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
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.
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.
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.