1. MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA 384 US 386 2. PEOPLE VS. TULIN 364 SCRA 10 3. AGONCILLO VS.

CA 292 SCRA ___ 4. PEOPLE VS DE JESUS 213 SCRA 345 5. PEOPLE VS _______ 211 SCRA 262 6. GALMAN VS PAMARAN 138 SCRA 294 7. PEOPLE VS CABILES 284 SCRA 199 8. PEOPLE VS MACAM 238 SCRA 306 9. PEOPLE VS OBRERO 332 SCRA 190 10. PEOPLE VS______ 251 SCRA 293 11. PEOPLE VS______ 194 SCRA 601 12. PEOPLE VS CABINTOY 247 SCRA 442 13. MORALES JR VS ENRILE 121 SCRA 538 14. PEOPLE VS RAMOS 122 SCRA ____ 15. PEOPLE VS CADIWA 195 SCRA 2 16. PEOPLE VS MAHINAT 308 SCRA 455 17. PEOPLE VS DECIERDO 169 SCRA 696 18. PEOPLE VS CASIMIRO GR NO. 146227 JUNE 20, 2002 19. PEOPLE VS DUERO 104 SCRA 279 20. PEOPLE VS CAPITIN 165 SCRA 11 21. PEOPLE VS NICANDRO 141 SCRA 289 22. PEOPLE VS GALIT 135 SCRA 425 23. PEOPLE VS BALOLOY GR NO. 140740 24. PEOPLE VS TAYLARAN 25. PEOPLE VS ANDAN 269 SCRA 95 26. PEOPLE VS SUELA 307 SCRA 1 27. PEOPLE VS MORADO 28. PEOPLE VS MARAG 29. PEOPLE VS APOLINARIO 30. PEOPLE VS VERSOZA 31. PEOPLE VS ESCORDIAL 32. PEOPLE VS SUAREZ ______________ 1. In 1963 a poor Mexican immigrant by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and raping a young woman. Prior criminal charges that had been brought against Miranda included armed robbery, attempted rape, assault, and burglary. Following his arrest for raping the young woman, Miranda confessed to the crime after being interrogated by police for two hours. The case went to court and Miranda was found guilty. Although he was found guilty because of his confession, Miranda appealed his case on the fact that he did not know his Fifth Amendment rights. Miranda appealed the case on the basis that he made his confession without knowing his Fifth Amendment rights which stated he had a right to a lawyer and to not incriminate himself. Issue: Must law enforcement officials inform an accused of his constitutional rights? Are statements obtained from an individual subjected to custodial police interrogation admissible if he has not been notified of his privilege under the 5th Amendment not to be compelled to incriminate himself? Holding: Incriminating statements made by an individual are only admissible if the following safeguards have been taken; and/or, when a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom, the following warnings must be given: he has the right to remain silent; that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law; that he has the right to have an attorney present; and if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him. ___________

People vs. Andan The accused-appellant was accused of the complex crime of rape with homicide. When he was interrogated byt h e police, he claimed he was only acting as a look -out for his two neighbors who he c l a i m e d w e r e t h e perpetrators and showed the p olice where they hid the victim's belongings. At that time, Mayor Trinidad of Baliuag and media representatives were in the station, awaiting the results of the investigation. When the accused-appellant saw Mayor Trinidad, he asked to speak with the Mayor in private. The Mayor led the appellantto the office of the Chief of Police, where they had a closed-door conversation, and it was then that he confessedto the Mayor that he was indeed the one who committed the crime.L a t e r o n , t h e M a y o r o p e n e d t h e d o o r a n d a s k e d t h e a p p e l l a n t t o r e p e a t h i s c o n f e s s i o n t o t h e m e d i a representatives. Although there was no lawyer present, the appellant freely confessed to the media when he wasinterviewed about the crime. These interviews were videotaped and photographed. However, on arraignment,the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty. ISSUES (1) Whether the appellant's extrajudicial confession to the police was admissible in court.(2) Whether the appellant's extrajudicial confession to the Mayor and the media is admissible in court. HELD (1) NO. It was admitted that the accused-appellant was not apprised of his Miranda r i g h t s a n d h i s confession to police was made without the assistance of counsel. The accused-appellant should havebeen entitled to the following rights under sec. 12 of the Bill of Rights:1. to remain silent2. to have competent and independent counsel of his choice3. to be informed of such rightsThese rights may only be waived (1) voluntarily, (2) expressly, (3) in the presence of counsel and (4) inwriting.Likewise, since the victim's belongings were found based on this invalid extrajudicial confession, theyshould also be inadmissible in court since such evidence are the fruits of the poisonous tree.(2) YES, because he made his confession to the mayor and the media freely, spontaneously and voluntarily.There was no evidence either that the mayor or the media were under duress or influenced by the policeto elicit a confession from the accused. As for the accused, he reiterated the same confession to the media when they repeatedly interviewed him to get his side of the story. The accused did not protest tothose interviews, even when he had every opportunity to do so as they were conducted on separate days.The Court reiterated that the Bill of Rights only protects the individual from undue interference of the State andits agents. It does not concernd itself with the relations of private individuals. In the case of the accused, hisconfession to the mayor and news reporters who were private individuals, thereby making his extrajudicial confession to them admissible in court ________ People vs. Baloloy People vs. Juanito Baloloy GR140740, April 12, 2002 FACTS The dead body of 11-year-old Genelyn Camacho was found by the accused-appellant in a nearby creek, whilehe was catching some frogs. Those who arrived at the scene also found a black rope. During the wake, Brgy.Cap tain Ceniza asked the visitor s if any o ne o f them o wned the b lack rop e fo und on the crime scene. T he accused-appellant claimed it was his.T he Brgy. Captain to o k the accused -appellant and asked him wh y his rop e was fo und o n the scene. The accused-appellant then confessed that he was the one who raped and killed Genelyn. When she announced thisto everyone at the wake, they became unruly so she turned over the accused-appellant to the police for his ownprotection.On the day o f the trial, after Jud ge Dico n read the affidavit o f Br gy. Cap tain Ceniza, he asked the accused -appellant if he was indeed guilty of the crime charged. The accused-appellant replied that he was demonizedwhen he committed the crime. He was convicted of the crime of rape with homicide based on his extrajudicialconfession to Brgy. Captain Ceniza and Judge Dicon and sentenced to death. ISSUE W hether the accused 's extraj ud icial co nfessio n to Brgy. Cap tain Ceniza and J ud ge Dico n vio lated his r ight against self-incrimination. HELD NO, as far as his co nfessio n to Ceniza is co ncerned. W hen the accused admitted o wnership o f the rop e andco nfessed the co mmissio n o f the cri me to Ceniza, he did so vo luntarily, free o f coercio n o r co ntro l fr o m the authorities. He also confessed before he was arrested or placed under

investigation. What is prohibited by theCo nstitutio n is the co mp ulsory disclo sure o f informatio n that wo uld incri minate the accused while he is in the custody of the authorities.As for his confession to Judge Dicon, it was deemed inadmissible as evidence because Judge Dicon failed toinform him of his rights before he made the confession. Moreover, it was done without the assistance of counsel.It was held that the rights of the accused become operative once custodial investigation starts, which actuallybegins from the time the accused is arrested or voluntarily surrenders to the police. The accused was already inthe custody of the police at the time he made his confession to Judge Dicon. Furthermore, even if no complaintwas yet filed against the accused at that time, the j ud ge sho uld still have ho no red the rights o f the accused under the Bill of Rights.Ho wever , his confes sio n to the j ud ge is no t entirely useless as tho se who witnessed the co nfessio n may still testify to this verbal admission by the accused. ___________ People vs. Anthony Escordial GR 138934-35, January 16, 2002 FACTS Escordial was convicted for robbery with rape and sentenced to death by the Bacolod RTC.Michelle Darunday, the rape victim, did not know what the suspect looked like because she was blindfolded atthe time the crime was committed. She would only recognize him if she heard his voice and felt the rough bumpson skin, as he was talking to her while he was raping her. However, her roommate claimed that she saw thesuspect, even though she was blindfolded, because of the light that filtered in from a lamp post outside their room; that's why she gave a physical description to the police officers.In the course of their investigation, the police found that the suspect's description fit that of a worker in the CoffeeBreak Corner, where the accused was employed. When the police officers arrived at the cafe, they asked theowner for the accused's whereabouts. They went to the location stated by the owner and found the accused in abasketball court. He was then invited for questioning.The rape victim was already at the station when the accused arrived. According to her testimony, the accusedblushed when he saw her. He also tried talking to her, asking her if she really knew him, but she did not respond.He was asked to take off his shirt and she confirmed that he was indeed her assailant because of a keloid at theback of his neck and his voice. ISSUES (1) Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused was lawful. (2) Whether the accused's Miranda rights were violated. HELD (1) NO. He was arrested while he was watching a basketball game. He was not caught in flagrante delicto.Neither was he arrested immediately after the consummation of the crime because he was only invitedfor questioning a week after the incident.However, the defect was cured when he voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. (2) YES, insofar as he was not assisted by counsel during the custodial investigation. Nevertheless, theCourt noted that the accused did not, at any time, admit to committing the crime, even when he claimedthat he was being tortured by the police. Therefore, there was no uncounselled confession obtained fromhim The Court also found that, although the out-of-court identification of the accused was inadmissible as evidencesince he was not assisted by counsel at that time, the in-court identification was definitely a valid ground for hisconviction. In fact, it was actually the in-court identification that formed the basis for the RTC's decision, not theout-of-court identification. ______________ People vs. Domantay PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BERNARDINO DOMANTAY [GR NO. 130612, MAY 11, 1999] II. FACTS The accused was convicted of complex rape with homicide for the death of 6-year old Jennifer Domantay and sentenced to death. He denied the accusations against him. SPO1 Espinoza claimed that the accused-appellant agreed to answer all the queries that will be raised by the investigator. He confessed everything that had happened without the presence of the counsel. Espinoza also claimed that the accused admitted that he committed the crime and he even tells where he put the bayonet that he used in stabbing the victim. But the accused-appellant denied that there is a boundary dispute between him and the victims

parents. The accused was not accompanied by his counsel, neither was his statement made in writing. A DPWR radio reporter named Celso Manuel conducted an interview to the accused-appellant two or three meters away from the police station. The accused was accompanied by two police officers and there is no lawyer that is present. The accused admitted again that he did the whole crime and claimed that he used the victim to revenge on the victims parents. III. ISSUE Whether the confession of the accused is admissible or not

In the case at bar, when accused-appellant was brought to the Malasiqui police station in the evening of October 17, 1996,[37] he was already a suspect, in fact the only one, in the brutal slaying of Jennifer Domantay. He was, therefore, already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed in Art. III, 12(1) of the Constitution applied to him. SPO1 Espinoza narrated what transpired during accused-appellants interrogation:[38] [I] interrogated Bernardino Domantay, prior to the interrogation conducted to him, I informed him of his constitutional right as follows; that he has the right to remain silent; that he has the right to a competent lawyer of his own choice and if he can not afford [a counsel] then he will be provided with one, and further informed [him] that all he will say will be reduced into writing and will be used the same in the proceedings of the case, but he told me that he will cooperate even in the absence of his counsel; that he admitted to me that he killed Jennifer Domantay, and he revealed also the weapon used [and] where he gave [it] to. But though he waived the assistance of counsel, the waiver was neither put in writing nor made in the presence of counsel. For this reason, the waiver is invalid and his confession is inadmissible. SPO1 Espinozas testimony on the alleged confession of accused-appellant should have been excluded by the trial court. So is the bayonet inadmissible in evidence, being, as it were, the fruit of the poisonous tree.

V. Resolution WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the Court hereby finds the accused, Bernardino Domantay @ Junior Otot guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the crime of Rape with Homicide defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation and as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 and accordingly, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection, and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the total amount of Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos (P480,000.00),and to pay the costs. ______ People vs. Mala Facts: Accused appellants Jamil Mala and Rusty Bala were charged with the offense of selling and delivering regulated drugs (shabu) upon which both accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.In the trial, appellant Rusty Bala was no longer called to testify because his lawyer allegedly had a hard time communicating with him; and he (Bala) appeared somewhat mentally deficient and would only corroborate Malas testimony. At the end of the trial, RTC rendered a decision finding the two appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Issue: Whether or not appellant Rusty Bala was well-represented by counsel before the trial court.

Held: No. From the foregoing, it is obvious that appellant Rusty Bala was not well-represented by counsel before the trial court. It appears that his counsel de oficio, Atty. Delas Alas, did not exert efforts to get the side of Rusty Bala when he (Atty. Delas Alas) found it difficult to communicate with him (Bala). Moreover, despite having been told by appellant Jamil Mala that Rusty Bala was mentally deficient, it does not appear on record that he took the necessary steps to ascertain the veracity of the said information. Neither did the trial court lift a finger to have Bala examined by a physician or to ensure that his defense was properly undertaken. Section 11, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the suspension of the arraignment of an accused who appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition. It also imposes a duty upon the court to order his mental examination and, if called for, his confinement for such purpose. The said Section pertinently reads: SEC. 11. Suspension of arraignment. Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases: (a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose. This provision reinforces Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, which mandates the trial court to order the confinement of an accused who is mentally unsound at the time of the trial in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted.

PEOPLE VS. JIMMY OBRERO G.R. NO. 122142 (2000) Facts: A is a suspect in a crime. He was taken for custodial investigation wherein, with the assistance of Attorney B., who was also the station commander of the police precinct, he executed an extrajudicial confession. Issue: Whether As right to counsel during a custodial investigation was violated. Held: Yes. The Constitution requires that counsel assisting suspects in custodial investigations be competent and independent. Here, A was assisted by Attorney B., who, though presumably competent, cannot be considered an independent counsel as contemplated by the law for the reason that he was station commander of the police precinct at the time he assisted A. The independent counsel required by the Constitution cannot be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, municipal attorney, or counsel of the police whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused. ______ People vs. Alicando Facts: Appellant was charged with the crime of rape with homicide of Khazie Mae Penecilla, a minor, four years of age, choking her with his right hand. The incident happened after appellant drank liquor. Aneighbor, Leopoldo Santiago found the victims body and the parents and police were informed. Appellant was living in his uncle's house some five arm's length from Penecilla's house. Appellant was arrested and interrogated by PO3 Danilo Tan. He verbally confessed his guilt without the assistance of counsel. On the basis of his uncounselled verbal confession and follow up interrogations, the police came to know and recovered from appellant's house, Khazie Mae's greenslippers, a pair of gold earrings, a buri mat, a stained pillow and a stained T-shirt all of which were presented as evidence for the prosecution. He was arraigned with the assistance of Atty. Rogelio Antiquiera of the PAO. Appellant pleaded guilty. The RTC convicted him. Hence an automatic review for the imposition of death penalty.

Issue:

Held: No. The records do not reveal that the Information against the appellant was read in the language or dialect known to him. The Information against the appellant is written in the English language. It is unknown whether the appellant knows the English language. Neither is it known what dialect is understood by the appellant. Nor is there any showing that the Information couched in English was translated to the appellant in his own dialect before his plea of guilt. The RTC violated section 1(a) of Rule 116, the rule implementing the constitutional right of the appellant to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It also denied appellant his constitutional right to due process of law. It is urged that we must presume that the arraignment of the appellant was regularly conducted. When life is at stake, we cannot lean on this rebuttable presumption. There could be no presumption. The court must be sure. The trial court violated section 3 of Rule 116 when it accepted the plea of guilt of the appellant. Said section requires that the court shall conduct a searching inquiry the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf. The trial court simply inquired if appellant had physical marks of maltreatment. It did not ask the appellant when he was arrested, who arrested him, how and where he was interrogated, whether he was medically examined before and after his interrogation, etc. It limited its efforts trying to discover late body marks of maltreatment as if involuntariness is caused by physical abuse alone. Further, there are physical evidence to prove Khazie was raped. These consists of a pillow with bloodstains in its center 14 and the T-shirt 15 of the accused colored white with bloodstains on its bottom. These physical evidence are evidence of the highest order. They strongly corroborate the testimony of Luisa Rebada that the victim was raped.These are inadmissible evidence for they were gathered by PO3 Danilo Tan of the Iloilo City PNP as a result of custodial interrogation where appellant verbally confessed to the crime without the benefit of counsel. ____________ People vs. Ramos Rosalinda was found by the RTC guilty of violating sections 4and 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act and was given a separatesentence for each. Heres what happened: According to the prosecution:

-A civilian informer came to the Narcotics Command Ofiice inOlongapo City and reported that a cigarette vendor known as Mama Rose is selling marijuana. -Captain Castillo instructed the informant to conduct a test-buy. He gave the informant 2 5-peso bills, the serial number of which he took note of. The informant came back withmarijuana.-He was instructed to conduct another test buy, and CaptainCastillo did the same thing with another2-peso bills, but thistime, a team of policemen went with him. They waited at a barwhile the informant was buying from the cigarette vendor.-When the informant came back, the team went to where theaccused was selling cigarettes and told her that she hadbeen placed under arrest for illegal peddling of marijuana.She was asked to take out her wallet and inside it, the teamfound the four 5-peso bills. One of the policemen searched the stall and found 20sticks of marijuana in the trash can. -She was taken to the station where she executed a statement to the Fiscal. According to the accused , She signed a document at the Fiscal's Office; that she wasasked if the contents of the document is (sic) true to whichshe answered 'No, sir; that she was not assisted by acounsel while being investigated . She also testified that shestayed at Narcom for five (5) days; that Capt. Castillo aloneinvestigated her for four (4) hours and that she likewise wasnot assisted by counsel at the Fiscal's Office. She claimedthat when she was told by the Fiscal to just sign thedocument, Fiscal Cabali did not say anything when she saidthat the contents of the document are not true. ISSUE: 1.WON the accuseds constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel were violated during the arrest. YES Held: Yes. The recital of her rights falls short of therequirement on proper apprisal of constitutionalrights. When the Constitution requires a personunder investigation 'to be informed' of his right toremain silent and to counsel, it must be presumed tocontemplate the transmission of meaningfulinformation rather than just the ceremonial andperfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutionalprinciple. As a rule, therefore, it would not besufficient for a police officer just to repeat to theperson under investigation the provisions of theConstitution. He is not only duty- bound to tell theperson the rights to which the latter is entitled; hemust also explain their effects in practical terms, e.g.,what the person under interrogation may or may not do, and in a language the subject fairly understands.As to right to counsel: Although the right to counsel isa right that may be waived, such waiver must bevoluntary, knowing and intelligent (People v. Caguioa,95 SCRA 2 [1980]).To insure that a waiver is voluntary and intelligent,the Constitution now requires that the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of the counsel of theaccused. There is no such written waiver in thiscase, much less was any waiver made in thepresence of counsel. The extrajudicial confession of the accused istherefore inadmissible in evidence _____ People vs. Suarez FACTS: On or about the 8th day of December, 1987 in the Municipality of Pasig, Estrelita Guzman was robbed and was killed in her own house. Suarez wanted his aunt killed so that he and his wife, Marivic Suarez, also the victims adop ted daughter, could get at once any property that Marivic might inherit from Estrellita upon the latter's death. In exchange for the job, Suarez would allow the other accused to steal what they wanted from the house, in addition to giving them P100,000.00 after one month from the killing of Estrellita. Two of the accused, Reyes and Lara, gave their sworn statement detailing what transpired from the planning until the execution of the crime. Relying on the extrajudicial confessions of the accused and on the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court found Suarez, Reyes and Lara guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.

While Suarez and Reyes have already accepted the trial court's verdict, Lara now questions the lower court's decision by challenging the admissibility of their extrajudicial declarations. He claims that their extrajudicial confessions were obtained through force and intimidation and without the benefit of an effective counsel. ISSUES: WON accused Laras extrajudicial confessions were freely and voluntary given and without the benefit of an effective counsel. HELD: After a thorough review of the records of the case, we agree with the lower court's factual finding and conclusion that the extrajudicial confessions of accused Reyes and appellant Lara were freely and voluntarily given and that their retraction and claims of violence and coercion were merely belated contrivances and efforts at exculpation. Their claim that they were forced to sign their respective statements was sufficiently refuted by the witnesses for the prosecution who were present on the day and time the duo gave and signed their sworn statements. We find no merit in herein appellant's contention that Atty. Saunar was not Reyes' own choice as counsel for the interrogation. While the initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection against the former's appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. 37 Here, while the lawyers of the accused were provided by the NBI, the accused never signified their desire to have a lawyer of their own choice. Thus, we also disagree with appellant's claim that the lawyer who assisted him in his waiver came in only after he had executed his waiver. His own statements show that he waived his rights in the presence and with the advice of Atty. Rodolfo Dahiroc. ________________ People vs. Duero Facts:Defendant was convicted of robbery with homicide and sentenced to death for the killing of hisgrandmother after robbing her. His conviction was based on a testimony of the Chief of Police that thedefendant voluntarily confessed to him to the killing and robbery, although he refused to sign astatement. HELD: In Miranda v. Arizona, it was held that in custodial investigation the suspect must be given thefollowing warnings: 1)He must be informed of his right to remain silent, in order to make him aware of the right, to overcome the inherent pressures of interrogation atmosphere, and to assure him that hisinterrogators are prepared to respect his privilege should he choose to exercise it; 2) He must be warnedthat anything said can and will be used against him in order to him aware not only of the privilege butalso of the consequences of foregoing it; 3) He has a right to counsel and that if is indigent, a lawyer willbe appointed to represent him. These warnings were not given to defendant. His oral confession,therefore is inadmissible _____________ Morales vs. Enrile In April 1982, Morales and some others were arrested while driving a motor vehicle in Laong-Laan St, QC. They were charged in CFI Rizal for rebellion punishable under the RPC. Morales alleged that they were arrested without any warrant of arrest; that their constitutional rights were violated, among them the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to a speedy and public trial, and the right to bail. Respondents countered that the group of Morales were already under surveillance for some time before they were arrested and that the warrantless arrest done is valid and at the same time the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was already suspended. ISSUE: Whether or not Morales et al can post bail. HELD: Normally, rebellion being a non-capital offense is bailable. But because the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus remains suspended with respect to persons at present detained as well as other who may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such

crimes, and for all other crimes and offenses committed by them in furtherance of or on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith, the natural consequence is that the right to bail for the commission of anyone of the said offenses is also suspended. To hold otherwise would defeat the very purpose of the suspension. Therefore, where the offense for which the detainee was arrested is anyone of the said offenses he has no right to bail even after the charges are filed in court. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct attacks on the life of the State. Just as an individual has right to self-defense when his life is endangered, so does the State. The suspension of the privilege of the writ is to enable the State to hold in preventive imprisonment pending investigation and trial those persons who plot against it and commit acts that endanger the States very existence. For this measure of self-defense to be effective, the right to bail must also be deemed suspended with respect to these offenses. However, there is a difference between preventive and punitive imprisonment. Where the filing of charges in court or the trial of such charges already filed becomes protracted without any justifiable reason, the detention becomes punitive in character and the detainee regains his right to freedom. Quite notable in this case however is that the 2nd division of the SC reiterated the Lansang Doctrine as opposed to what they ruled in the Garcia-Padilla Case. _______ People vs. Bolanos

Facts: Oscar Pagdalian was murdered in Marble Supply, Balagtas Bulacan. According to Pat. Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao, deceased was with two companions on the previous night, one of whom the accused who had a drinking spree with the deceased. When they apprehended the accused they found the firearm of the deceased on the chair where the accused was allegedly seated. They boarded accused along with Magtibay, other accused on the police vehicle and brought them to the police station. While in the vehicle Bolanos admitted that he killed the deceased. RTC convicted him hence the appeal.

Issue: Whether or Not accused-appellant deprived of his constitutional right to counsel.

Held: Yes. Being already under custodial investigation while on board the police patrol jeep on the way to the Police Station where formal investigation may have been conducted, appellant should have been informed of his Constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, more particularly par. 1 and par. 3.

Title: People v. De GuzmanG.R. Nos. 98321-24, June 30, 1993 Facts:Ricardo de Guzman y San Pedro, Vicente Jimenez y Bustamante, Joseph Cailang y Suan, Ruel Baclayon yGellemer, Leopoldo Cailang y Suan, Alex Barreto, Constantino Villanueva y Hermogenes, Victor Nuez, Jr. and CelsoBustamante were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu with three counts of murder and one count of frustratedmurder. On April 4, 1989, Major Antonio Carteciano was driving his private jeep toward Camp General Arcadio Maxilom.With him in the jeep were his wife, Lorna Carteciano, who was seated beside him, his mother-in-law, Juanita Ricaplaza, his13-year old son Reiser, his brother, Francisco Carteciano, Jr., a neighbor, Engr. Jose Bantug, Jr., and Bantug's daughter,Jennifer. Except for Major Carteciano and his wife, the rest were seated at the back of the jeep. On their way gunshots werefired at them in succession, hitting Major Carteciano, Francisco Carteciano, Jose Bantug, and Lorna Carteciano. The jeepcame to a full stop, several gunmen emerged from their hiding places and approached the jeep. Accused-appellant VictorNuez, Jr., demanded from Lorna Carteciano her husband's firearm. Lorna pleaded that there was nothing to give, offeringinstead her valuables. Thereupon, accused-appellant Nuez fired at Major Carteciano point-blank, hitting his head which wasresting on Lorna's lap Then the gunmen hijacked another jeep and took off . As a result of the, shooting, Major Antonio Carteciano, Francisco Carteciano, and Engineer Jose Bantug died. LornaCarteciano was seriously wounded, and would have died were it not for the timely medical assistance rendered to her. OnApril 7, 1989, 15 persons were presented to Juanita Ricaplaza and Lorna Carteciano where in both of them identified VictorNunez as one of the participants in the shooting. During the trial Juanita Ricaplaza, Lorna Carteciano, and Reiser Cartecianopositively identified him as one of the shooter and the one who shot Major Carteciano, in the head. The other 8 accusedwere acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt, while Victor Nuez was found guilty. He was sentenced to ReclusionPerpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the three criminal case filed against him.while in onother criminalcase he was also found guilty and sentenced to the minimum of prision mayor to Reclusion temporal to its maximum and tofurther indemnify the offended party Lorna Carteciano. Nuez claimed that his arrest was illegal and that he was deprived of his right to counsel when he was subjected to a paraffin test without the assistance of counsel.ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was deprived of his right to counsel when he was subjected to a paraffin test without theassistance of counsel.Ruling:No, the accused was not deprived of his right to counsel for at the time that he was subjected to a paraffin test hewas not under custodial investigation. The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of an investigation, that is, when theinvestigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the accused. At suchpoint or stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false orcoerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation. The court finds that the conviction of the accused-appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt therefore the appealed decision is hereby affirmed. ___________ People v Ramos (122 SCRA 312) FACTS: Police were on routine patrol along Taft when they observed Malcon Olevere acting suspiciously. The police officers identified themselves, stopped and frisked the suspect and found marijuana in him. Olevere was placed under arrest. Upon investigation, Olevere declared he boug ht it from Rogelio Ramos. A police team went to Ramos residence and arrested him. During custodial investigation Olevere executed a written sworn statement implicating Ramos. Ramos after having been informed of his constnal rights verbally admitted d commission of d offense & admitted selling to Olivere. Upon arraignment, ramos pleaded not guilty. The CFI found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The case was raised to d SC for automatic review.

ISSUE: Whether there is competent and/or admissible evidence to justify convixn HELD: NO!!! ACQUITTED SYA! Malcolm Olevere executed a written sworn statement declaring that Ramos sold him mj. This pc of evdence is a mere scrap of paper b/c Olevere was not produced in copurt for cross-examination. An affidavit being taken exparte is often incomplete and inaccurate. Such kind of evidence is hearsay. The constnal right to meet witnesses face-to-face in order not to deprive persons of their lives and properties without due process of law is well-protected in our jurisprudence. D inadmissibility of this sort of evdence is based, not only on d lack of opportunity on d part of d adverse party to cross-examine d affiant, but also on d fact that an affidavit is not prepared by d affiant himself but by another who uses his own language in writing d affiants statements w/c may either be omittd/ misunderstood by d 1 writing the, Proof that mj leaves was recovered from a person does not necessarily prove that d accused had been selling mj leaves, incl d recovered mj from d person. Proof of 1 does not prove another. Oral testimony of prosecution witnesses 4 d prosecutn not being based on personal knowledge are considered hearsay. Rule 130, Sec 30 of Rules of Court provides that a witness can testifyu only to those facts which he knows of his own knowledge, that is , a witness therefore may not testify as to what he merely learned from others, either b/c he was told or having read or heard d same. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not b receivd as proof of d truth of what he has learned. The SC is not convincd that d apprisal of constnal rights was sufficiently manifestd and intelligently understood and acceptd by appellant. Ramos finishd til Gr 6 only w/c means that hes not ade quately educated to understand fairly & fully d significance of his constnal right to counsel. Its not enuf that police inform him of his right to silence and counsel. Police must be patient in xplaining rights. This req not fully complied w/. Verbal admissions cant b taken as evdence _____________ People v. Macam GR No. 91011-12 The right to a counsel attaches upon the start of the investigation, i.e. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information, confessions, or admissions fr the accused. FACTS: Kapal-muks Eduardo Macam & his friends went over to Be nito Macams house (sila ay mag-tito). After having lunch, Ed grabbed Benitos clutch bag, pulled out Benitos gun, & announced a goddam hold -up. Benitos household (Leticia Macam, Nilo Alcantara, & Salvacion Enrera) were brought to a room upstairs. They were brought to another room where Leticia was killed & the others stabbed. Akala nyo, mamatay rin kayo!!! Nilo Alcantara testified that he saw Danilo Roque with Leticia in the bathroom & that he heard her scream b4 he was stabbed by Antonio Cedro. Sari-sari ang kanilang ninakaw: firearms, Sanyo betamax, Sony Trinitron, Toyota Crown car, money, jewelries. Hah! Pati chess board di pinatawad! Macam et al were held guilty of Roberry with Homicide. Eugenio Cawilan was held liable under the Anti-Fencing Law. TC affirmed.

Danilo Roque testified that he merely brought the thugs to Benitos place (after being given a calling card) & that after eating lunch, Ed suddenly announced the hold-up. He followed the orders of Ed out of fear for his life. Later, he collected his share fr the crime at the Zesto factory. The guards apprehended & detained them. Later, they were brought to the QC headquarters where they were forced to admit certain acts. Bec of their refusal to admit the crime, they were brought to QC Gen Hospital where Salvacion, Benito, & Nilo pinpointed them as the perpetrators.

ISSUE: Whether Ed & co. should be held liable for robbery with homicide. HELD: NO! Y oh y? Gamboa v. Cruz: The right to a counsel attaches upon the start of the investigation, i.e. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information, confessions, or admissions fr the accused. RATIONALE: Historically, the counsel guarantee was intended to assure the assistance of counsel at the trial, inasmuch as the accused was confronted with both the intricacies of the law & the advocacy of the public prosecutor. However, as a result of the changes in patterns of police investigation, todays accused confronts both expert adversaries & the judicial system well b4 his trial begins. It is therefore appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even b4 the trial. The law enforcement machinery involves critical confrontations of the accused by the prosecution at pre-trial proceedings where the result might well settle the accuseds fate & reduce the trial to a mere formality. A police line -up is considered a critical stage of the proceedings. (Na-over-rule na ata to.) 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 first talked to the victims b4 the confrontation was held. The circumstances were such as to impart improper suggestions on the minds of the victims that may lead to a mistaken identification. Appellants were handcuffed & had contusions on their faces. The prosecution did not present evidence regarding the appellan ts identification at the line-up. Hence the exclusionary sanctions against the admission in evidence of custodial ID of an uncounseled accused cannot be applied. Appellants, however, did not object to the in-court ID made by the prosecution witnesses as being tainted by the illegal line-up. Defect of arrest w/o warrant was cured by their subsequent submission to the jurisdxn of the court. There was conspiracy between appellants & the other accused. (1) Why did Danilo Roque agree to take Ed & Co. to a place outside of his route without being paid but was merely given a calling card? (2) Why did he eat lunch w/ them & afterwards washed the dishes & swept the floor? Eh ako rin nagtaka kung bat sya nagwalis. (3) Danilo was the one who gathered the stolen goods & it was a puzzle how he escaped. (4) Danilo did not mention the incident to any1. Evidence was insufficient to overcome the testimonies of the witnesses who positively identified them as their assailants. The Constitution does not create any presumption of guilt against the accused who opts not to take the witness stand. That is his right. But he cannot rely on a co-accuseds denial. _____________

People v Marra (Gr 108494, Sept 20, 1994) FACTS: Samuel Marra, Allan Tan (Yao), and Does were charged w/ d crime of murder. Eyewitness Din & victim Tandoc were conversing in front of a hotel when a man passd by & gave them d finger. They followd him, & then confronted him. 2 men arrived & inquired what was going on. Tandoc unexpectedly slapped 1 of them. A brawl ensued. Later on when they were back in d hotel, a man in a security guards (SG) uniform shot Tandoc with a revolver. Tandoc died eventually. Din told d police abt d incident. D police asked a SG if he heard abt d incident, d SG said yes and pointed to Marra as d SG they sought. Marra was no longer wearing his uniform. D police askd if he was d SG of Lindas ihaw-ihaw. Marra said yes. He was asked a series of questions & then they went to Marras house to see his firearm. D police saw 1 spent shell. D police point-blank asked him why he shot Tandoc. Marra

denied, but admitted it later on, but said he did so b/c of self-defense. Din positively identified him. Trial court found him guilty. He appealed.

ISSUE: Whether he was under custodial investigatn when he admittd d killing, but invoked self-defense HELD: NO! He wasnt under custodial investigatn & there was no coercion whatsoever to compel him to make such a statement. The constnal procedure on custodial investigatn is not applicable in this case. Custodial investigatn involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement ofcers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of axn in any significant way. Its only after d i nvestigatn ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect, d suspect is taken into custody & d police carries out a process of interrogatns that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that d rule begins to operate. The law provides that d declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of d offense charged or of any offense necessarily included therein may b given in evidence against him & in certain circumstances, this admission may b considered as part of d res gestae. Crime not aggravated by nighttime, b/c no evidence was presentd to show that nocturnity was sought to facilitate commission of d crime. _____________ FACTS: Gregorio Taylaran killed his grandmother-in-law when he went to the latters house for the purpose of treating his snakebite. According to policeman Demetrio Basilad, Taylaran confessed to him that he killed the victim because she promised to kill him with a barang (witchcraft) The defense of the accused was that it was merely an accident. This was not credible because of the many wounds the victim received. Also, after the incident he went to the house of the daughter of the victim but was not allowed to enter, showing that his actions were more dangerous than apologetic. The testimony of Basilad was credible, him being an impartial witness. Taylaran was found guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment. ISSUE: Whether petitioner may invoke Art. IV, Sec. 20 of the Constitution. RULINGS: NO. The applicability of the foregoing provision does not seem to contemplate cases where no written confession was sought and presented in evidence as a result of formal custodial investigation. What was testified to is only what appellant told the police why he is surrendering to them. It is but natural for one who surrenders to the police to give reason or explanation for his act of surrendering. It can hardly be said that under such circumstance, the surrenderee is already under investigation within the meaning of the constitutional provision. If however, one voluntarily admits the killing and it was precisely because he surrendered to admit the killing, the constitutional safeguards to be informed of his rights to silence and to counsel may not be invoked. The issue was that of credibility, which was rightfully obtained by the prosecution.