbery with homicide committed during the season of because said items had been used by the victim. He knew appellant
yuletide. Arellano because he is his barriomate at Tuburan, Iloilo. He also knew
appellant Olivarez, Jr. as they are also barriomates. He testified that In this case, there were no eyewitnesses to the killing and robbery and;
appellant Olivarez, Jr. twice visited the factory and saw him two or three thus, no direct evidence points to appellants criminal liability. The
weeks before said date prosecutions principal evidence against them is based solely on the
testimony of the police officers who arrested, investigated and subsequently
Prosecution witness, Sgt. Eduardo Marcelo testified that he conducted an took their confession. Such evidence when juxtaposed with appellants
investigation on the person of Rafael Olivarez, Jr. Sgt. Marcelo apprised constitutional rights concerning arrests and the taking of confessions leads
him of his constitutional rights. When informed, appellant Olivarez, Jr. to a conclusion that they cannot be held liable for the offense charged
declined any assistance of a lawyer during the investigation considering despite the inherent weakness of their defenses of denial and alibi, not
that he will tell the truth about the incident. Mr. Melchor Salle and the chief because they are not guilty but because the evidence adduced against them
of Sgt. Marcelo were present during the police investigations. Sgt. Marcelo are inadmissible to sustain a criminal conviction.
prepared a statement signed by appellant Olivarez, Jr. relative to the
investigation. First, appellants were arrested without a valid warrant of arrest and their
arrest cannot even be justified under any of the recognized exceptions for a
For the death of the two victims and the loss of some items, appellants were valid warrantless arrest. At the time appellants were apprehended, two days
charge with the complex crime of robbery with double homicide. In the have already lapsed after the discovery of the crime they were not doing nor
commission of the said crime, other aggravating circumstances of have they done any criminal act. Neither were they caught in flagrante
nocturnity and unlawful entry were present. delicto or had escaped from confinement. Probably aware of the illegality of
the arrest they made, the arresting officers testified that appellants were
LOWER COURT DECISION: Lower court rendered a decision merely invited to the police precinct. Such invitation, however, when
convicting appellants of the crime charged, sentenced them to suffer the construed in the light of the circumstances is actually in the nature of an
death penalty. arrest designed for the purpose of conducting an interrogation. Mere
invitation is covered by the proscription on a warrantless arrest because it is
ISSUE: Whether or not the confessions obtained from the accused are intended for no other reason than to conduct an investigation. Thus, any
admissible in evidence. NO evidence obtained in violation of their right shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding. By virtue of said constitutional protection, any
RULING: Initially, the categorization by the prosecution of the crime of evidence obtained, including all the things and properties alleged to be
robbery with double homicide is erroneous because the word homicide in stolen by appellants which were taken by the police from the place of the
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code should be taken in its generic sense illegal arrest cannot be used as evidence for their conviction.
absorbing not only acts which results in death but also all other acts
producing anything short of death. The indictable offense is the complex Even assuming arguendo that by entering a plea without first questioning
crime of robbery with homicide. the legality of their arrest, appellants are deemed to have waived any
objection concerning their arrest, yet the extrajudicial confession of
The essential elements of which are: appellant Olivares, Jr. on which the Under the Constitution, any person
a.) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation under investigation for the prosecution relies, is likewise inadmissible in
against a person; evidence. commission of an offense shall have the right among others, to
b.) the property thus taken belongs to another; have a counsel which right can be validly waived. In this case, the said
c.) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; confession was obtained during custodial investigation but the confessant
d.) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of was not assisted by counsel. His manifestation to the investigating officer
homicide was committed. that he did not need the assistance of counsel does not constitute a valid
waiver of his right.
Consequently, the invalid waiver of the right to counsel during custodial
investigation makes the uncounselled confession, whether verbal or non-
verbal obtained in violation thereof as also inadmissible in evidence.
FACTS: ISSUE: Whether or not Dr. Acampado can testify as an expert witness.
Nelly Lim and Juan Sim are married to each other.
Juan Sim filed a petition to declare the nullity of the the marriage HELD: YES.
on the ground of Article 36 of the Family Code, for schizophrenia
before, during, and after the marriage and until the present. RULING:
At a certain point in the trial, Juan Sim’s counsel announced he This rule on the physician-patient privilege is intended to facilitate and
would present as witness the Chief of the Female Services of the make safe full and confidential disclosure by the patient to the physician of
National Mental Hospital, Dr. Lydia Acampado, a Doctor of all facts, circumstances and symptoms, untrammeled by apprehension of
Medicine who specializes in Psychiatry, and sought a subpoena to their subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on the witness
have the doctor testify. stand, to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion, and be
enabled safely and efficaciously to treat his patient. It rests in public policy was presented and qualified as an expert witness. As correctly held by the
and is for the general interest of the community. Court of Appeals, she did not disclose anything obtained in the course of
her examination, interview and treatment of the petitioner; moreover, the
The physician may be considered to be acting in his professional capacity facts and conditions alleged in the hypothetical problem did not refer to and
when he attends to the patient for curative, preventive, or palliative had no bearing on whatever information or findings the doctor obtained
treatment. Thus, only disclosures which would have been made to the while attending to the patient. There is, as well, no showing that Dr.
physician to enable him "safely and efficaciously to treat his patient" are Acampado’s answers to the questions propounded to her relating to the
covered by the privilege. It is to be emphasized that "it is the tenor only of hypothetical problem were influenced by the information obtained from the
the communication that is privileged. The mere fact of making a petitioner. Otherwise stated, her expert opinion excluded whatever
communication, as well as the date of a consultation and the number of information or knowledge she had about the petitioner which was acquired
consultations, are therefore not privileged from disclosure, so long as the by reason of the physician-patient relationship existing between them. As an
subject communicated is not stated." expert witness, her testimony before the trial court cannot then be excluded.
In order that the privilege may be successfully claimed, the following Secondly, it is quite clear from Dr. Acampado’s testimony that the
requisites must concur: petitioner was never interviewed alone. Said interviews were always
1. the privilege is claimed in a civil case; conducted in the presence of a third party. She was first accompanied by her
2. the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly husband during the consultations, and then afterwards always with Nelly
authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; Lim’s father. There is authority to the effect that information elicited during
3. such person acquired the information while he was attending to the consultation with a physician in the presence of third parties removes such
patient in his professional capacity; information from the mantle of the privilege.
4. the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity;
and DISPOSITIVE PORTION: the Decision of the Court of Appeals is
5. the information was confidential, and, if disclosed, would blacken AFFIRMED.
the reputation (formerly character) of the patient.
People v. Galleno (291 SCRA 761)
These requisites conform with the four (4) fundamental conditions
necessary for the establishment of a privilege against the disclosure of Nature of the case: Automatic review of the judgment
certain communications, to wit:
1. The communications must originate in a confidence that they will Facts:
not be disclosed.
2. This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and Joeral Galleno was charged with staturory rape committed againt
satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties. Evelyn Obligar, a five year old girl. The prosecution presented three expert
3. The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community
witnesses namely, Dr. Alfonso Orosco, Dr. Ma. Lourdes Lanada and Dr.
ought to be sedulously fostered
4. The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the Michael Toledo. Those testimonies convinced that the trial court that rape
communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained was committed against Obligar. Galleno contented that he should be
for the correct disposal of litigation. acquitted since the expert testimonites were not impeccable considering that
the doctors found that there was no presernce of spermatozoa and that there
Nelly Lim’s counsel has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the were not sure as to what caused the laceration in the victims vagina.
information is covered by the privilege. In the first place, Dr. Acampado
Petitioner Cebu Shipyard is a domestic corporation engaged in the
ISSUES: business of dry-docking and repairing of marine vessels. Private
respondent Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Inc, is a domestic
WON the lacking testimonies of the expert witnesses should result to the corporation engaged in the non-life insurance business. Private
acquittal of the accussed Respondent William Lines Inc is in the shipping business and
owner of M/V Manila City, a luxury passenger-cargo vessel which
RULING: would be the main topic of the issue of this case.
The trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with the aid of the expert testimony of William lines brought its vessel (M/V Manila) to the Cebu
doctors who gave their opinions as to the possible cause of the victim’s laceration, but also the Shipyard for annual dry-docking and repair.
testimony of the other prosecution witness, especially the victim herself. It did not rely solely
on the testimony of the expert witnesses. Such expert testimony merely aided the court in the
exercise of its judgment on the facts. The fact that experts enumerated various possible causes When The Vessel M/V Manila City was transferred to the docking
of the victim’s laceration does not mean the trial court’s interference is wrong. The absence of quay, it caught on fire and sank, resulting to its eventual total loss.
spermatozoa in the victim’s vagina does not negate the conclusion that it was his penis which At the time of the unfortunate occurrence, subject vessel was
was inserted in the victim’s vagina. In rape, the important consideration is not the emission of insured with Prudential for hull and machinery.
semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. The victim as a child is
confused as well as to the object that was inserted in her organ. William lines filed a complaint for damages against petitioner
alleging that the fire broke out in the vessel was caused by
Petitioner’s negligence and lack of care. Later on the complaint
RATIO: was amended to implede Prudential Guarantee after the later had
paid for the insurance value with William Lines. Prudential was
As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or subrograted to the claim of William Lines.
give opinions. It is the courts duty to draw conclusions from the evidence
and form opinions upon the facts proved. However, conclusions and Trial court decided against Cebu Shipyard and in favour of
opinions of witnesses are received in many cases, and are not confined to William lines and Prudential.
expert testimony, based on the principle that either because of the special
skill or expert knowledge of the witness, or because of the nature of the A partial dismissal was ordered by the CA due to the amicable
subject matter under observation, for other reasons, the testimony will aid settlement of the parties. CA also affirmed the decision of the
the court in reaching a judgement. lower court.
Cebu Shipyard and Engineering works VS William Lines Inc and Issue: W/N the Court erred on the inadmissibility of the expert testimonies
Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Company Inc. presented by the petitioner, that introduced the cause and origin of the fire.
The trial court did not err in giving more weight to said testimonies
Petition denied
FACTS:
Ernesto Balaktaw saw Sofronio Palin proceed toward the head of Ernesto
Basa and was held by the latter by the shoulder at which moment his
companion Geronimo Soliman approached Ernesto Basa and stabbed him
many times with a balisong. Thereafter, the assailants ran away, and the
victim died. The two appellants are charged with a very serious crime as in
fact they were sentenced to the extreme penalty of death. It is therefore