TITLE: Juanita A. Aquino vs. Teresita B.

Paiste
DATE: June 25, 2008
PONENTE: Justice Velasco Jr.
HEADING: Rights of an arrested person upon arrest, detention, or custodial
investigation
APPELLEE: Teresita B. Paiste
APPELLANT: Juanita A. Aquino

FACTS:
Aquino, along with Garganta and others, induced Paiste to buy a fake gold bar
for PhP 50,000. Paiste discovered the fraud and brought Aquino to the NBI, where they
signed an amicable settlement with waiver of right to counsel. Paiste later filed a
criminal complaint for estafa against Aquino and her co-accused.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

INFORMATION FILED: Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal
Code.

NATURE OF THE CASE: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
 The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the CA
decision in toto.
 The CA affirmed the RTC decision convicting Aquino of estafa and sentencing her
to an indeterminate penalty of five years of prision correccional as minimum to
nine years of prision mayor as maximum, and to indemnify Paiste the sum of PhP
50,000 with 12% interest per annum.
  The RTC found Aquino guilty of estafa and held that she conspired with her co-
accused to defraud Paiste. The RTC also gave credence to the amicable
settlement as an implied admission of guilt.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
Whether the amicable settlement executed in the NBI is admissible as evidence.

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONERS
Aquino argued that her constitutional rights were violated when she signed the
amicable settlement under threat and without a competent and independent counsel.

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS
Paiste argued that Aquino was provided with a counsel during the NBI proceedings and
that she voluntarily signed the amicable settlement.

HELD/RATIO:
The Supreme Court held that the amicable settlement was admissible as
evidence since none of Aquino’s constitutional rights were violated. The Court ruled that
Aquino was provided with an independent counsel and that she signed the agreement
freely and voluntarily. The Court also held that the amicable settlement was not an
extrajudicial confession or admission but a contract between the parties.

DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The CA’s November 10,
2000 Decision and April 6, 2001 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 22511 are hereby
AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against petitioner.