PEOPLE VS GALIT

MARCH 20, 1985

FACTS:
The prisoner was arrested for killing the victim oil the occasion of a robbery. He had
been detained and interrogated almost continuously for five days, to no avail. He
consistently maintained his innocence. There was no evidence to link him to the
crime. Obviously, something drastic had to be done. A confession was absolutely
necessary. So the investigating officers began to maul him and to torture him
physically. Still the prisoner insisted on his innocence. His will had to be broken. A
confession must be obtained. So they continued to maltreat and beat him. 'They
covered his face with a rag and pushed his face into a toilet bowl full of human
waste. The prisoner could not take any more. His body could no longer endure the
pain inflicted on him and the indignities he had to suffer. His will had been broken.
He admitted what the investigating officers wanted him to admit and he signed the
confession they prepared. Later, against his will, he posed for pictures as directed
by his investigators, purporting it to be a reenactment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused was informed of his constitutional rights to remain
silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might make could be used against
him.
RULING:
Such a long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the
requirements of the law that the accused be informed of his rights under the
Constitution and our laws. Instead there should be several short and clear questions
and every right explained in simple words in a dialect or language known to the
person under investigation. Accused is from Samar and there is no showing that he
understands Tagalog. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, accused was not permitted
to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or a friend. In fact, his sisters and other
relatives did not know that he had been brought to the NBI for investigation and it
was only about two weeks after he had executed the salaysay that his relatives
were allowed to visit him. His statement does not even contain any waiver of right
to counsel and yet during the investigation he was not assisted by one. At the
supposed reenactment, again accused was not assisted by counsel of his choice.
These constitute gross violations of his rights.

People vs. Lugod

GR 136253, 21 February 2001

Facts:
A case with rape with homicide was filed against the accused, Clemente John Lugod,
for allegedly raping the eight-year old victim, Nairube J. Ramos and dumping her
body in the grassy coconut plantation area.
On September 15, 1997 at around 7:00 p.m., Helen Ramos, the victim's mother,
was asleep in her house together with her husband and their children, Nimrod,
Neres and Nairube. At around 12:30 a.m., they noticed that Nairube was gone. The
backdoor of their house was left open where a pair of slippers that did not belong to
the family was found. In the morning, the police began their search for Nairube
wherein a panty belonging to the victim was found, as well as a black collared shirt
belonging to the accused, Lugod. Witnesses testified that both slippers and the shirt
were worn by Lugod. Lugod was then brought to the police station where he was
temporarily incarcerated. Although he admitted to SP02 Gallardo that he raped and
killed Nairube, Lugod refuses to make a statement regarding the same.
On September 19, 1997, the Vice-Mayor visited the accused in his cell. In the course
of his conversation with Lugod, Lugod allegedly confessed to the commission of the
offense. Lugod was charged for rape with homicide. After trial, Lugod was found
guilty and was sentenced to death. Hence, the automatic review.
Issue:
Wheter of not Lugod's alleged confession can be used against him.
Held:
At the time of his arrest, records reveal that accused-appellant was not informed of
his constitutuional rights to remain silent and his rights to counsel. There is also no
evidence to indicate that he intended
to waive these rights. Consequently, the accused-appellant's act of confession to
SPO2 Gallardo that he raped and killed Nairube without the assistance of counsel
cannot be used against him for having transgressed accused-appellant's right under
the Bill of Rights. This is a basic tenet of our constitution which cannot be
disregarded or ignored no matter how brutal the crime committed may be.

PEOPLE VS TABOGA
FACTS:
Edralin Taboga was charged with Robbery with Homicide in an Information which
reads that with intent to gain, and with violence against persons, entered the house
of one Francisca Tubon , and once inside, with treachery and abuse of superior
strength, assault, attacked and stabbed Tubon, thereby inflicting upon her mortal
wounds which necessarily caused the death of said Tubon and took away several
personal properties belonging to Tubon. He was likewise indicted for Arson for
setting the
victims house on fire. After finding the burnt house and charred body of Tubon,
Baranggay Captain Pagao confronted Taboga, and the latter readily admitted that
he killed Tubon and set her house on fire, causing the whole house, including the
dead body of the old woman, to be burned. Taboga was brought to the police station
for further investigation. Mr. Mario Contaoi, a radio announcer of DZNS, went to
Police Station to interview the suspect. Again, Taboga admitted killing the deceased
and setting her and her house on fire. Upon arraignment, accused-appellant entered
separate pleas of "Not Guilty" to the crimes charged and interposed an alibi.
Accused-appellant also claimed that he was maltreated by the policemen and forced
to admit the crime. Regarding his admission to radio announcer Contaoi, he
narrated that the interview was held inside the investigation room of the police
station where policemen were present and that the reporter acted as an agent for
the prosecution. Thus, he had to admit the crimes because he was afraid of the
policemen. The RTC rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of both crimes.
ISSUE:
Whether or not confession made by the accused to a radio reporter, a private
person, can be admitted as evidence against him.
HELD:
Yes. There is nothing in the record to show that the radio announcer colluded with
the police authorities to elicit inculpatory evidence against accused-appellant.
Neither is there anything on record which even remotely suggests that the radio
announcer was instructed by the police to extract information from him on the

PEOPLE VS ORDOO
JUNE 29, 2000
FACTS:
The records show that on 5 August 1994 the decomposing body of a young girl was
found among the bushes near a bridge in Barangay Poblacion, Santol, La Union. The
girl was later identified as Shirley Victore, fifteen (15) years old, a resident of
Barangay Guesset, Poblacion,Santol, La Union, who three (3) days before was
reported missing. Post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Arturo Llavore, a
medico-legal officer of the NBI, revealed that the victim was raped and strangled to
death. Unidentified sources pointed to Pacito Ordoo and Apolonio Medina as the
authors of the crime. Acting on this lead, the police thereupon invited the two (2)
suspects and brought them to the police station for questioning. However, for lack
of evidence then directly linking them to the crime, they were allowed to go home.
On 10 August 1994 the accused Pacito Ordoo and Apolonio Medina returned to the
police station one after another and acknowledged that they had indeed committed
the crime. Acting on their admission, the police immediately conducted an
investigation and put their confessions in writing. The investigators however could
not at once get the services of a lawyer to assist the two (2) accused in the course
of the investigation because there were no practicing lawyers in the Municipality of
Santol, a remote town of the Province of La Union. Be that as it may, the statements
of the two (2) accused where nevertheless taken. But before doing so, both accused
were apprised in their own dialect of their constitutional right to remain silent and to
be assisted by a competent counsel of their choice. Upon their acquiescence and
assurance that they understood their rights and did not require the services of
counsel, theinvestigation was conducted with the Parish Priest, the Municipal Mayor,
the Chief of Police and other police officers of Santol, La Union, in attendance to
listen to and witness the giving of the voluntary statements of the two (2) suspects
who admitted their participation in the crime. But in arraignment the accused
pleaded not guilty.
ISSUE:
Whether or not their confession is inadmissible in evidence mainly the lack of
counsel to assist them during custodial investigation.
RULING:
Under the Constitution and the rules laid down pursuant to law and jurisprudence, a
confession to be admissible in evidence must satisfy four (4) fundamental
requirements: (a) the confession must be voluntary; (b) the confession must be
made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (c) the confession
must be express; and, (d) the confession must be in writing. Among all these
requirements none is accorded the greatest respect than an accused has the right
to counsel to adequately protect him in his ignorance and shield him from the
otherwise condemning nature of a custodial investigation. The person being
interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of
extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person
undergoing interrogation for the commission of the offense. Hence, if there is no
counsel at the start of the custodial investigation any statement elicited from the
accused is inadmissible in evidence against him.

People vs. Baloloy

381 SCRA 31
FACTS:
At the waterfalls of Barangay Inasagan, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur, on the evening
of August 3, 1996, the dead body of an 11-year-old girl Genelyn Camacho was
found. Autopsy reports found that Genelyn was raped before she was drowned. The
one who caused its discovery was accused-appellant Juanito Baloloy himself, who
claimed that he had caught sight of it while he was catching frogs in a nearby creek.
While in the wake of Genelyn, Juanito confessed to the Barangay Captain that he
only wanted to frighten the girl but ended up raping and throwing her body in the
ravine. While in the custody of the authorities, he was asked incriminating questions
by Judge Dicon who justified his actions saying that Juanito was not yet in custodial
investigation. Based on his alleged extrajudicial confession, coupled with
circumstantial evidence, the trial court found Juanito guilty of rape with homicide
and sentenced him to death. On appeal, Juanito maintains that the trial court
violated Section 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution when it admitted in evidence
his alleged extrajudicial confession to Barangay Captain Ceniza and Judge Dicon.
According to him, the two failed to inform him of his constitutional rights before they
took it upon themselves to elicit from him the incriminatory information. It is of no
moment that Ceniza and Dicon are not police investigators, for as public officials it
was incumbent upon them to observe the express mandate of the Constitution.
While these rights may be waived, the prosecution failed to show that he effectively
waived his rights through a written waiver executed in the presence of counsel. He
concludes that his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Juanitos extrajudicial confession before the barangay captain
wasadmissible.
2. Whether or not Juanitos extrajudicial confession before the judge was admissible.
HELD:
1. YES. As to his confession with the Baragay Captain Ceniza, it has been held that
the constitutional provision on custodial investigation does not apply to a
spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities but
given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having committed
the crime. Neither can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a suspect in
the commission of a crime before he is placed under investigation. What the
Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions.
In the instant case, Juanito voluntarily narrated to Ceniza that he raped GENELYN
and thereafter threw her body into the ravine. This narration was a spontaneous
answer, freely and voluntarily given in an ordinary manner. It was given before he
was arrested or placed under custody for investigation in connection with the
commission of the offense. Moreover, Juanito did not offer any evidence of improper
or ulterior motive on the part of Ceniza, which could have compelled her to testify
falsely against him.
2. NO. However, there is merit in Juanitos claim that his constitutional rights during
custodial investigation were violated by Judge Dicon when the latter propounded to
him incriminating questions without informing him of his constitutional rights. It is
settled that at the moment the accused voluntarily surrenders to, or is arrested by,
the police officers, the custodial investigation is deemed to have started. So, he
could not thenceforth be asked about his complicity in the offense without the
assistance of counsel. Judge Dicon's claim that no complaint has yet been filed and

that neither was he conducting a preliminary investigation deserves scant

consideration. The fact remains that at that time Juanito was already under the
custody of the police authorities, who had already taken the statement of the
witnesses who were then before Judge Dicon for the administration of their oaths on
their statements.