INVESTIGATION
Miranda vs. Arizona [384 US 436, 13 June 1966]
Facts: [No. 759; Miranda vs. Arizona] On 13 March
1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home
and taken in custody to a Phoenix police station.
He was there identified by the complaining
witness. The police then took him to
"Interrogation Room No. 2" of the detective
bureau. There he was questioned by two police
officers. The officers did not advise Miranda that
he had a right to have an attorney present. Two
hours later, the officers emerged from the
interrogation room with a written confession
signed by Miranda. At the top of the statement
was a typed paragraph stating that the
confession was made voluntarily, without threats
or promises of immunity and "with full knowledge
of my legal rights, understanding any statement I
make may be used against me." At his trial before
a jury, the written confession was admitted into
evidence over the objection of defense counsel,
and the officers testified to the prior oral
confession made by Miranda during the
interrogation. Miranda was found guilty of
kidnapping and rape. He was sentenced to 20 to
30 years' imprisonment on each count, the
sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, the
Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's
constitutional rights were not violated in
obtaining the confession and affirmed the
conviction. In reaching its decision, the court
emphasized heavily the fact that Miranda did not
specifically request counsel.
[No. 760, Vignera vs. New York] Michael Vignera,
was picked up by New York police on 14 October
1960, in connection with the robbery three days
earlier of a Brooklyn dress shop. They took him to
the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in
Manhattan. Sometime thereafter he was taken to
the 66th Detective Squad. While at the 66th
Detective Squad, Vignera was identified by the
store owner and a saleslady as the man who
robbed the dress shop. At about 3 p. m. he was
formally arrested. The police then transported
him to still another station, the 70th Precinct in
Brooklyn, "for detention." At 11 p. m. Vignera was
questioned by an assistant district attorney in the
presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed
the questions and Vignera's answers. This
verbatim account of these proceedings contains
no statement of any warnings given by the
assistant district attorney. At Vignera's trial on a
charge of first degree robbery, the detective
testified as to the oral confession. The
1 | N i k k i T. S i a | W L C
Constitutional Law II
Feb 29, 2016
Case
Pool
Circuit.
[No. 584, California vs. Stewart] In the course
of investigating a series of purse-snatch
Case
Pool
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS
1. People vs. Lugod [GR 136253, 21
February 2001]
Facts: On 15 September 1997 at around
7:00 p.m., Helen Ramos was asleep in her
house together with her husband (Danilo
Ramos) and children, Nimrod, Neres and
Nairube, the victim. Nairube slept close to
her "on the upper part" of her body. At
around 12:30 a.m., her husband woke her
up because he sensed someone going
down the stairs of their house. She
noticed that Nairube was no longer in the
place where she was sleeping but she
assumed that Nairube merely answered
the call of nature. Nairube's blanket was
also no longer at the place she slept but
that her slippers were still there. After
3 | N i k k i T. S i a | W L C
Constitutional Law II
Feb 29, 2016
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
14 April 1999]
Facts: On 13 May 1996 between 6:00 and
6:30 p.m., Paul Vincent Alonzo stopped
his tricycle by the side of Nita's
Drugstore, General Luna St., Cabanatuan
City, when three women flagged him.
Parked at a distance of about 1 meters
in front of him was a tricycle driven by
Joselito del Rosario y Pascual. At that
point, Alonzo saw 2 men and a woman
(Virginia Bernas) grappling for possession
of a bag. After taking hold of the bag one
of the two men (Ernesto "Jun" Marquez)
armed with a gun started chasing a man
who was trying to help the woman, while
the other snatcher ("Dodong" Bisaya)
kicked the woman sending her to the
ground. Soon after, the armed man
returned and while the woman was still
on the ground he shot her on the head.
The bag taken by the man was brought to
the tricycle of del Rosario where someone
inside (Virgilio "Boy" Santos) received the
bag. The armed man then sat behind the
driver while his companion entered the
sidecar. When the tricycle sped away
Alonzo gave chase and was able to get
the plate number of the tricycle. He also
recognized the driver, after which he
went to the nearest police headquarters
and reported the incident. Upon finding
the name of the owner of the tricycle,
SP04 Geronimo de Leon and his team
proceeded to Bakod Bayan in the house
of the barangay captain where the owner
of the tricycle was summoned and who in
turn revealed the driver's name and was
invited
for
interview.
Del
Rosario
volunteered to name his passengers on
13 May 1996. On the way to the police
station, del Rosario informed them of the
bag and lunch kit's location and the place
where the hold-uppers may be found and
they reported these findings to their
officers, Capt. Biag and Capt. Cruz. After
lunch, they proceeded to Brgy. Dicarma
composed of 15 armed men where a
5 | N i k k i T. S i a | W L C
Constitutional Law II
Feb 29, 2016
Case
Pool
July 1992]
Facts: The death of the victim, Oscar
Pagdalian, was communicated to the Police
Station where Patrolmen Rolando Alcantara
and Francisco Dayao of the Integrated
6 | N i k k i T. S i a | W L C
Constitutional Law II
Feb 29, 2016
Case
Pool
Held:
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, Bolanos should have been
informed of his Constitutional rights under
February 1999]
Facts: Larry Mahinay y Amparado started
working as houseboy with Maria Isip on 20
November 1993. His task was to take care of
Isip's house which was under construction
adjacent to her old residence situated inside
a compound at No. 4165 Dian Street, Gen. T.
de Leon, Valenzuela, Metro Manila. mahinay
stayed and slept in an apartment also owned
by Isip, located 10 meters away from the
unfinished house. The victim, Ma. Victoria
Chan, 12 years old, was Isip's neighbor in
Dian Street. She used to pass by Isip's house
on her way to school and play inside the
compound yard, catching maya birds
together with other children. On 25 June
1995, at 8:00 a.m., Mahinay joined Gregorio
Rivera in a drinking spree. Around 10 a.m.,
7 | N i k k i T. S i a | W L C
Constitutional Law II
Feb 29, 2016
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
1989]
Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk
of the Philippine Airlines (PAL), assigned at
its Baguio City station. It having allegedly
come to light that he was involved in
irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, the
PAL management notified him of an
investigation to be conducted into the matter
of 9 February 1986. That investigation was
scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of
Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective
Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the
Philippine Airlines Employees' Association
(PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. On the
day before the investigation, 8 February
1986, Ramos gave to his superiors a
handwritten note stating the at he was
willing to settle irregularities allegedly
charged against him in the amount of
P76,000
(approximately)
subject
to
conditions as may be imposed by PAL on or
before 1700/9 February 1986. At the
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
questioning
by
the
examining team,
however, Malla admitted that she lent the
amount of P87,000.00 to steno-reporter
Edelita Lagmay, P40,000.00 to stenoreporter Nieva Mercado, and P81,000.00 to
Mrs. Sumilang, wife of Judge Sumilang. She
spent P32,000.00 for the hospitalization of
her husband and the remaining balance for
personal purposes. Later on, she executed an
affidavit stating that only Lagmay and
Mercado
borrowed
P55,000.00
and
P40,000.00, respectively. On the other hand,
she used P100,000.00 for her personal
needs. Upon learning that they were being
implicated in the anomalous transaction,
Lagmay executed an affidavit stating that
the amount of P55,000.00 was from the
personal account of Malla and not from the
P240,000.00 amount deposited before the
court and such loan has already been paid.
Mercado, on the other hand, claims that the
amount of P40,000.00 was borrowed only
two weeks before the audit took place, when
Malla was no longer employed with the court.
Mrs. Sumilang, for her part, denied any
involvement in any of the transactions. Judge
Augusto Sumilang, Felicidad Malla, Edelita
Lagmay
and
Nieva
Mercado,
court
employees of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Pila, Laguna were charged in a memorandum
report by the Office of Court Administrator
dated 16 August 1994, for misappropriating
funds deposited by Spouses Entero Villarica
and Felicidad Domingo in Civil Case 858. On
5 October 1994, the Supreme Court issued a
resolution treating the memorandum report
as
an
administrative
complaint
(Administrative
Matter
MTJ-94-989).
In
addition, a second complaint was lodged
against Malla for removing judicial records
outside the court premises. The Court
decided to include this matter in the original
complaint earlier docketed as AM MTJ-94-989
in a resolution dated 6 March 1995.
Issue: Whether Malla's constitutional rights
were violated when she signed an affidavit
dated 14 September 1994 before the Office
of the Court Administrator, where she
admitted her misdeed.
Held: The constitutional provision under
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution may
be
invoked
only
during
"custodial
investigation"
or
as
in
"custody
investigation" which has been defined as
"questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom
of action in any significant way." The
investigation is defined as an "investigation
conducted by police authorities which will
include investigation conducted by the
Municipal Police, P.C. (now PNP) and the NBI
and such other police agencies in our
government." Thus, the Office of the Court
Administrator can hardly be deemed to be
the law enforcement authority contemplated
in the constitutional provision. At any rate,
Malla admitted during her testimony that she
received the said check from Villarica
covering the amount of P240,000.00 payable
to Dizon. However, when she tried to deposit
it with the Municipal Treasurer, the latter
refused because there was no order from
Judge Sumilang. Consequently, Villarica
entrusted said check to her. It was at this
juncture that she used the money for
personal purposes. During the investigation,
Malla repeated what she basically stated in
her affidavit i.e., that she used a substantial
amount of the P240,000.00 for her personal
needs. This effectively refutes whatever
pressure and coercion she claims was
employed against her. By repeating her
confession in open court, Malla thereby
converted it into a judicial confession.
People v. Uy (G.R. No. 157399)
Facts: The accused in this case accused Uy at the time
stated in the information was a Treasurer at the
NPC; accused Ernesto Gamus was at the time
mentioned in the information was the Manager of Loan
Management and Foreign Exchange Division
(LOMAFED); Jaime Ochoa was the Senior Financial
Analyst, LOMAFED, at the time mentioned in the
information; Gamus does not have any custody to public
funds; Ochoas position as Sr. Financial Analyst did not
require him to take custody or control of public funds.
In July of 1990, the National Power Corporation (NPC)
became embroiled in a controversy involving the
disappearance of P183,805,291.25 of its funds which
were originally on deposit with the Philippine National
Bank, NPC Branch (PNB) but were subsequently used
to purchase two (2) managers/cashiers checks (the first
check was in the amount of P70,000,000.00 while the
11 | N i k k i T . S i a | W L C
Constitutional Law II
Feb 29, 2016
Case
Pool
People vs. Jaime Ochoa, et.al, G.R. No. 157399, November 17,
2005
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that to be found guilty
of malversation, the prosecution must prove the the
offender is a public officer; that he has the custody or
control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his
office; that the funds or property involved are public
funds or property for which he is accountable; and that
he has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has
consented to, or through abandonment or negligence,
permitted the taking by another person of, such funds or
property.
The Supreme Court further ruled that Malversation may
be committed either through a positive act of
misappropriation of public funds or property or passively
through negligence by allowing another to commit such
misappropriation. To sustain a charge of malversation,
there must either be criminal intent or criminal
negligence and while the prevailing facts of a case may
not show that deceit attended the commission of the
offense, it will not preclude the reception of evidence to
prove the existence of negligence because both are
equally punishable in Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code.
More pointedly, the felony involves breach of public trust,
and whether it is committed through deceit or
negligence, the law makes it punishable and prescribes
a uniform penalty therefor. Even when the information
charges willful malversation, conviction for malversation
through negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence
ultimately proves that mode of commission of the
offense.
The Supreme Court explicitly stated that even on the
putative assumption that the evidence against petitioner
yielded a case of malversation by negligence but the
information was for intentional malversation, under the
circumstances of this case his conviction under the first
mode of misappropriation would still be in order.
Malversation is committed either intentionally or by
negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense
is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even
if the mode charged differs from mode proved, the same
offense of malversation is involved and conviction
thereof is proper. The question of whether or not an
information charging the commission of the crime by
means of deceit will preclude a conviction on the basis of
negligence is neither novel nor of first impression. An
accused charged with willful or intentional falsification
can validly be convicted of falsification through
negligence.
12 | N i k k i T . S i a | W L C
Constitutional Law II
Feb 29, 2016
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxx
Case
Pool
POLICE LINE-UP
1. Gamboa vs. Cruz [GR L-56291, 27
June 1988]
Facts: On 19 July 1979, at about 7:00 a.m.,
Christopher Gamboa y Gonzales was
arrested for vagrancy, without a warrant of
arrest, by Patrolman Arturo Palencia.
Thereafter, Gamboa was brought to Precinct
2, Manila, where he was booked for vagrancy
and then detained therein together with
several others. The following day, 20 July
1979, during the lineup of 5 detainees,
including Gamboa, Erlinda B. Bernal pointed
to Gamboa and said, "that one is a
companion." After the identification, the
other detainees were brought back to their
cell but Gamboa was ordered to stay on.
While Bernal was being interrogated by the
police investigator, Gamboa was told to sit
down in front of her. On 23 July 1979, an
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
March 1980]
Facts: At around 10:00 a.m. of 14 January
1976, Celso Saminado, a prisoner in the
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
27 May 1994]
Facts: On 27 January 1986, at around 10:00
p.m., 6 armed men barged into the
compound of Polo Coconut Plantation in
Tanjay, Negros Oriental. The armed men
were identified by Security Guard Antonio
Salva of the plantation as Aurelio Bandula,
Teofilo Dionanao, Victoriano Ejan and
Pantaleon Sedigo while the two others who
wore masks were simply referred to as "Boy
Tall" and "Boy Short." At gunpoint, the 2
masked men held Salva who was manning
his post, disarmed him of his shotgun and
tied his hands behind his back. They then
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
Case
Pool
29 | N i k k i T . S i a | W L C
Constitutional Law II
Feb 29, 2016
Case
Pool