PEOPLE VS.

VALLEJO
GR. 144656
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
GERRICO VALLEJO Y SAMARTINO @ PUKE, accused-appellant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctrine:
 Section 12 of Art. III of the Constitution provides in pertinent parts:
"(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 shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him."

 There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions treated in this constitutional
provision:
(1) coerced confessions, the product of third degree methods such as torture,
force, violence, threat, and intimidation, which are dealt with in paragraph 2 of Section
12, and
(2) uncounselled statements, given without the benefit of Miranda warnings,
which are the subject of paragraph 1 of the same section.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS:

On July 10, 1999 (Rosario, Cavite), at about 1pm, 9-year old Daisy Diolola went to her
neighbor’s house to seek help in an assignment. It was a Saturday. Gerrico Vallejo, the neighbor,
helped Daisy in her assignment. At 5pm of the same day, Daisy’s mom noticed that her child
wasn’t home yet. She went to Vallejo’s house and Daisy wasn’t there. 7pm, still no word of
Daisy’s whereabouts. The next morning, Daisy’s body was found tied to a tree near a river bank.
Apparently, she was raped and thereafter strangled to death.

In the afternoon of July 11, the police went to Vallejo’s house to question the latter as he was one
of the last persons with the victim. But prior to that, some neighbors have already told the police
that Vallejo was acting strangely during the afternoon of July 10. The police requested for the
clothes that Vallejo wore the day Daisy disappeared. Vallejo complied and the clothes were
submitted for processing.

The person who processed the clothing was Pet Byron Buan, a Forensic Biologist of the NBI. At
the instance of the local fiscal, he also took buccal swabs (mouth/cheek swabs) from Vallejo and
a vaginal swab from Daisy’s body for DNA testing. Dr. Buan found that there were bloodstains
in Vallejo’s clothing – Blood Type A, similar to that of the victim, while Vallejo’s Blood Type is
O.

Buan also found that the vaginal swab from Daisy contained Vallejo’s DNA profile.

Meanwhile, Vallejo already executed a sworn statement admitting the crime. But when trial
came, Vallejo insisted that the sworn statement was coerced; that he was threatened by the cops;
that the DNA samples should be inadmissible because the body and the clothing of Daisy
(including his clothing – which in effect is an admission placing him in the crime scene – though
not discussed in the case) were already soaked in smirch waters, hence contaminated. Vallejo
argues that the oral confessions given to Mayor Abutan of Rosario, Cavite and to NBI Forensic
Biologist should be deemed inadmissible for being violative of his constitutional rights as these
were made by one already under custodial investigation to persons in authority without the
presence of counsel. Vallejo was convicted and was sentenced to death by the trial court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the oral and written confessions presented as evidence against him is
valid.

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that the confession can be likened to one freely and
voluntarily given to an ordinary individual and is therefore, admissible as evidence.

 Section 12 of Art. III of the Constitution provides in pertinent parts:

"(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 shall be

inadmissible in evidence against him."

There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions treated in this constitutional provision:
(1) coerced confessions, the product of third degree methods such as torture, force, violence,
threat, and intimidation, which are dealt with in paragraph 2 of Section 12, and (2) uncounselled
statements, given without the benefit of Miranda warnings, which are the subject of paragraph 1
of the same section.
the accused made extrajudicial confessions to the municipal mayor freely and voluntarily. In all
of them, the extrajudicial confessions were held admissible in evidence, being the spontaneous,
free, and voluntary admissions of the guilt of the accused. We note further that the testimony of
Mayor Abutan was never objected to by the defense.

Indeed, the mayor's questions to accused-appellant were not in the nature of an interrogation, but
rather an act of benevolence by a leader seeking to help one of his constituents.

For the same reason, the oral confession made by accused-appellant to NBI Forensic Biologist
Pet Byron Buan is admissible. Accused-appellant would have this Court exclude this confession
on the ground that it was uncounselled and that Mr. Buan, who initiated the conversation with
accused-appellant, was part of the NBI.