3_NAVALLO VS SANDIGANBAYAN because he was pressured by Macasemo who assured him that
234 SCRA 175 | July 16, 1994 Macasemo would settle everything. The collections in 1976,
TOPIC: CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION IN GENERAL
SUMMARY: Accused Ernesto Navallo was convicted of
malversation of public funds. He appeals for his acquittal to the
SC because his right to counsel is violated during the normal
audit investigation. The SC ruled that a person under normal
audit is not in a custodial investigation in which he cannot
invoke the right to a counsel as embodied in Section 12, Article
III of the 1987 Constitution.
DOCTRINE: Well-settled is the rule that such rights are
invocable only when the accused is under "custodial
investigation," or is "in custody investigation," which we have
since defined as any "questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." A
person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial
investigation
FACTS: Petitioner Ernesto Navallo, as the Collecting and
Disbursing Officer of Numancia National Vocational
School was charged of malversation. A warrant of arrest was
issued, but he was not immediately found. When he was finally
arrested, he posted bail bond. When arraigned by the Regional
Trial Court, he pleaded not guilty.
In his defense, he contend that he have been deprived of his
constitutional rights under Section 12, Article III, of the 1987
Constitution. He claimed that he signed the cash count only
reflected in the Statement of Accountability, were not his but
those of Macasemo, his superior, who had un-liquidated cash
advances. He also admitted having received the demand letter
but he did not reply because he was already in Manila looking
for another employment. He was in Manila when the case was
filed against him. He did not exert any effort to have
Macasemo appear in the preliminary investigation, relying
instead on Macasemo's assurance that he would settle the
matter.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner was under custodial
investigation when he signed the certification prepared by State
Auditing Examiner that he could invoke his right to counsel.
RULING: NO.
RATIO: Accused-petitioner claims to have been deprived of
his constitutional rights under Section 12, Article III, of the
1987 Constitution. Well-settled is the rule that such rights are
invocable only when the accused is under "custodial
investigation," or is "in custody investigation," which we have
since defined as any "questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." A
person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial
investigation. An audit examiner himself can hardly be deemed
to be the law enforcement officer contemplated in the above
rule. In any case, the allegation of his having been "pressured"
to sign the Examination Report prepared by Dulguime appears
to be belied by his own testimony.