Anda di halaman 1dari 25

Homar v People o The intent to arrest only came after they confiscated the shabu.

September 02, 2015 | J. Brion


Given that there was no proper arrest, the search incident to that arrest
PO1 Tan, together with C/A Ronald Tangcoy, onboard a mobile hunter, is also not valid.
saw Homar crossing a No Jaywalking portion of Roxas Boulevard
o They accosted Homar and told him to cross at the pedestrian
area The waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of
o Homar picked up something from the ground. They frisked him the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.
and recovered a knife. They then searched his body and found
shabu. Homar acquitted.
RTC convicted Homar for violation of RA 9165 (Dangerous Drug Act)
o CA affirmed RTC People v Mahinay
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari February 01, 1999 | Per Curiam
o Homar alleges that the shabu is inadmissible as it was obtained SUMMARY: Mahinay was arrested for the rape with homicide of Ma. Victoria Chan.
from an unlawful arrest He was informed of his constitutional rights. He, assisted by counsel gave an
extrajudicial confession, admitting to the crime. This, along with other circumstantial
W/N THE EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE - NO evidence, was appreciated by the Court to sustain his conviction. The Court also gave
guidelines for law enforcement regarding the observance of accuseds Miranda
Prosecution failed to prove that a lawful warrantless arrest preceded Rights.
the search
To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must FACTS:
concur: Mahinay, Maria Isips houseboy, was in a drinking spree with Gregorio Rivera
Ma. Victoria Chan (12 y.o. and neighbor of Isip) went missing
1. Overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
The next morning (June 26, 1995), at around 7:30, a certain Boy found the dead
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime
body of Ma Victoria inside a septic tank
2. Such overt act is done in the presence of or within the view of the At the scene of the crime, a pair of blue slippers, underwear, leather wallet, dirty
arresting officer. long pants, and pliers were found. Isip indentified them as Mahinays belongings.
In the case at hand, the prosecution failed to prove that Homar was Mahinay was then arrested in Batangas. He was brought to Valenzuela Police
committing a crime Station.
o Tan merely stated that Homar was crossing a street not o With the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes, Mahinay executed an
designated for crossing extra-judicial confession wherein he narrated in detail how he raped and
o Aside from this, there was no proof showing that Homar was killed the victim
crossing in a no jaywalking area. Mahinay was charged with rape with homicide.
o He was not even charged of jaywalking. o He pleaded not guilty
Lower court convicted Mahinay of the crime charged (death penalty)
o Presumption of regularity cannot trump presumption of
Hence, this automatic review.
innocence.
Furthermore, Tan and Tangcoy did not intend to arrest Homar for W/N MAHINAY IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT YES
jaywalking
o The application of actual force, manual touching of the body, or In the case at hand, there are several circumstantial evidence establishing the
physical restraint, or a formal declaration of arrest are required crime of rape with homicide:
o It is sufficient that there be an intention on the part of one of the 1. Witness Norgina Rivera, owner of the house where the crime happened
parties to arrest the other, and that there be an intent on the part and the septic tank, testified that she saw Mahinay the evening on June 25,
of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that 1995 in front of the house.
2. Sgt. Roberto G. Suni testidied that he met accused Larry Mahinay that
submission is necessary.
same night walking on the road leading said house. He also saw victim
o In this case, Tan and Tangcoy accosted him and told him to Maria Victoria Chan standing at the gate of the same house in the same
cross in the proper area. They did not intend to arrest him for the evening.
alleged jaywalking.
3. Maria Isip testified that Larry Mahinay is her houseboy asked permission 5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed
from her to leave but he never returned until he was arrested in Batangas. that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the
4. Fernando Trinidad, jeepney driver, pinpointed Mahinay as one of his presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;
passengers at 2am on June 26, 1995. 6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to
5. Personal belongings of the victim were found in the house where accused communicate or confer by the most expedient means telephone, radio,
Larry Mahinay slept on the night of the incident. letter or messenger with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any
6. Larry Mahinay during the custodial investigation and after having been member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister
informed of his constitutional rights with the assistance of Atty. chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel,
Restituto Viernes of the Public Attorneys Office voluntarily gave his or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-
statement admitting the commission of the crime. government organization. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to
Atty. Viernes informed and explained to him his rights and was ensure that this is accomplished;
present all throughout the giving of testimony. 7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights
There being no evidence presented to show that said confession were provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that
obtained as a result of violence, torture, maltreatment, intimidation, he understood the same;
threat or promise of reward or leniency nor that the investigating 8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be
officer could have been motivated to concoct the facts narrated in said informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel,
affidavit; the confession of the accused is held to be true, correct and otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his
freely or voluntarily given. waiver and chooses to speak;
7. If Mahinay did not commit the crime and was only forced to 9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any
disposed/dumped the body of the victim in the septic tank (as he testified in manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be
open Court), he could have apprise Col. Maganto, a high ranking police questioned with warning that once he makes such indication, the police
officer or the lady reporter who interviewed him. His failure and omission to may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or the
reveal the same is unnatural interrogation must ceased if it has already begun;
8. Circumstance of flight of the accused strongly indicate his consciousness of 10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to
guilt. remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from
9. From the wounds, contusions and abrasions suffered by the victim, force invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether he may
was indeed employed upon her to satisfy carnal lust. Moreover, from have answered some questions or volunteered some statements;
appellants own account, he pushed the victim causing the latter to hit her 11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may
head on the table and fell unconscious. It was at that instance that he be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or
ravished her and satisfied his salacious and prurient desires. Considering exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
that the victim, at the time of her penile invasion, was unconscious, it could
safely be concluded that she had not given free and voluntary consent to People vs. Valdez
her defilement, whether before or during the sexual act. GR No. 127801 | Mar 3, 1999 | Quisumbing, J.
COURT UPHELD THE RTC BUT GAVE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES FOR LAW The RTC found Samuel Valdez guilty of the crime of illegal transport of
ENFORMENT: marijuana buds/leaves.
o SPO1 Bernardo Mariano was approached by a civilian asset and was
1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must
be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason told that an Ilocano person was ready to transport marijuana. The asset
for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every described to him the physical appearance of the suspect as thin and
other warnings, information or communication must be in a language known possessing a green bag.
to and understood by said person;
2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any o Together with the asset, SPO1 Mariano waited for an air-conditioned
statement he makes may be used as evidence against him; Dangwa bus bound for Manila. Mariano boarded the bus and found the
3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and person the civilian asset had described.
have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of
his own choice; o After ordering Valdez to exit the bus, SPO1 Mariano ordered Valdez to
4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services open his bag, his water jug, and a lunch box, where he saw marijuana
of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be leaves as contents. Valdez was then escorted to the PNP Provincial HQ
engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court
upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf; at Lagawe.
Valdez contends that the marijuana allegedly seized from him was a product was sufficient probable cause for Mariano to believe that appellant was then
of an unlawful search, and hence, inadmissible in evidence. and there committing a crime.
Probable cause reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
ISSUE
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious mans
W/N Valdez was legally searched and arrested YES
belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is
RATIO
charged; or the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a
No arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
a competent judicial authority, however, the constitutional proscription
committed and that the items, articles or objects sought in connection with
against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain legal and judicial
said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be
exceptions, as follows:
searched
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under
Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing Jurisprudence is replete with instances where tipped information has
jurisprudence; become a sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search and
2. Seizure of evidence in plain view; seizure. SPO1 Mariano was tipped the same morning he was waiting for a
3. Search of a moving vehicle; ride to report for work. As he had to respond quickly to the call of duty,
4. Consented warrantless search; there was not enough time to secure a search warrant. In view of the
5. Customs search; urgency, SPO1 Mariano immediately proceeded to pursue the trafficker.
6. Stop and frisk; and There was definite information of the identity of the person engaged in
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances transporting prohibited drugs at a particular time and place. No search was
conducted on the baggage of other passengers.
A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a RULING
private person under the following circumstances: Appeal is denied, RTC ruling is affirmed.
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
b. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal People V Burgos
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has September 4, 1986
committed it; and J. Gutierrez, Jr.
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or Facts:
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while According to the prosecution, Pat. Bioco and Sgt. Taroy obtained
being transferred from one confinement to another. intelligent information during the surrender of Cesar Masamlok. According
to Masamlok, he was forcibly recruited by Burgos as a member of NPA
Appellant was caught in flagrante since he was carrying marijuana at the threatening him w/ the used of firearm if he refused. Upon the receipt of
time of his arrest. A crime was actually being committed by the appellant, such information, PC-INP was dispatched to arrest Ruben Burgos. The team
thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under was able to locate the accused plowing his field.
paragraph (a) of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless
search incident to lawful arrest. While they were in the house of the accused, Pat. Bioco ask the
While it is true that SPO1 Mariano was not armed with a search warrant accused about the firearm. The accused initially denied knowledge about it
when the search was conducted, under the circumstances of the case, there
but his wife later on pointed to a place below their house where the gun
was buried in the ground. Pat. Bioco then recovered a .38 caliber revolver,
subversive materials, pamphlets which among others include Ang Bayan, o There is no such personal knowledge in this case, because
Pahayagan ng Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas,and the like. whatever knowledge was possessed by the arresting officer
came from the information furnish by Cesar Masamlok. The
Furthermore, Masamlok said that he really saw the revolver from location of the firearm was given by the appellants wife.
the accused at the time the latter invited him to attend a seminar because o ALSO, at the time of the arrest he was not in actual
he was just 2m away. Also, Masamlok further testified that the accused was possession of any firearm or subversive document. Neither
the first speaker in the seminar and that he encouraged the group to was he committing any act w/c could be subversive and in
overthrow the government emphasizing that those who attended are fact he was plowing his field.
already members of the NPA. Masamlok and others were also threatened The exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest should be
that if they reveal to the authorities they will be killed. strictly construed. Any exception must clearly fall w/in the situations
when securing a warrant would be absurd or is manifestly
Lastly, to prove illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution proved unnecessary as provided by the Rule. We cannot liberally construe
that the accused was not listed among the lists of firearm holders and the rule on arrests without warrant or extend its application beyond
neither was his name included among the list of persons who applied for the cases specifically provided by law. To do so would infringe upon
the licensing of the firearm. personal liberty and set back a basic right so often violated and so
deserving of full protection.
The defendant however averred that he was tortured and was It likewise does not fall w/in Sec. 6B Rule 113 as the crime must in
threatened to be salvage if he did not admit ownership of subject firearm. fact or actually have been committed first. It is not enough to
Moreover, her wife testified that the firearm was actually left by Cesar suspect that a crime may have been committed. The test of
Masamlok the day before the search. She said that her husband was not in reasonable ground only applies to the identity of the accused.
the house at that time and hence she did not inform him nor report it to o In this case, the accused was arrested solely on the basis of
authorities for fear of life of her husband. Masamloks verbal report.
The arrest being unlawful, the search and seizure which transpired
The RTC then convicted the accused Ruben Burgos of the crime afterwards could not likewise be deemed legal as being mere
Illegal Possession of Firearm in Furtherance of Subversion. incidents to a valid arrest. Hence, firearm and alleged subversive
documents are inadmissible as evidence.
Issue: W/N the arrest of Ruben Burgos lawful which then makes the search Ruling: The court reversed the TC and accused-appellant is
of his house subsequent confiscation of firearm and documents lawful and acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt.
valid? NO
When the police authorities went to the house of Burgos for
purpose of arresting him, upon the information of Masamlok, they
did not have any warrant of arrest or search warrant w/ them.
The TC rationated that the authorities received an urgent report of
accuseds involvement from a reliable source falls w/in the ambit of People vs. Veloso
Sec. 6A Rule 113. Topic: John Doe Warrants
If the arrest is valid, the firearm and alleged subversive documents GR: John Doe Warrants are void.
would become incident to a lawful arrest as provided by Rule 126,
Exception: Except in those cases where it contains a description
Sec. 12.
personae such as will enable the officer to identify the accused.
Sec. 6A Rule 113 requires personal knowledge of that fact.
FACTS: John Doe was Jose Ma. Veloso, the manager of the club, the
No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila used as a Gambling police could identify John Doe as Jose Ma. Veloso without
den under the name of Parliamentary Club difficulty.
Relying on reliable information, Detective Geronimo applied
for, and obtained a search warrant. Doctrine:
The warrant addressed a John Doe and described him to be The rule does not prevent the issuance and service of a warrant
the one in control of the gambling den and having possession against an unknown party. In such case the best description possible
of certain devices and effects used in violation of the Gambling of the person to be arrested is to be given in the warrant; but it must
Law. be sufficient to indicate clearly on whom it is to be served, by stating
his occupation, his personal appearance and peculiarities, the place of
The police raided the gambling den and found, among many
his residence, or other circumstances by which he can be identified.
others, Jose Ma. Veloso. Veloso resisted arrest because the
People v Pasudag
warrant was named John Doe. May 4, 2001 || Pardo, J.
Despite heavy resistance from Veloso, police succeeded in
taking him to custody. The police also found money, chits, DOCTRINE: Custodial investigation commences when a person is
taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission
gambling stubs etc. in Velosos pockets.
of a crime under investigation and the police officers begin to ask
Veloso was found guilty of resistance of the agents of the questions on the suspects participation therein and which tend to
authority. Veloso appeals and mainly contends that the elicit an admission.
warrant is void for being a John Doe warrant.
FACTS
APPEAL FROM RTC DECISION.
ISSUE: WON the warrant is void NO
SPO2 Calip was conducting anti-jueteng operations in Brgy. Artacho.
When he urinated behind a public school, he saw a garden 5m away
with marijuana plants in between corn plants and camote tops. After
learning from a storekeeper that Pasudag owned it, he reported it to
RATIO:
Chief of Police Romeo Astrero. A team was dispatched to the house
The placing of the address in the search warrant sufficiently of Pasudag. SPO3 Fajarito looked for accused Pasudag and asked
describes the place to be searched. him to bring the team to his backyard garden 5m away. They saw
The warrant also describes John Doe to be the one in control of marijuana plants. A photographer took pictures of accused standing
behind the plants. They uprooted 7 plants and brought them to the
the gambling den and also possesses various gambling shit.
police station. There, Pasudag admitted that he owned the plants. He
It is recognized that the warrant for the apprehension of an signed a confiscation report prepared by SPO3 Fajarito. One plant
unnamed party is void, "except in those cases where it contains a was brought for examination and it was confirmed to be marijuana.
description personae such as will enable the officer to identify the
Accused was charged and convicted with violation of RA6425
accused." As the search warrant stated that John Doe had
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) before the RTC.
gambling apparatus in his possession in the building occupied
by him at No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila, and as this
ISSUE: W/N the warrantless arrest, search and seizure were For automatic review is the decision by the RTC of Bayombong, Nueva
valid? NO Vizcaya. It found appellant Abe Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for violating Section 9 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No.
RATIO: 6425), as amended by R.A. No. 7659. He was sentenced to suffer the
ITC, the police authorities had ample opportunity to secure a search penalty of death by lethal injection. In the Information, appellant was
charged, saying that he was caught in flagrante delicto planting 7 fully
warrant from the court. Time was not of the essence to uproot and
grown marijuana plants.
confiscate the plants. They were three months old and there was no
sufficient reason to believe that they would be uprooted on the same He was weeding his vegetable farm in Sitio Bulan when he was called by
day. a person whose identity he does not know. He was asked to go with the
Pasudags arrest was also invalid. In both the interrogation and the latter to see something. This unknown person then brought appellant to
signing of the confiscation report, no counsel assisted him. He was the place where the marijuana plants were found, approximately 100
the only civilian present in the Office of the Chief of Police. meters away from his nipa hut. Five armed policemen were present and
they made him stand in front of the hemp plants. He was then asked if he
He was already under custodial investigation when he signed the knew anything about the marijuana growing there. When he denied any
confiscation receipt. (SEE DOCTRINE). Obviously, Pasudag was a knowledge thereof, a police officer poked a fist at him and told him to
admit ownership of the plants. Appellant was so nervous and afraid that
suspect from the moment the police team went to his house and
he admitted owning the marijuana.
ordered the uprooting of the marijuana plants in his backyard garden.
The police then took a photo of him standing in front of one of the
ACQUITTED. Lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. marijuana plants. He was then made to uproot five of the cannabis
plants, and bring them to his hut, where another photo was taken of him
standing next to a bundle of uprooted marijuana plants. The police team
then brought him to the police station at Villaverde. On the way, a
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. barangay peace officer of Barangay Sawmill, accompanied the police
ABE VALDEZ y DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant. officers. Said officer who bore a grudge against him because of his
refusal to participate in the formers illegal logging activities, threatened
September 25, 2000 | Quisumbing, J. him to admit owning the marijuana, otherwise he would be put in a bad
situation. At the police headquarters, appellant reiterated that he knew
DOCTRINE: The moment the police tries to elicit admissions or nothing about the marijuana plants seized by the police.
confessions or even plain information from a person suspected of having
committed an offense, he should at that juncture be assisted by counsel, ISSUE: WON the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant may be
unless he waives the right in writing and in the presence of counsel. relied upon by the Court

SUMMARY: The police received a tip from an informant that a marijuana RULING: NO
plantation was being cultivated by accused-appellant. The police formed a In the instant case, a tipster had furnished the police with appellants
team to verify said information. The team was given specific instructions to name as well as the location of appellants farm, where the marijuana
uproot said marijuana plants and arrest the cultivator of same. They plants were allegedly being grown. While the police operation was
eventually found appellants hut and planted nearby were the marijuana supposedly meant to merely verify said information, the police chief had
plants. Accused argues that he was questioned and later on forced by the likewise issued instructions to arrest appellant as a suspected marijuana
police officers to admit ownership of the plants. On appeal, the accused cultivator. Thus, at the time the police talked to appellant in his farm, the
questions the validity of the search and arrest. The Court held that the latter was already under investigation as a suspect. The questioning by
extrajudicial confession made by the accused cannot be admissible as the police was no longer a general inquiry.
evidence, citing the doctrine stated above.
In trying to elicit information from appellant, the police was already
FACTS: investigating appellant as a suspect. At this point, he was already under
custodial investigation and had a right to counsel even if he had not yet On appeal, the OSG points out that the prosecution failed to
been arrested. Custodial investigation is questioning initiated by law prove the existence of a conspiracy between appellant and
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Rodriguez independent of the extrajudicial confession of the
latter.
Moreover, we find appellants extrajudicial confession flawed with
respect to its admissibility. For a confession to be admissible, it must ISSUE: Whether the extrajudicial confession of accused
satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be Rodriguez is admissible not only against him but also against
made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it appellant.
must be express; and (4) it must be in writing. HELD:
SC finds that Rodriguezs confession is constitutionally
The records show that the admission by appellant was verbal. It was also
uncounselled. A verbal admission allegedly made by an accused during flawed so that it could not be used as evidence against
the investigation, without the assistance of counsel at the time of his them at all.
arrest and even before his formal investigation is not only inadmissible The four fundamental requisites for the admissibility of a
for being violative of the right to counsel during criminal investigations, it
is also hearsay. Even if the confession or admission were gospel truth,
confession are (1) the confession must be voluntary; (2)
if it was made without assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver of the confession must be made with the assistance of
such assistance, the confession is inadmissible in evidence, regardless competent and independent counsel; (3) the confession
of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given. must be express; and (4) the confession must be in writing.
Decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant ACQUITTED. The moment accused and appellant were arrested and
People vs Rodriguez and Artellero brought to the police station, they were already under
QUISUMBING, J. custodial investigation.
FACTS: Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage
A messenger discovered the lifeless body of the bank security when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
guard Matias, inside the bank premises. unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person
The police learned that there was an on-going construction on as a suspect.
the upper floors of the bank, and that appellant and his co- When Rodriguez and appellant were arrested by they
accused had access to the bank after office hours. were already the suspects in the slaying of the
The police went to see Rodriguez who was working on the security guard, Ramon Matias, and should have been
construction site and noticed blood stains on his shirt and afforded the rights guaranteed by Article III, Section 12
pants. of the 1987 Constitution, particularly the right to
The police then arrested Rodriguez and Artellero and brought counsel. They were not provided with competent and
them to the police station for interrogation. independent counsel during the custodial investigation
4 days after the arrest, Rodriguez executed a sworn statement prior to the execution of the extrajudicial confession.
confessing that he and appellant together with one Rading The extrajudicial confession executed by Rodriguez was
Mendoza, and two other men whose names he did not know, given in violation of Art. III, Sec. 12 of the 1987
killed Matias. Rodriguez was assisted by Atty. Procopio Lao III, Constitution, we hold that Rodriguezs confession is
of the Public Attorneys Office. inadmissible, and it was error for the trial court to use it in
After, trial the 2 accused were found guilty. convicting Rodriguez and appellant.
People v Joselito del Rosario (Bellosillo, 1999) Practice of issuing an 'invitation' to a person who is investigated in
connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed." Section
Topic: Custodial Investigation 2 of the same Act further provides that

FACTS x x x x Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or in his place, who
arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the
latter, in a language known and understood by him of his right to remain silent and to have
Del Rosario was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan as a competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be
co-principal in the crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced him to allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If
death. He and 3 other men were charged with the special complex crime for such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a
competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.
having robbed Virginia Bernas, a 66 year old business woman, of P 200k in
cash and jewelry and on the occasion thereof shot and killed her. Del
Rosario was a tricycle driver parked near the scene. One of the accused took ITC, it is clear that del Rosario was deprived of his rights during custodial
the bag and brought it to the tricycle of Del Rosario and someone inside investigation. From the time he was "invited" for questioning at the house of
received the bag. Del Rosario then sped away. the barangay captain, he was already under effective custodial
investigation, but he was not apprised nor made aware thereof by the
When the authorities found the name of the owner of the tricycle, they investigating officers. The police already knew the name of the tricycle
proceeded to Bakod Bayan to the owners house. The owner revealed that driver and the latter was already a suspect in the robbing and senseless
the driver was Del Rosario. Del Rosario was invited for interview. He slaying of Virginia Bernas. Since the prosecution failed to establish that del
volunteered to name his passengers. He also informed the policemen of the Rosario had waived his right to remain silent, his verbal admissions on his
bags location and where the hold-uppers may be found. When they were at participation in the crime even before his actual arrest were inadmissible
Brgy Dicarma (hold-uppers location), there was a shoot-out and one of the against him, as the same transgressed the safeguards provided by law and
accused died. Del Rosario was then arrested and detained. He executed a the Bill of Rights.
waiver of his detention. His Sinumpaang Salaysay was done with the
assistance of a former judge. >Del Rosario was also unlawfully arrested. See Sec 5 of Rule 113. He was
only arrested during the raid (shoot out) at Brgy Dicarma. He was not caught
The case was for automatic review. in flagrante delicto nor did his case fall under any of the circumstances in Sec
5. Thus, his arrest was outside the purview of the rule.
ISSUES
RTC decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused is
WON Del Rosarios Miranda rights were violated YES, the invitation for ACQUITTED.
interview was already considered as custodial investigation. His verbal PEOPLE v. GUTING
admissions were thus inadmissible against him. G.R. No. 205412 | September 9, 2015 | Leonardo- De Castro, J.

A further perusal of the transcript reveals that during the encounter at Brgy.
Dicarma, del Rosario was handcuffed by the police because allegedly they FACTS:
had already gathered enough evidence against him and they were afraid that An Information for Parricide was filed against Adrian Guting, for
he might attempt to escape. killing his father. He pleaded not guilty.
PO1 Torre testified that he and PO1 Macusi were standing in front of
Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no the police station when Guting, with a bladed weapon in his hand,
longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus suddenly approached them and told them that he stabbed his father.
on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who carry out a o Adrian Guting first proclaimed that his father was already
process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating dead. Unsuspecting, PO1 Macusi asked who killed Gutings
statements. It is well-settled that it encompasses any question initiated by father, to which Guting answered Sinaksak ko po yong tatay
law enforcers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise ko! Napatay ko na po
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. This concept of RTC found Guting guilty of Parricide, based on his verbal admission
custodial investigation has been broadened by RA 7438 to include "the that he killed his father. CA affirmed his conviction.
Hence, this instant appeal before the SC.
o Guting argues that his oral confession to PO1 Torre and (2) The statements were made before the declarant had
PO1 Macusi, without the assistance of counsel, is time to contrive or devise; and
inadmissible in evidence for violating his constitutional right (3) The statements concern the occurrence in question and
(Article III, Section 12) its immediately attending circumstances.
The confession was also corroborated by circumstantial evidence.
ISSUE: Thus, the SC affirmed Gutings conviction.
WON the verbal admission of Guting is inadmissible NO Babst v National Intelligence Board
September 28, 1984 || Plana, J.
RATIO:
The investigation in Section 12, paragraph 1, Article III of the 1987
Constitution pertains to custodial investigation. FACTS:
o Custodial investigation commences when a person is PETITION FOR PROHIBITION WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO
taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE BOARD.
commission of a crime under investigation and the
police officers begin to ask questions on the suspects In 1980, petitioners (columnists, writers, and reporters of local publications)
participation therein and which tend to elicit an were allegedly summoned on different dates by military authorities who have
admission. subjected them to sustained interrogation on various aspects of their work,
o As held in People v. Marra, custodial investigation personal, and private lives. In the letters received by them, there is a clause
happens when the investigation ceases to be a general which reads that their failure to appear on the specific date and place shall
inquiry into an unresolved crime and begins to focus on be considered as a waiver on [their] part and this Committee will be
a particular suspect. constrained to proceed in accordance with law.
In the case at bar, Guting was not under custodial investigation when
he admitted without assistance of counsel to PO1 Torre and PO1 Aside from the interrogations, a criminal complaint for libel was also filed
Macusi that he stabbed his father to death. It was spontaneously and before the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila by Brig. Gen. Tadiar Jr. against
voluntarily given by the accused, without any questioning performed two of the petitioners for writing an article on the interrogation by respondents
by the police officers. in 1982. Complaint included a P10M claim for damages.
o Guting cites the case of People v. Cabintoy to support his
claim. But the said case involves a different set of facts, Petitioner argues:
because the accused there were already suspects under - Respondents have no jurisdiction over the proceedings which are
custodial investigation when they executed their extrajudicial violative of the constitutional guarantee on free expression
confessions without assistance of counsel. - Filing of libel had intent to intimidate based on illegally obtained
o In the case at bar, Guting was arrested and subjected to evidence
custodial investigation after his confession.
As held in People v. Andan, constitutional procedures on custodial Respondent argues:
investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited - No issue of jurisdiction exists since they do not pretend to exercise
through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary jurisdiction over petitioners; there were no subpoenas nor
manner, whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the summonses issued, but mere invitations to dialogues which were
crime. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of completely voluntary and without any compulsion.
incriminating facts or confessions. - No cause of action against Board because Tadiar is not member of
Gutings verbal confession falls under Rule 130, Sec. 26: The act, Board and it was filed in his personal capacity
declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given
in evidence against him ISSUE: W/N the letters of invitation, subsequent interrogation, and filing
o Three requisites must concur in order for a declaration to be of libel suit illegal and unconstitutional? NO
deemed part of the res gestae:
(1) The principal act, the res gestae, is a startling
occurrence;
*BUT PETITION IS ALREADY MOOT because the interrogations have well as the sworn statement executed by the accused contains details of the manner
already been ordered terminated by General Fabian as Director General in which the crime was committed which only he could have known.
and Chairman of NIB. (But the Court still discussed the issues)
According to the RTC, it admitted the extrajudicial confession as evidence because
the presumption that it was made voluntarily was not overcome. Also, in making the
RATIO:
confession, the accused was accused was assisted by Atty. Deborah Daquis who
1. RE: LETTER OF INVITATION (relevant) even signed the statement; that before accused made his extrajudicial confession he
Ordinarily, an invitation to attend a hearing and answer some questions, was first asked if he was amenable to the services of Atty. Daquis to which query he
which the person invited may heed or refuse at his pleasure, is not illegal answered affirmatively. Finally, while accused recited a litany of alleged acts of
or constitutionally objectionable. Under certain circumstances, however, maltreatment, no medical certificate had been shown to prove that he did suffer
such an invitation can easily assume a different appearance, such as in inhuman treatment.
this case where
Invitation comes from a powerful group of military ISSUE: WoN the RTC correctly admitted the extrajudicial confession as evidence
NO
officers
At a time when country is in martial law RATIO:
Privilege of WOHC suspended To be acceptable, extrajudicial confessions must conform to constitutional
Designated interrogation site is a military camp requirements. A confession is not valid and not admissible in evidence when it is
Last clause of the letter contains an ominous warning obtained in violation of any of the following rights of persons under custodial
investigation: to remain silent, to have independent and competent counsel
the same can easily be taken not as a strictly voluntary invitation but as preferably of their own choice, to be provided with counsel if they are unable to
secure one, to be assisted by such counsel during the investigation, to have
an authoritative command which one can only defy at his peril.
such counsel present when they decide to waive these rights, and to be
Fortunately, the NIB Director General and Chairman saw the wisdom of informed of all these rights and of the fact that anything they say can and will be
terminating the proceedings and the unwelcome interrogation. used against them in court.
o If the extrajudicial confession satisfies these constitutional standards, it
2. RE: LIBEL (not relevant but lagay ko na rin) is subsequently tested for voluntariness, i.e., if it was given freely
Prohibition will not issue because first, the libel cases are not pending without coercion, intimidation, inducement, or false promises; and
before respondent NIB or any other respondent; second, the issue of credibility, i.e., if it was consistent with the normal experience of
validity of libel is a matter that should be raised in the proper forum; third, mankind.
Tadiar has filed the libel case in his personal capacity and is not even a o A confession that meets all the foregoing requisites constitutes
evidence of a high order because no person of normal mind will
member of NIB, hence NIB does not have anything to do with Tadiars
knowingly and deliberately confess to be the perpetrator of a crime
private right to complain for libel. unless prompted by truth and conscience. Otherwise, it is disregarded
in accordance with the cold objectivity of the exclusionary rule
IN THIS CASE, flagrantly violated were the appellant's right to be informed of his
PETITION DISMISSED. rights under custodial investigation, his right to counsel, as well as his right to
have said counsel present during the waiver of his rights under custodial
PEOPLE V. DOMINGO MULETA investigation.
J. Panganiban | June 25, 1999 On the right to be apprised of constitutional rights
The right to be informed of one's constitutional rights during custodial
FACTS investigation refers to an effective communication between the investigating
officer and the suspected individual, with the purpose of making the latter
RTC found the accused guilty of rape with homicide for raping and killing his niece understand these rights. Understanding would mean that the information
and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. This finding was based on circumstantial transmitted was effectively received and comprehended. Hence, the Constitution
evidence and his extrajudicial confession. According to the prosecution, on the same does not merely require the investigating officers to "inform" the person under
night the offense took place, the accused did not go home to his house in Tondo, investigation; rather, it requires that the latter be "informed."
Manila. Also, he was familiar with the place in Malolos, Bulacan where the crime IN THIS CASE, what happened was a superficial reading of the rights of the
occurred. During the wake of his niece, he also made comments like went wild and accused, without the slightest consideration of whether he understood what was
hysterical and uttered these words: "Patawarin mo ako Charito, ikaw kasi lumaban read to him. It just followed a legal form or model with the words opo
pa, nakakahiya ako, mabuti pang mamatay na. The RTC gave credence to these as automatically typed by the police investigator. It does not create an impression of
voluntariness or even understanding on the part of the accused. The showing of motorcycle and the consequent death of Saavedra. Moreover, he averred that
a spontaneous, free and unconstrained giving up of a right is missing. they sold the motorcycle and left behind the sidecar.
When Tan was invited to the police station, there was no warrant for his arrest.
On the right to counsel However, he was informed that he was a suspect, not only in the instant case,
the purported sworn statement of the appellant was prepared prior to the arrival but also in two other robbery cases allegedly committed in Lucena City. The
of his NBI-procured counsel. It was executed and completed on September 19, investigation officer thought that they were merely conversing inside the police
1993, while Atty. Daquiz arrived only the following day, September 20, 1993. station; hence, he did not inform Tan of his constitutional rights to remain silent
Thus, when the appellant executed and completed his purported extrajudicial and to the assistance of counsel; nor did he reduce the supposed confession to
confession on September 19, 1993, he was not assisted by counsel. writing
When accused was invited by NBI agent Tolentino in Mindoro to the NBI office Trial court convicted Tan of highway robbery with murder and sentenced him to
in Manila, it was in reality a custodial investigation targeting the accused for the reclusion perpetua.
purpose of procuring a confession. Domingo Muleta should have been accorded
the right to counsel (and all the constitutional rights of the accused), from the ISSUE: WoN the RTC correctly admitted the extrajudicial confession as evidence
time that he was brought to the NBI office in Manila. NO

On the waiver of the rights RATIO:


appellant exercised no satisfactory waiver of his rights. As stated in our earlier Custodial investigation shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a
discussions, since he was not assisted by a lawyer when the waiver was made, person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to
there was no valid waiver to speak of. have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any
After Atty. Daquiz was allegedly called to assist the appellant, she posited this violation of law. It involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement
question: "Gusto mo bang talikdan ang iyong mga karapatan na ibinibigay sa iyo authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
ng ating Konstitusyon?" To this appellant replied: "Tinatalikdan ko na po iyon freedom of action in any significant manner. The rules on custodial investigation
dahil gusto ko nang ipagtapat ang pangyayari kay CHARITO DELGADO na begin to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into
pamangkin ko." an unsolved crime and begins to focus a particular suspect, the suspect is taken
Such waiver failed to show his understanding of his rights, his waiver of those into custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that tends
rights, and the implications of his waiver. The waiver, in order to be valid, should itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate
have been in a language that clearly manifested his desire to do so. The part of Furthermore, not only does the fundamental law impose, as a requisite function
the sworn statement in which the accused "waived" his rights referred to them as of the investigating officer, the duty to explain those rights to the accused but
"mga karapatan na ibinigay sa iyo ng ating Konstitusyon" and "iyon" words also that there must correspondingly be a meaningful communication to and
that were utterly vague and insufficient to satisfy the Constitutional requirements. understanding thereof by the accused. A mere perfunctory reading by the
Moreover, Atty. Daquiz raised only one question: whether appellant would like to constable of such rights to the accused would thus not suffice
waive his rights. This was odd, because she had been called to assist appellant Under the Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence, a confession to be
in making his confession, not his waiver. Atty. Daquiz made no effort to admissible must satisfy the following requirements:
determine whether the accused was treated well, or the understood his rights. 1. it must be voluntary
2. it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent
RULING: PETITIONER ACQUITTED (the circumstantial evidence were also not counsel
enough to convict him) 3. it must be express
PEOPLE V. HERSON TAN 4. it must be in writing
J. Romero | February 11, 1998
While the Constitution sanctions the waiver of the right to counsel, it must,
FACTS however, be voluntary, knowing and intelligent, and must be made in the
The lifeless body of tricycle driver Freddie Saavedra was found sprawled on the presence and with the assistance of counsel
ground with fourteen stab wounds in different parts of his body any statement obtained in violation of the constitution, whether exculpatory or
Relying on the information that an abandoned sidecar of a tricycle was sighted, inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence. Even if the
the police proceeded to the scene of the crime and recovered a blue sidecar confession contains a grain of truth, if it was made without the assistance of
which they brought back with them to their headquarters. Subsequently, they counsel, it becomes inadmissible in evidence, regardless of the absence of
invited Tan in connection with the instant case and with respect to two other coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.
robbery cases reported in Lucena City. During their conversation, Tan allegedly The records of this case do not indicate that appellant was assisted by counsel
gave an explicit account of what actually transpired in the case at bar. He when he made such waiver
narrated that he and co-accused Amido were responsible for the loss of the The evidence for the prosecution shows that when appellant was invited for
questioning at the police headquarters, he allegedly admitted his participation in
the crime. This will not suffice to convict him, however, of said crime. The hours before he made an admission to an assistant
constitutional rights of appellant, particularly the right to remain silent and to
counsel, are impregnable from the moment he is investigated in connection with
district attorney
an offense he is suspected to have committed, even if the same be initiated by - There was no evidence that he was notified of his 5th
mere invitation. This Court values liberty and will always insist on the Amendment Constitutional rights
observance of basic constitutional rights as a condition sine qua non against the 3. Carl Calvin Westover
awesome investigative and prosecutory powers of government
- Mr. Westover was arrested for two robberies
RULING: PETITIONER ACQUITTED (the remaining evidence were also not - He was questioned for over 14 hours by the local police
enough to convict him) - He was handed to the FBI who was able to get signed
Miranda v Arizona confessions from him
Warren, CJ - He was not notified of his 5th Amendment Rights
4. Roy Allen Stewart
- He was arrested along with members of his family for a
FACTS series of purse snatches
- Case represents the consolidation of four cases - There was no evidence of any wrongdoing by his family
- Defendant in each case confessed guilt after being subjected to a - He was not notified of his 5th Amendment rights
variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his - After nine interrogations, he admitted to the crimes
Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation
ISSUE
1. Ernesto Miranda WON accused should be notified of their rights against self-incrimination
- Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and although the
officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights, he RULING/DISCUSSION
signed a confession
- Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought Yes, they should be notified.
to the police station where he was questioned by police
officers in connection with kidnapping and rape The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or
- After 2 hours of interrogation, the police obtained a inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement
written confession from Miranda officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
- The written confession was admitted into evidence at his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use
trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's
the fact that the police officers admitted that they had privilege against self-incrimination.
not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney - The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado
present during the interrogation interrogation as it exists today is inherently
- The jury found Miranda guilty intimidating, and works to undermine the privilege
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and against self-incrimination.
held that Mirandas constitutional rights were not - The privilege against self-incrimination guarantees to
violated because he did not specifically request counsel the individual the "right to remain silent unless he
2. Michael Vignera chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own
- Mr. Vignera was arrested for robbery will," during a period of custodial interrogation as well
- He orally admitted to the robbery to the first officer as in the courts or during the course of other official
after the arrest, and was held in detention for eight investigations.
- the need for protective devices to make the process of - the state should have the burden to prove that the
police interrogation conform to the dictates of the suspect was aware of his rights during the interrogation,
privilege but that statements resulting from interrogation should
- the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be not be automatically excluded if the suspect was not
clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, explicitly informed of his rights
and that anything he says will be used against him in DISSENT: Harlan, J.
court; he must be clearly informed that he has the - the judicial precedent and legislative history
right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer surrounding the Fifth Amendment does not support the
with him during interrogation, and that, if he is view that the Fifth Amendment prohibits all pressure on
indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him the suspect
- If the individual indicates, prior to or during - there was no legal precedent to support the
questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the requirement to specifically inform suspects of their
interrogation must cease rights
- Where an interrogation is conducted without the DISSENT: White, J.
presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a - the Fifth Amendment only protects defendants from
heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate giving self-incriminating testimony if explicitly
that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived compelled to do so
his right to counsel. - custodial interrogation was not inherently coercive and
- Where the individual answers some questions during in- did not require such a broad interpretation of the
custody interrogation, he has not waived his privilege, protections of the Fifth Amendment
and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. - Such an interpretation harms the criminal process by
- The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in destroying the credibility of confessions
the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites PEOPLE v. OBRERO
to the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or J. Mendoza
exculpatory, made by a defendant May 17, 2000

The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of RATIO: Perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights to the accused without
the individual's constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference any effort to find out from him whether he wanted to have counsel and, if
with a proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the so, whether he had his own counsel or he wanted the police to appoint one
procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded in other jurisdictions. for him is merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful
information to the suspect.
In each of these cases, the statements were obtained under circumstances
that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege FACTS:
against self-incrimination. Accused: Jimmy Obrero
Victim: Emma Cabrera robbery victim. Nena Berjuega and Remedios Hitta
DISSENT: Clark, J. (the two maids of Emma) murder victims
- the majoritys opinion created an unnecessarily strict
interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the Jimmy Obrero is a delivery boy employed by Angie Cabosas whose
ability of the police to effectively execute their duties business was selling chickens to customers. Jimmy was asked to deliver
chickens to Emma Cabrera, a regular customer.
In Jimmys extrajudicial confession, he stated that the day before Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary, and, in the
the robbery, his fellow employee, Ronnie Liwanag, proposed that they rob absence of conclusive evidence showing the declarants consent in the
Emma in order to be able to go to La Union to visit his family. On the day of executing the same has been vitiated, such confession will be sustained.
the robbery, they learned that only two helpers were then at the residence What renders the confession of Jimmy inadmissible is the fact that
of Emma Cabrera, thus they decided to pull the heist. he was not given the Miranda warnings effectively. There was only a
Ronnie covered the mouth of one Nena Berjuega to prevent her perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights to Jimmy without any effort to
from shouting but, as she tried to run away, Ronnie stabbed and killed her. find out from him whether he wanted to have counsel and, if so, whether
Ronnie then gave the knife to Jimmy who stabbed the younger maid, he had his own counsel or he wanted the police to appoint one for him. This
Remedios Hitta from which she died. Thereafter, they divided the money. kind of giving of warnings has been found to be merely ceremonial and
This extrajudicial confession is in Tagalog and signed by Jimmy in the inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect. Especially in
presence of Atty. De los Reyes. Atty. De los Reyes is a PC Captain of the WPD this case, care should have been scrupulously observed by the police
Headquarters in UN Avenue. He was at Station 7 of the WPD because he investigator that Jimmy was specifically asked these questions considering
was representing a client accused of illegal recruitment. He was asked by Lt. he only finished the fourth grade of the elementary school.
Javier of the WPD Homicide Section to assist Jimmy Obrero in executing an Moreover, the Constitution requires that counsel assisting suspects
extrajudicial confession. in custodial interrogations be competent and independent. In the case at
At the trial, Jimmy Obrero pleaded not guilty of the crime charged. bar, he cannot be considered an independent counsel as contemplated by
He said that he came back from his errand and remitted the amount of the law because he was station commander of the WPD at the time he
P2000 which had been paid to him. He also claimed that after being assisted Jimmy. As PC Captain and Station Commander of the WPD, Atty.
informed of the charges against him, he was beaten up and detained for a De los Reyes was part of the police force who could not be expected to have
week and made to execute an extrajudicial confession. He denied having effectively and scrupulously assisted accused in the investigation.
known or seen Atty. De los Reyes before and stated that he did not People vs Severino Duero
understand the contents of the extrajudicial confession which he signed May 13, 1981 | J Aquino
because he did not know how to read.
Moral of the Story
A confession obtained without following the constitutional mandate
Trial court found Jimmy Obrero guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court (miranda rights procedure) of Art IV Sec 20 is inadmissible as
held that the accused consented to giving his extrajudicial confession and evidence in court
that absent any showing that the assisting lawyer, though a station
commander but of another police station, was remiss in his duty as a The Relevant provisions
o `Art IV Sec 20 1973 Const
lawyer, the Court will hold that the proceedings were regularly conducted.
Facts
The case comes to the court by way of automatic review as herein
ISSUE: WON Jimmy Obreros extrajudicial confession is valid and admissible defendant has been sentenced to the grave penalty of death.
in evidence The corpus delicti of robbery with homicide is not at issue. Herein
NO. Jimmy Obrero won. defendant went into the home of his grandmother Fausta Duero, brutally
killed her by hitting her on the head with a mallet, choking her with a wire
and stabbing her with a garab (scythe). Afterwards defendant stole 2,000
HELD:
php from victims purse. This all started due to the victims refusal to lend
There was no proof that his confession was obtained by force and the defendant money.
threat. He did not seek medical treatment nor even a physical examination. Main evidence for this was the oral confession of the defendant which
The confession contains details that only the perpetrator of the was taken by the arresting team but defendant refused to sign the written
crime could have given, details which are consistent with the medico-legal testimony thereof.
findings.
Such testimony however was witnessed by the 3 members of the What is prohibited is incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a
arresting team ( Lujan, Alag, Tormon) as well as other circumstantial police dominated atmosphere, resulting in self- incriminating
evidence regarding threat to kill (Tranquilino Duero) and seeing him at statements without full warnings of constitutional rights.
victims house calling out for his grandmother to talk to him (Montano) Lord Chancellor Sankey It is not permissible to do a great thing by
defendant however repudiated said oral confession at trial and claims doing a little wrong
maltreatment by police. His defense is by way of alibi stating that he was The procedure henceforth is:
at home as attested to by his wife and a neighbor. o He (the accused) must be warned prior to any questioning
that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says
Issues can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the
WoN an oral confession without the procedure in Art IV sec 20 is right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot
admissible? No afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any
Ruling questioning if he so desires.
The provision in the 1973 constitution is new it reads: o Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him
o No person shall be compelled to be a witness against throughout the interrogation.
himself. Any person under investigation for the commission o After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity
of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently
counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a
threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the statement.
free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained o But unless and until such warnings and waiver are
in violation of this section shall be admissible in evidence. demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence
It not being shown that before such oral testimony defendant was obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against
informed of his rights, such testimony is inadmissible him.
Such being the crux of the prosecution against the defendant, such
person must be acquitted and the decision set aside. SET ASIDE
This is an adaptation of the ruling of the US SC in Miranda vs PEOPLE vs. PACITO ORDOO alias ASING
Arizona of which the procedure is made clear AND APOLONIO MEDINA alias POLING
o prior to any questioning he must be informed of his right to
Per Curiam | June 29, 2000
remain silent
o adding that any statement may be used against him and that
he has the right to any attorney TOPIC: DUTY OF POLICE DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION; PROCEDURE
o if he cannot procure one, one will be provided for him (This is a cf. case)
o These rights may be waived but only voluntarily, knowingly
and intelligently
o If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of SUMMARY FACTS
the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before
speaking there can be no questioning. Both accused went to the police to admit the crime. There were no counsels
o Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any during the custodial investigation but their admissions were taken. The
manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police parish priest, mayor, chief of police, and their relatives were present when
may not question him.
o The mere fact that he may have answered some questions
they signed their statements.
or volunteered some statements on his own does not
deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further As they were detained, they were interviewed on the radio where they
inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and confessed again the crime and expressed remorse.
thereafter consents to be question
Days later, they were brought before the PAO and MTC judge where they
again signed their statements of admission.
apprised in their own dialect of their constitutional right to remain silent
In a turnabout, they pleaded not guilty and that they were tortured to and to a counsel.
confessing the crimes. The RTC held them guilty.
Upon their acquiescence and assurance that they understood their rights,
SUMMARY RATIO the investigation was conducted with the Parish Priest, the Mayor, the Chief
of Police, and other police officers to witness the giving of their voluntary
On the custodial investigation, the police erred in continuing the statements.
investigation despite the absence of counsel. Despite the provisions of RA
7438, the presence of the parish priests and others did not cure the absence Thereafter, they were detained at the police station. In a radio interview,
of the counsel. The bringing of the accused to the PAO and MTC judge later both admitted to the commission of the crime again.
did not cure the infirmity as well. Hence, their statements of admission are
inadmissible in evidence. 2 days later, the police brought them to the PAO for assistance and
counselling. They again signed their voluntary admission before Atty.
On the radio interview, it is admissible in evidence as it was not an Corpuz. They were then brought to MTC Judge Bautista. They assured J.
investigation in nature and hence a counsel is not required. The records Bautista they signed freely and voluntarily.
show that they were not coerced to confess in the interview.
On arraignment, in a complete turnabout, the 2 pleaded not guilty.
On the allegations of torture during investigation, these are baseless since
they could have raised the same before the radio interview, the PAO laywer, Ordoo alleged that he was boxed during the questioning and that the
or the MTC judge but they did not. Also, the doctor finds no indications of police even inserted the barrel of a gun into his mouth and that this being
torture on the accused. fruitless, he was detained. 3 days later, he was told that he was responsible
for the crime.
FACTS
On Medinas part, he alleged that he was interrogated without a counsel;
This is an automatic review of a 1997 RTC La Union decision finding both that after, he was taken to a near hut where he was boxed and hit with a
accused guilty of rape with homicide meting them each with 2 separate nightstick; that he was tied to the ceiling beam and hanged outside down;
death penalties. that a barrel of a gun was inserted in his mouth; that he was forced to sign a
statement; that he was told to narrate the false statement to the radio host.
The records show that sources pointed to both accused as the authors of
the crime. The police brought them to the station for questioning. However, The RTC held them guilty of the crime on the basis of their extrajudicial
for lack of evidence, they were allowed to go home. confessions.

On Aug. 10, 1994, both accused returned to the police station admitting the ISSUE WON the RTC erred in convicting the accused for lack of counsel
crime. during the custodial investigation thereby making their confessions
inadmissible
Acting on their admission, the police conducted an investigation and put
their confessions in writing. However, there were no lawyers assisting them RATIO
during the investigation because there were no practicing lawyers in the
municipality of Santol. Nonetheless, the statements were taken after being On the Custodial Investigation
A confession to be admissible in evidence must satisfy 4 fundamental crime after questioning, their admissions were in violation of their right
requirements: against self-incrimination.

(a) The confession must be voluntary On the Radio Interview


(b) The confession must be made with a competent and independent
counsel The taped interview was offered to form part of the witness. A review of the
(c) The confession must be express contents of the tape reveals that the interview was conducted free from any
(d) The confession must be in writing influence or intimidation from police officers and was done willingly by the
accused.
If there is no counsel at the start of the custodial investigation, any
statement elicited from the accused is inadmissible in evidence. The taped interview also revealed that the accused voluntarily admitted the
crime and even expressed remorse. It was held that statement
Here, the custodial investigation began when the accused voluntarily went spontaneously given to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed
to the police station to confess and the investigating officer started asking voluntary and are admissible in evidence. By analogy, radio interviews
questions to elicit information or confession from them. As there was no should likewise be admissible. The interview was not in the nature of an
counsel available, the police should have desisted from the interrogation investigation as the questions were not asked by any investigating officer.
but they persisted and gained the consent of the accused to proceed. The Hence, their uncounselled confession to the radio host did not violate their
presence of the Parish Priest, the Mayor, and their relatives did not cure the constitutional rights.
absence of a lawyer during the investigation.
Art. 3, Sec. 12, pars. (1) and (3) do not cover the verbal confessions of the
RA 7438 does not propose that the relatives, mayor, priest, judge, or the accused to the radio announcer. What it bars is the compulsory disclosure
district school supervisor appear as a substitute for counsel without any of incriminating facts or confessions. The rights under Art. 3, Sec. 12 are
condition. RA 7438 provides that above persons can appear when these 2 guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state, not to
conditions are met: (a) counsel of the accused must be absent, and, (b) a prevent him from freely telling the truth.
valid waiver must be executed. RA 7438 does not unconditionally eliminate
the necessity of counsel. Art. 3 is not concern with the relation between private individuals. It
governs the relationship between the individual and the State.
Hence, in the absence of a valid waiver, the appearance of above persons
could not stand in lieu of counsels presence. The consent of the accused to The admissions of the accused before the radio host and duly taped are
continue the investigation does not count as a waiver which to be effective, further bolstered and substantiated by the findings of the NBI Medico- Legal
must be made in writing and with the assistance of counsel. Officer.

Securing the assistance of PAO 5-8 days later does not remedy the omission On the Allegations of Torture during Investigation
either. Such could have no palliative effect. It could not cure the absence of
counsel during the custodial investigation. The 2nd affixation of signatures The SC find such allegations baseless because: (1) They could have told the
with the PAO and MTC Judge did not make their admissions an informed radio host of the abuses, (2) They could have told the PAO lawyer, and (3)
one. They had the chance to tell the MTC judge. The doctor who physically
examined them further disproved their assertions.
Further, the accused were not effectively informed of their constitutional
rights when they were arrested, so that when they allegedly admitted the DISPOSITIVE
prosecution's case in chief is barred for all purposes, provided of course that
RTC AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION the trustworthiness of the evidence satisfies legal standards.
BOTH guilty of the special complex crime of rape with homicide on 2
The shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license to use
counts perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior
sentenced to 2 DEATH PENALTIES each inconsistent utterances. We hold, therefore, that petitioner's credibility was
ordered to pay 200,000 as civil indemnity and 100,000 for moral appropriately impeached by use of his earlier conflicting statements
damages
CA AFFIRMED.
RMLPablo New York v Quarles
Harris v New York Doctrine: This decision is important in that it shows a conviction that
C.J. Burger | 1971 Miranda warnings were separate from the Fifth Amendment. However, its
greatest significance may be however in that it reduced the bright line rules
TOPIC: Custodial Investigation: Rights involved and consequences of of Miranda in creating a somewhat vague public safety exception.
violation
Facts:
DOCTRINE: Statement inadmissible against a defendant because of lack of the A woman approached two officers and told them she had just been
procedural safeguards required by Miranda case may be used for impeachment raped. She provided the police with a detailed description of her
purposes to attack the credibility of defendant's trial testimony, if its trustworthiness
satisfies legal standards. attacker, said that he had just entered a supermarket nearby, and
that he was carrying a gun.
FACTS:
The police arrived at the supermarket and saw Quarles (defendant)
Harris was charged by the State of New York of twice selling heroin to an inside. Quarles fit the description of the assailant and when he saw
undercover police officer Petitioner denied the offense, claiming the bags.
sold contained baking powder instead the police, he ran to the back of the store.
The police gave chase and kept him in sight for all but a few
On cross-examination, it was shown that petitioner made statements to
the police immediately following his arrest. These statements apparently seconds, until he was caught.
contradicted his direct testimony at trial, casting doubt as to his credibility. One officer frisked him and found an empty gun holster.
- However, the earlier contradicting statement was made before
Petitioner received his Miranda warnings. Miranda previously held that After handcuffing him, the officer asked Quarles where the gun was
such evidence unlawfully obtained are inadmissible. and Quarles gestured with his head saying the gun is over there.
The jury found Harris guilty on second count of indictment. NY CA The officer found the gun and read Quarles his Miranda warnings.
affirmed. The officers then asked Quarles about his ownership of the gun and
where he got it. Quarles answered these questions.
ISSUE: Can the contradicting statements be used to impeach petitioner's The trial court held that the statement the gun is over there, must
testimony, given that the earlier statement was made without Miranda be excluded because it was elicited before the police read Quarles
warnings and is usually considered inadmissible? YES
his Miranda warnings.
Furthermore, the court held that his answers to the subsequent
RATIO: questions had to be excluded as evidence tainted by
Miranda barred the prosecution from making its case with statements of an the Miranda violation.
accused made while in custody prior to having or effectively waiving counsel. The court of appeals affirmed.
It does not follow that evidence inadmissible against an accused in the
Issue: WoN there is an exception to the requirement that a suspect be read Agents went to his supplier who was named Betty. Upon seeing OBET in handcuffs, Betty
their Miranda rights before their answers can be admitted into evidence asked what happened. OBET replied that he was just caught in a buy-bust operation.
PALENCIA and SORIANO then tried to convince Betty to surrender the shabu that OBET
when the officers aims in questioning are to insure that no danger to the insisted was hidden inside the house. As Betty persistently denied the existence of the shabu,
public results from concealment of a weapon? Agent Palencia told OBET to confer with Betty.
Held: Yes!
Reverse the decision of the lower court to suppress the gun and After a while, OBET proceeded to the kitchen of the guesthouse located outside the main
house, followed by Betty. OBET then promptly pointed to what he termed as liquid shabu
statement. inside a white pail along with other drug paraphernalia, such as a beaker spray. NBI Agents
Under these circumstances, there are strong public safety concerns then seized the items.
justifying the court creating an exception to the requirement that Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City convicting Obet of violation of Section 14-A[2], Article III
officers provide Miranda warnings before asking questions. of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by RA.
No. 7659.
The officers trying to retrieve a weapon he knew was somewhere
nearby so that no accomplice or customer would pick it up and start WON Obets admission was valid
shooting protected the public, and this type of action should not be
No. Not valid, Obet was already under custodial investigation the second he was questioned.
discouraged. Since no drugs were found on Obet during the arrest, he cannot be investigated for anything
Although admittedly this caveat may cloud the Miranda rule, police in relation to shabu while under custody without informing him of his rights to remain silent
and to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
officers have the ability to distinguish when this exception should
apply. The presumption of regularity of official acts does not prevail over the constitutional
His motivation in asking where the gun was is not at issue in this presumption of innocence. Hence, in the absence of proof that the arresting officers
complied with these constitutional safeguards, extrajudicial statements, whether inculpatory
case. or exculpatory, made during custodial investigation are inadmissible and cannot be
considered in the adjudication of a case.
Dissent: Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented by saying that this statement
violated the Fifth Amendment protection versus coerced self-incrimination
because it was possible for the officers in this situation to advise the WON the search of Bettys house was valid.
respondent of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel.
Concurrence. Justice Sandra Day OConnor dissented in part and concurred No. not valid.
in part by saying that the gun should have been admitted but not the
Betty did not give consent, there was no intention of her to relinquish the right as she kept
statement. Nontestimonial evidence from informal custodial interrogations
demanding for a search warrant.
in violation of Miranda is not required to be excluded.
Not a valid search incidental to a lawful arrest since Obet was NOT arrested for drug related
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERT FIGUEROA charges but for the shoot out.
G.R No. 134056 | July 6, 2000 | DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
WON Obet is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
NBI Agents received a tip from a confidential informant that Robert Obet Figueroa was
engaged in illegal drugs NOT GUILTY.

A buy bust operation took place wherein Obet opened fire on the agents, after a while he There is no showing that the house occupied by Betty and the articles confiscated therefrom
surrendered. Agents brought Obet to the NBI headquarters after which they methodically belong to OBET. That OBET pointed to PALENCIA and SORIANO the places where the articles
interrogated him as to the source of shabu, he then volunteered information regarding his were found provides no sufficient basis for a conclusion that they belonged to him. Even if
supplier. the articles thus seized actually belonged to him, they cannot be constitutionally and legally
used against him to establish his criminal liability therefor, since the seizure was the fruit of which they were convicted is the very same law under which the latter were
an invalid custodial investigation. convicted. It had not and has not been changed. For the same crime,
committed under the same law, how can they, in conscience, allow
GUMABON, et al vs. THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS petitioners to suffer life imprisonment, while others can suffer only prision
(1971, Fernando, J.) mayor?
FACTS:
The continued incarceration after the 12-year period when such is the
Petitioners were sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua for the maximum length of imprisonment in accordance with the controlling
complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, robbery, arson and doctrine, when others similarly convicted have been freed, is fraught
kidnapping. Each of them has served more than 13 years with implications at war with equal protection.
imprisonment.
Subsequently, the Court ruled in People v. Hernandez that the 2. Art. 22 of RPC which requires that penal judgment in favor of the accused
information against the accused for rebellion complexed with murder, be given a retroactive effect was correctly relied on by petitioners.
arson and robbery was not warranted under Art. 134 of RPC, there
being no such complex offense. If the Hernandez ruling were to be given a retroactive effect, petitioners had
Petitioners then invoked the Hernandez ruling in a petition for served the full term for which they could have been legally committed. So
habeas corpus to lighten their current sentence of RP. They prayed habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy.
that they be released from incarceration based on (1) equal
protection of law and (2) the doctrine that judicial decisions favoring The courts uniformly hold that where a sentence imposes punishment in
the accused must apply retroactively. excess of the power of the court to impose, such sentence is void as to the
excess, the rule being that the petitioner is not entitled to his discharge on a
ISSUES/RULING: writ of habeas corpus unless he has served out so much of the sentence as
1. WON the petitioners may avail of the writ of habeas corpus? YES. was valid.
2. WON the petitioners were deprived of equal protection? YES.
3. WON the Hernandez doctrine can be retroactively applied to petitioners Director v. Director of Prisons: "that the only means of giving retroactive
YES. effect to a penal provision favorable to the accused ... is the writ of habeas
corpus." Petitioners have thus successfully sustained the burden of justifying
RATIO: their release.
The writ of HC imposes on judges the grave responsibility of ascertaining
whether there is any legal justification for a deprivation of physical freedom. If Petiton for HC GRANTED.
there is no showing of such, the confinement must thereby cease. If there be
a valid sentence, it cannot, even for a moment, be extended beyond the
PEOPLE VS GALIT
period provided for by law. FACTS:
The prisoner was arrested for killing the victim oil the occasion
The only ground on which any court will give relief on habeas corpus to of a robbery. He had been detained and interrogated almost
a prisoner under conviction and sentence of another court, without some continuously for five days, to no avail. He consistently
special statute authorizing it, is the want of jurisdiction in such court over the maintained his innocence. There was no evidence to link him to
person or the cause, or some other matter rendering its proceedings void. the crime. Obviously, something drastic had to be done. A
confession was absolutely necessary. So the investigating officers
Once a deprivation of a constitutional right is shown to exist, the court that
began to maul him and to torture him physically. Still the prisoner
rendered the judgment is deemed ousted of jurisdiction and habeas corpus is
the appropriate remedy to assail the legality of the detention. insisted on his innocence. His will had to be broken. A
confession must be obtained. So they continued to maltreat and
CASE AT BAR, petitioners assert a deprivation of their constitutional right to beat him. 'They covered his face with a rag and pushed his face
equal protection. They were convicted by CFI for the very same rebellion for into a toilet bowl full of human waste. The prisoner could not
which Hernandez, Geronimo, and others were convicted. The law under
take any more. His body could no longer endure the pain Tagumpay ng Rebolusyon-Political Assasinaton Team, Regional
inflicted on him and the indignities he had to suffer. His will had Command).
been broken. He admitted what the investigating officers wanted
The CIS also got information that Itaas, who was a known member of
him to admit and he signed the confession they prepared. Later, the Sparrow Unit of NPA Davao, was the murderer. From Davao City, he was
against his will, he posed for pictures as directed by his brought to Manila. The CIS investigator took down his statements as he
investigators, purporting it to be a reenactment. confessed that he was the shooter in the murder, in the presence of Atty.
ISSUE: WON the accused was informed of his constitutional rights Corpuz who told him of his constitutional rights. Both appellants gave
to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might statements after waiving their right to counsel in the presence of Atty.
Manansala and Corpuz.
make could be used against him.
Such a long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not Eyewitness Zulueta positively identified another suspect as
satisfy the requirements of the law that the accused be informed Raymond Navarro as having catcalled her before as "Hoy pare, ang sexy.
of his rights under the Constitution and our laws. Instead there She-boom!" and she saw him again inside the Mitsubishi Lancer following
should be several short and clear questions and every right Itaas and Continentes car following the shooting. She also identified
explained in simple words in a dialect or language known to the Continente since she frequently saw him merely observing the road thrice,
outside a carinderia near the JUSMAG compound.
person under investigation. Accused is from Samar and there is
no showing that he understands Tagalog. Moreover, at the time Itaas denied the truth of sworn statements and said they were
of his arrest, accused was not permitted to communicate with his tortured by their captors and that there was no counsel. Additionally,
lawyer, a relative, or a friend. In fact, his sisters and other Continente said he was handcuffed and blindfolded by the police in UPD
relatives did not know that he had been brought to the NBI for without a warrant and that he signed the sworn statements from him out of
investigation and it was only about two weeks after he had fear; that he signed the last page of his sworn statement before the waiver of
his constitutional rights because of the non-presence and non-advisement of
executed the salaysay that his relatives were allowed to visit him. Atty. Manansala (CIS engaged lawyer) who merely signed as witness to the
His statement does not even contain any waiver of right to waiver of his constitutional rights.
counsel and yet during the investigation he was not assisted by
one. At the supposed reenactment, again accused was not assisted The CIS investigator said that it is standard operating procedure to
by counsel of his choice. These constitute gross violations of his blindfold arrested suspected NPA members to withhold him from the view of
the entrance and exit of the camp. They also said their lawyers were present
rights
and the sworn statements came from them.
PEOPLE V CONTINENTE, et al
(De Leon Jr. |2000)
The RTC QC Branch 88 ruled against Continente saying that the
presumption of regularity was not satisfactorily controverted. They also ruled
Donato Continente, an employee of the U.P. Collegian, and Juanito
that the appellants conferred with their lawyers before giving statements, the
Itaas were charged with the murder of Col. James Rowe, a US Army officer
CIS investigators only typed the statements and they were accompanied by
and the deputy commander of the Joint U.S. Military Assistance Group
counsel during inquest and they were never tortured. Accused also admitted
(JUSMAG), and the frustrated murder of his driver Joaquin Binuya near the
during cross-examination they understood the language (Tagalog) of the
JUSMAG compound in Tomas Morato. The Central Intelligence Service
statements and waivers. Thus this appeal (I think this case is in the CA cus it
(CIS) conducted surveillance operations on Continente and accosted him in
didnt mention the CAs decision).
UPD. They took him to Camp Crame for questioning. During the questioning
and in the presence of Atty. Manansala, Continente admitted his participation
Issue: W/N the waiver of the constitutional rights during the custodial
in the murder as a member of the Political Assasination Team of the CPP-
investigation was valid
NPA. He said that his role consisted of surveying and gathering data before
the murder regarding the volume of the foot and vehicle traffic around the
Held:
JUSMAG compound. The CIS confiscated a letter (with a receipt of seizure)
addressed to Sa Kinauukulan with the acronyms STR PATRC (Sa
As to the waiver of constitutional rights SAGOT: Wala po pero nakapagdesisyon na po ako na ako ay magbibigay ng
salaysay kahit na wala akong nakaharap na abogado.
"Sec. 12. (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 TANONG: G. Continente (and Itaas), ang pagsusuko ng mga karapatan,
have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the ayon narin sa batas, ay kinakailangang gawin sa harap ng isang
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. abogado. Payag ka bang magsuko ng iyong mga karapatan sa
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of harap ng isang abogado ng gobyerno?
counsel." SAGOT: Pumapayag po ako.
TANONG: Nakahanda ka rin bang lumagda sa isang pagpapatunay na ikaw
The right to remain silent and to counsel may be waived by the ay napagpaliwanagan ng iyong mga karapatan, at nauunawaan
accused provided that the constitutional requirements are complied mo ang mga karapatan mong ito?
with. It must be clear that the accused was initially accorded his right to SAGOT: Opo.
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have a competent and
independent counsel of his own choice. The waiver must be in writing and We have consistently declared in a string of cases that the advice or
in the presence of counsel. If the waiver complies with these, then the Paliwanag found at the beginning of extrajudicial confessions that
EJ confession will be tested for voluntariness (given freely w/o coercion, merely enumerate to the accused his custodial rights do not meet the
intimidation, inducement, false promises) and credibility (if it is consistent standard provided by law. They are terse and perfunctory statements that
with the normal experience of mankind). do not evince a clear and sufficient effort to inform and explain to the
appellant his constitutional rights. We emphasized that when the
The seperate custodial investigation dialogues and answers for both Itaas constitution requires a person under investigation "to be informed" of
and Continente went like this (these are separate investigations his rights, not just a ceremonial and perfunctory recitation but to
ah pero they said the same things): explain, and effectively communicate that results in understanding. The
stereotyped legal form or model of this advice in all EJ confessions,
Police: Continente/Itaas ang pagsisiyasat na ito ay may kinalaman sa coupled with automatically typing a curt opo does not show a
pagkakaambush at pagpatay kay Col. Rowe ng JUSMAG at spontaneous, free, and unconstrained giving up of a right is missing.
pagkasugat ng kanyang driver. Bago kita simulang tanungin ay
nais ko munang ipabatid sa iyo ang iyong mga karapatan CASE AT BAR: It was not perfunctory for the police informed them
alinsunod sa ating Bagong Saligang Batas. Ito ay mga as to their alleged participations in the murder of Col. Rowe and the
sumusunod. Una, ikaw ay may karapatang manahimik o huwag wounding of his driver, Vinuya. They also advised them that the appellants
magbigay ng salaysay. Kung ikaw ay magbibigay ng salaysay, may choose not to give any statement to the investigator and warning that
ipinaalala ko sa iyo na anumang sabihin mo sa salaysay mong ito any statement from the appellants may be used in favor or against them in
ay maaaring gamiting ebidensiya pabor o laban sa iyo sa court.
anumang hukuman dito sa Pilipinas. Ikalawa, karapatan mong
magkaroon ng pili at sarili mong abogado habang ikaw ay aking There was no showing of Itaas torture since he did not report
tinatanong. Kung ikaw ay walang pambayad ng abogado, ikaw ay anything to the doctor summoned for his checkup immediately upon arrival to
bibigyan ng gobyerno ng abogado na wala kang aalalahaning Manila after he was previously arrested in Davao nor did he complain to the
anumang kabayaran. Ikatlo, karapatan mong malaman at administering officer. Nor could they say the counsels were biased and
mapagpaliwanagan ng mga karapatan mong ito. incompetent for they never objected or evinced a desire to change counsel.
Failure to complain is indicative of voluntariness and the procedure is
TANONG: Nauunawaan mo ba ang mga karapatan mong ito? deemed valid and the lawyer engaged. When the choice is left to the
police investigators during custodial investigation, the accused really
SAGOT: Opo. Nauunawaan ko po. has the final choice and can choose to reject the counsel assigned and
ask for another one. Atty. Manansala was deemed engaged by the
TANONG: Mayroon ka bang abogado na naririto sa ngayon upang siya accused and the fact that he decided to engage Manansalas relative,
mong maging tagapayo? Atty. Ceferino, upon the formers absence for his trial showed his trust.
As to the eyewitness and sworn statements: In the presence and with assistance of Atty Anggot, the Chief
Investigator of the Orquieta Police again reminded him of his rights and
The testimony of the eyewitness Zulueta confirmed to a large extent had typewritten his statement. After the contents of the affidavit was
the statements made by the appellants in their confessions. People react
read to him, Bacor signed his name on it.
differently to given situations, thus it is not strange for Zulueta to have
remained hidden in safety but was still transfixed, trying to identify the Bacor again swore to the veracity of his affidavit before the clerk of RTC
murderers. In addition, their confessions had details only someone in the Orquieta. Before signing the affidavit, the RTC clerk informed him of his
know of the NPA would have. constitutional rights and that the affidavit may be used as evidence
against him. He was charged and subsequently convicted of murder by
As to Continentes participation: RTC Oroquieta. CA affirmed the decision.
Conspirators are the authors of the crime, being the ones who Issue: W/N Bacor validly waived his right to remain silent, thus making his
decide that a crime should be committed. In this case, Continente was only confession admissible in evidence against him - NO
an accomplice for he only had (a) community of design, (b) cooperated in the For an extrajudicial confession to be admissible in evidence, it must
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, and (c) there must
satisfy the following requirements:
be a relation done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged
as an accomplice. Continentes only job was to gather data around the 1) the confession must be voluntary;
vicinity of the JUSMAG compound in Tomas Morato regarding the number of 2) it must be made with the assistance of a competent and
people, measurement of the streets and distance of the compound from the independent counsel preferably of the confessants choice;
street. He was not even present during the scene of the crime. 3) it must be express;
4) it must be in writing;
All throughout the custodial investigation, Atty. Anggot took pains to
explain meaningfully to Bacor every query posed by the police chief
Upon arraignment, Continente pleaded not guilty while Itaas refused to enter investigator. Bacor then stamped his approval to the extrajudicial
any plea, however the trial court ordered a not guilty plea be entered. confession by affixing his signature on each page thereof in the
PEOPLE v. BACOR presence of his counsel.
April 30, 1999 | Mendoza, J. o In his testimony before TC, he admitted that the signatures on
Doctrine: Art III Sec 12(1) Any person under investigation for the his sworn confession was his without any claim that he was
commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
forced, coerced, or threatened to make the confession
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 There is no need for a separate and express written waiver of his
be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in constitutional rights.
the presence of counsel. o By voluntarily executing his extrajudicial confession (in the
Sec 12(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or presence of and with the assistance of counsel and after having
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. been informed of his constitutional rights) Bacor effectively
Facts
waived his right to remain silent
Victor Bacor shot one Dionisio Albores with a shotgun, resulting in the
A PAO lawyer (in this case Atty. Anggot) can be considered an
latters death. After three months, Bacor surrendered to the police and
independent counsel within the contemplation of the Constitution
confessed his guilt.
considering that he is not a special counsel, public or private prosecutor,
He was escorted to PAO where he was informed by PAO Atty Angot of
counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is
his constitutional rights including the right to remain silent, his right
admittedly adverse to that of the accused-appellant.
against self-incrimination, and right to counsel. He was repeatedly
asked if he is giving his statement of his own free will, which he did.
Ruling: CA decision AFFIRMED
the investigators were already able to extract incriminatory statements
PEOPLE v. QUIDATO JR. from accused-appellant
October 1, 1998 | Romero, J. o Admissions obtained during custodial interrogations
Doctrine: An uncounseled extrajudicial confession without a valid waiver of
without the benefit of counsel although later reduced to
the right to counsel that is, in writing and in the presence of counsel is
inadmissible in evidence. writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still
flawed under the Constitution.
Facts
Bernardo Quidato Jr. was charged and convicted with the crime of
parricide before RTC Davao. He was tried jointly with co-accused Ruling: RTC decision REVERSED and Accused-appellants ACQUITTED on
Reynaldo and Eddie Malita (but both withdrew their not guilty plea) the ground of reasonable doubt
o Prosecution offered in evidence affidavits containing the
Note: Even though Quidatos defense was dubious (his alleged acquiescence to the
extrajudicial confessions of the Malita brothers. demand of the Malita brothers to accompany them to his fathers house on the
o However, they were not presented on the witness stand to strength of the latters verbal threats, his incredulous escape from the clutches of the
testify on their extrajudicial confessions. two, his inexplicable failure to return home immediately, his failure to seek assistance
from the authorities, the fact that Eddie stayed with him immediately after the incident,
After arrest, the brothers were interrogated by the police. They were and the nine-day lacuna between the killing and his pointing to the Malita brothers as
apprised of their constitutional rights, including their right to counsel, yet the culprits, all suggest a complicity more than that of an unwilling participant), the
still signified their intent to confess even in the absence of such counsel Court acquitted him because of the axiom that the prosecution cannot rely on the
weakness of the defense to gain a conviction, but must establish beyond reasonable
o The police officer took down their testimonies but refrained from
but must establish beyond reasonable doubt every circumstance essential to the guilt
requiring them to sign their affidavits of the accused.
o They were presented to PAO lawyer Atty. Jocom, and after they
were again advised of their rights. The content of their affidavits
were explained to them and after they affirmed the veracity and LUZ VS. PEOPLE
Sereno [February 29, 2012]
voluntary execution of the same, the Malita brothers affixed their
signatures on it. FACTS:

Issue: W/N the extrajudicial confessions of the Malita brothers may be Around 3 AM, PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza, saw the accused Rodel Luz
admissible as evidence - NO driving a motorcycle without a helmet.
Unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the He flagged down the accused for violating a municipal ordinance which
requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmets while driving.
averments in their affidavits, the affidavits must be excluded from the
Alteza then invited Luz to come inside their sub-station since the place
judicial proceeding, being inadmissible hearsay where he flagged down the accused is almost in front of it.
o The voluntary admissions of an accused made extrajudicially While he and SPO1 Brillante were issuing a citation ticket for violation of
are not admissible in evidence against his co-accused when the municipal ordinance, he noticed that the accused was uneasy and kept on
getting something from his jacket.
latter had not been given an opportunity to hear him testify and
Alteza told the accused to take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket as
cross-examine him the latter may have a weapon inside it.
In accordance with the doctrine cited above, the manner by which the The accused slowly put out the contents of the pocket of his jacket which
affidavits were obtained by the police render the same inadmissible in were:
o a nickel-like tin or metal container about 2-3 inches in size
evidence even if they were voluntarily given.
o two (2) cellphones
Citing People v. Compil, SC held that The belated arrival of a PAO o one (1) pair of scissors
lawyer the following day even if prior to the actual signing of the o one (1) Swiss knife
uncounseled confession does not cure the defect (of lack of counsel) for Alteza asked the accused to open the said container. Upon opening, he
noticed a cartoon cover and something beneath it. The accused spilled out
the contents of the container on the table which turned out to be four (4) Neither was there a consented warrantless search. Consent to a search
plastic sachets, the two (2) of which were empty while the other two (2) must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The consent must be
contained suspected shabu. unequivocal, specific, intelligently given and uncontaminated by any
RTC Naga convicted Luz of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. CA duress or coercion.
affirmed RTCs decision. o While the prosecution claims that petitioner acceded to the
instruction of PO3 Alteza, this alleged accession does not suffice to
ISSUE/S AND RULING: prove valid and intelligent consent. In fact, the RTC found that Luz
was merely told to take out the contents of his pocket.
1. W/N there was a valid arrest of Luz NO Neither does the search qualify under the stop and frisk rule. While the
rule normally applies when a police officer observes suspicious or unusual
Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the conduct, which may lead him to believe that a criminal act may be afoot, the
general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the stop and frisk is merely a limited protective search of outer clothing for
offender, but the confiscation of the drivers license of the latter. weapons.
Similarly, the PNP Operations Manual provides the following procedure for
flagging down vehicles during the conduct of checkpoints:
Petition GRANTED. RTC decision REVERSED.
o SECTION 7. Procedure in Flagging Down or Accosting Vehicles While in Mobile Car. Luz ACQUITED.
This rule is a general concept and will not apply in hot pursuit operations. The mobile
car crew shall undertake the following, when applicable: x x x
o m. If it concerns traffic violations, immediately issue a Traffic Citation Ticket
(TCT) or Traffic Violation Report (TVR). Never indulge in prolonged, unnecessary
conversation or argument with the driver or any of the vehicles occupants

At the time that Luz was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his citation ticket, he
could not be said to have been under arrest. There was no intention on
the part of PO3 Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or take
him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the period during which
Luz was at the police station may be characterized merely as waiting time.
In fact, PO3 Alteza testified that it was only for the sake of convenience that
they were waiting there.
It also appears that, according to City Ordinance No. 98-012, the failure to
wear a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle is penalized by a fine only.
Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest need not be issued if the
information or charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine only. It
may be stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be
made for such an offense.
This ruling does not imply that there can be no arrest for a traffic violation.
When there is an intent on the part of the police officer to deprive the
motorist of liberty, or to take the latter into custody, the former may be
deemed to have arrested the motorist. In this case, however, the officers
issuance (or intent to issue) a traffic citation ticket negates the
possibility of an arrest for the same violation.

2. W/N the warrantless search on Luz was valid NO

There being no valid arrest, the warrantless search that resulted from it
was likewise illegal.
The search did not fall under the instances when a warrantless search may
be allowed.
The evidence seized, although alleged to be inadvertently discovered, was
not in plain view. It was actually concealed inside a metal container inside
Luzs pocket. Clearly, the evidence was not immediately apparent.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai