consti comp_reyes onwards

8/9/2019 CONSTI COMP_reyes Onwards

1/26

RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES V Reyes

G.R. No. 178300 Mar! 17" #00$

Facts:

Appellants were charged with the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide

and imposing upon each of them the capital punishment of death. The RTC rendered a decision

dated 26 Februar 2!!2 con"icting appellants of the special complex crime of kidnapping for

ransom with homicide and sentencing each of them to su#er the supreme penalt of death. Thedispositi"e portion of the RTC $ecision reads:

%&'R'F(R') *nding herein three +,- accused $(/01( R''3 4A5') A7/0 AR0A$( A7'0A)

and 5(3'/T( F(R'3 7/CT(R/( guilt as principals beond reasonable doubt of the crime of

8/$0A44/01 F(R RA03( %/T& +$(9'- &(/C/$' as charged) the are hereb sentenced

each to su#er the supreme penalt of $'AT& ..xxx..

(n ;< August 2!!6) the Court of Appeals promulgated its $ecision a=rming with modi*cations

the RTC $ecision. The appellate court reduced the penalt imposed b the RTC on each of the

appellants from death penalt to reclusion perpetua without the possibilit of parole. /t also

decreased the amount of ci"il indemnit ..xxx.. The fallo of the Court of Appeals> decision states:

%&'R'F(R') premises considered) the $ecision of the Regional Trial Court of alolos) ulacan)

ranch ;2) dated Februar 26) 2!!2 con"icting accused?appellants of the crime of 8idnapping

For Ransom with +$ouble- &omicide) is hereb AFF/R'$ with ($/F/CAT/(03 in that:

;- accused?appellants are instead sentenced to su#er the penalt of reclusion

perpetua@

..xxx..

Appellants *led a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals> $ecision but this wasdenied. &ence) appellants *led their 0otice of Appeal on 2 August 2!!6.

The appeal challenged the legalit and admissibilit of the written extra?Budicial confessions.

Appellant Rees claims that his alleged participation in the kidnapping of the ao famil was

based solel on the written extra?Budicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores. &e

maintains) howe"er) that said extra?Budicial confessions are inadmissible in e"idence) because

the were obtained in "iolation of his co?appellants> constitutional right to ha"e an independent

counsel of their own choice during custodial in"estigation. Appellant Rees alleges that the

agents of the 4A(CTF did not ask his co?appellants during the custodial in"estigation whether

the had a lawer of their own choice) and whether the could a#ord to hire a lawer@ that theagents of the 4A(CTF suggested the a"ailabilit of Att. 9minga and Att. Rous to his co?

appellants@ and that Att. 9minga and Att. Rous were associates of the 4A(CTF. Appellant Rees

also asse"erates that the extra?Budicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores cannot be

utilied against him.

Appellant Flores argues that his written extra?Budicial confession is inadmissible in e"idence)

because it was obtained in "iolation of his constitutional right to ha"e an independent counsel of

his own choice during custodial in"estigation. &e insists that his written extra?Budicial confession

was elicited through force) torture and without the assistance of a lawer. &e a"ers that he was

not assisted b an lawer from the time he was arrested until he was coerced to sign the

purported confession@ that he was forced to sign it because he could not anmore endure thebeatings he su#ered at the hands of the 4A(CTF agents@ and that he ne"er met or knew Att.

Rous who) according to the 4A(CTF) had assisted him during the custodial in"estigation.

Appellant Arnaldo contends that his written extra?Budicial confession should be excluded as

e"idence) as it was procured in "iolation of his constitutional right to ha"e an independent

counsel of his own choice during custodial in"estigation. &e claims that he was not gi"en

freedom to choose his counsel@ that the agents of the 4A(CTF did not ask him during the

custodial in"estigation whether he had a lawer of his own choice) and whether he could a#ord


2/26

to hire a lawer@ and that the agents of the 4A(CTF suggested the a"ailabilit of Att. 9minga to

him.

/ssue: %hether the appellants extra?Budicial confessions can be admitted as e"idence. '3

Ruling:

3ection ;2. +;- An person under in"estigation for the commission of an o#ense shall ha"e the

right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to ha"e competent and independent counsel

preferabl of his own choice. /f the person cannot a#ord the ser"ices of counsel) he must bepro"ided with one. These rights cannot be wai"ed except in writing and in the presence of

counsel.

+2- 0o torture) force) "iolence) threat) intimidation) or an other means which "itiate the free will

shall be used against him. 3ecret detention places) solitar) incommunicado) or other forms of

detention are prohibited.

+,- An confession or admission obtained in "iolation of this or 3ection ;D shall be inadmissible in

e"idence against him.

Thus) we ha"e held that an extra?Budicial confession is admissible in e"idence if the following

reEuisites ha"e been satis*ed: +;- it must be "oluntar@ +2- it must be made with the assistance

of competent and independent counsel@ +,- it must be express@ and +


3/26

Facts:

The cit prosecutor of 1eneral 3antos Cit charged the accused Romulo Tuniaco) 5e#re

$atulata) and Alex Aleman with murder before the Regional Trial Court +RTC- of 1eneral 3antos

Cit. (n (ctober H) 2!!; the RTC rendered Budgment) *nding accused Aleman guilt beond

reasonable doubt of the crime charged) and sentenced him to su#er the penalt of reclusion

perpetua.

(n appeal to the Court of Appeals) the court appeals rendered Budgment on 5anuar 2;) 2!!H)a=rming the decision of the RTC with modi*cation on ci"il liabilities.

(ne of the issues upon appeal is the admissibilit of extra?Budicial confession that became one of

the basis in the con"iction such that it was alleged that it was obtained in "iolation of their

constitutional rights.

Aleman alleges torture as the reason for the execution of the confession. &owe"er he did not

present e"idence of compulsion) he did not institute an criminal or administrati"e action against

his supposed intimidators) no phsical e"idence of "iolence was presented. &ere) although

Aleman claimed that he bore torture marks on his head) he ne"er brought this to the attention of

his counsel) his relati"es) or the prosecutor who administered his oath.

(=cer Tabucon testi*ed that he saw accused Aleman) before the taking of his statement)con"ersing with counsel at the police station. Att. esinga) a lawer) not working with or was not

beholden to the police) Att. esinga) assisted accused Aleman during the custodial

in"estigation. Aleman) Boined b Att. esinga) e"en signed a certi*cation that the in"estigator

su=cientl explained to him his constitutional rights and that he was still willing to gi"e his

statement.

/ssue:

%hether or not accused Aleman>s extraBudicial confession is admissible in e"idence. '3

Ruling:

Confession to be admissible must be a- "oluntar@ b- made with the assistance of a competent

and independent counsel@ c- express@ and d- in writing.

These reEuirements were met here. A lawer) not working with or was not beholden to the police)

Att. esinga) assisted accused Aleman during the custodial in"estigation.

The appellate court is correct in ruling that such allegation is baseless. The act of not bringing

out the issue of alleged torture to the attention of his counsel) his relati"es) or the prosecutor

who administered his oath indicates "oluntariness of the confession.

/t is improbable that the police fabricated Aleman>s confession and Bust forced him to sign it. The

confession has details that onl the person who committed the crime could ha"e possibl known.%hat is more) accused $atulata>s confession corroborate that of Aleman in important details.

9nder the doctrine of interlocking confessions) such corroboration is circumstantial e"idence

against the person implicated in it.

LENIDO LUMANOG V. PEOPLE OF THE

/. T&' FACT3

Appellants were the accused perpetrators of the ambush?sla of former Chief of the etropolitan

Command /ntelligence and 3ecurit 1roup of the 4hilippine Constabular +now the 4hilippine

0ational 4olice-) Colonel Rolando 0. Abadilla.

The principal witness for the prosecution was Freddie AleBo) a securit guard emploed assigned

at 2;; 8atipunan A"enue) lue Ridge) Iueon Cit) where the ambush?sla happened. As a

purported eewitness) he testi*ed on what he saw during the fateful da) including the faces of

the accused.

All the accused raised the defense of alibi) highlighted the negati"e *ndings of ballistic and

*ngerprint examinations) and further alleged torture in the hands of police o=cers and denial of

constitutional rights during custodial in"estigation.


4/26

The trial court howe"er con"icted the accused?appellants. The CA a=rmed with modi*cation the

decision of the trial court. The CA upheld the con"iction of the accused?appellants based on the

credible eewitness testimon of AleBo) who "i"idl recounted before the trial court their

respecti"e positions and participation in the fatal shooting of Abadilla) ha"ing been able to

witness closel how the committed the crime.

//. T&' /339'3

;. $id the CA decision compl with the constitutional standard that JKnLo decision shall berendered b an court without expressing therein clearl and distinctl the facts and the law on

which it is basedMN

2. %as the extra?Budicial confession of accused 5oel de 5esus taken during the custodial

in"estigation "alidN

,. %as the right to speed disposition of cases of the accused "iolatedN

s position) as well as the trial court>s insu=cient *ndings of fact) appellants anchor their

claim of failure of intermediate re"iew b the CA.

2. 0() the extra?Budicial confession of accused 5oel de 5esus taken during the custodial

in"estigation was 0(T "alid.

4olice o=cers claimed that upon arresting 5oel) the informed him of his constitutional rights to

remain silent) that an information he would gi"e could be used against him) and that he had the

right to a competent and independent counsel) preferabl) of his own choice) and if he cannot

a#ord the ser"ices of counsel he will be pro"ided with one +;-. &owe"er) since these rights can

onl be wai"ed in writing and with the assistance of counsel) there could not ha"e been such a

"alid wai"er b 5oel) who was presented to Att. 3ansano at the /4 (=ce) Iueon Cit &all onl

the following da and staed o"ernight at the police station before he was brought to said

counsel.

'"en assuming that custodial in"estigation started onl during 5oel>s execution of his statement

before Att. 3ansano on 5une 2!) ;OO6) still the said confession must be in"alidated. To be

acceptable) extraBudicial confessions must conform to constitutional reEuirements. A confession

is not "alid and not admissible in e"idence when it is obtained in "iolation of an of the rights of

persons under custodial in"estigation.

Att. 3ansano) who supposedl inter"iewed 5oel and assisted the latter while responding to

Euestions propounded b 34(2 1arcia) 5r.) did not testif on whether he had properl discharged


5/26

his duties to said client. %hile 34(2 1arcia) 5r. testi*ed that Att. 3ansano had asked 5oel if he

understood his answers to the Euestions of the in"estigating o=cer and sometimes stopped 5oel

from answering certain Euestions) 34(2 1arcia) 5r. did not sa if Att. 3ansano) in the *rst place)

"eri*ed from them the date and time of 5oel>s arrest and the circumstances thereof) or an

pre"ious information elicited from him b the in"estigators at the station) and if said counsel

inspected 5oel>s bod for an sign or mark of phsical torture.

,. 0o) the right to speed disposition of cases of the accused was 0(T "iolated.

3ection ;6) Article /// of the ;OHD Constitution pro"ides that Jall persons shall ha"e the right to a

speed disposition of their cases before all Budicial) Euasi?Budicial) or administrati"e bodies.M This

protection extends to all citiens and co"ers the periods before) during and after trial) a#ording

broader protection than 3ection ;


6/26

Appling the totalit?of?circumstances test) we reiterate that AleBo>s out?court?identi*cation Kof

the accusedL is reliable) for reasons that) *rst) he was "er near the place where Abadilla was

shot and thus had a good "iew of the gunmen) not to mention that the two +2- lookouts directl

approached him and pointed their guns at them@ second) no competing e"ent took place to draw

his attention from the e"ent@ third) AleBo immediatel ga"e his descriptions of at least two +2- of

the perpetrators) while a=rming he could possibl identif the others if he would see them again)

and the entire happening that he witnessed@ and *nall) there was no e"idence that the police

had supplied or e"en suggested to AleBo that appellants were the suspects) except for 5oel de5esus whom he refused to Bust pinpoint on the basis of a photograph shown to him b the police

o=cers) insisting that he would like to see said suspect in person. ore importantl) AleBo

during the trial had positi"el identi*ed appellant 5oel de 5esus independentl of the pre"ious

identi*cation made at the police station. 3uch in?court identi*cation was positi"e) straightforward

and categorical.

6. 0() the results of the ballistic and *ngerprint tests were 0(T conclusi"e of the innocence of

the accused?appellants.

KTLhe negati"e result of ballistic examination was inconclusi"e) for there is no showing that the

*rearms supposedl found in appellants> possession were the same ones used in the ambush?sla of Abadilla. The fact that ballistic examination re"ealed that the empt shells and slug were

*red from another *rearm does not dispro"e appellants> guilt) as it was possible that di#erent

*rearms were used b them in shooting Abadilla. 0either will the *nding that the empt shells

and slug matched those in another criminal case allegedl in"ol"ing A members) such that

the could ha"e been *red from the same *rearms belonging to said rebel group) exonerate the

appellants who are on trial in this case and not the suspects in another case. To begin with) the

prosecution ne"er claimed that the *rearms con*scated from appellants) which were the subBect

of separate charges for illegal possession of *rearms) were the same *rearms used in the

ambush?sla of Abadilla. A ballistic examination is not indispensable in this case. '"en if

another weapon was in fact actuall used in killing the "ictim) still) appellants Fortuna and

umanog cannot escape criminal liabilit therefor) as the were positi"el identi*ed beewitness Freddie AleBo as the ones who shot Abadilla to death.

The negati"e result of the *ngerprint tests conducted b *ngerprint examiner Remedios is

likewise inconclusi"e and unreliable. 3aid witness admitted that no prints had been lifted from

inside the 8/A 4ride and onl two +2- *ngerprints were taken from the car of Abadilla.

D. 0() the defense of alibi of the accused CA00(T pre"ail o"er their positi"e identi*cation in

this case.

Alibi is the weakest of all defenses) for it is eas to fabricate and di=cult to dispro"e) and it is for

this reason that it cannot pre"ail o"er the positi"e identi*cation of the accused b the witnesses.To be "alid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal charge) the defense of alibi must be such

that it would ha"e been phsicall impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the

locus criminis at the time of its commission) the reason being that no person can be in two

places at the same time. The excuse must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception.

%here there is the least possibilit of accused>s presence at the crime scene) the alibi will not

hold water.

$eepl embedded in our Burisprudence is the rule that positi"e identi*cation of the accused)

where categorical and consistent) without an showing of ill moti"e on the part of the eewitness

testifing) should pre"ail o"er the alibi and denial of appellants) whose testimonies are not

substantiated b clear and con"incing e"idence. &owe"er) none of the appellants presented clearand con"incing excuses showing the phsical impossibilit of their being at the crime scene

between H:!! o>clock and O:!! o>clock in the morning of 5une ;,) ;OO6. &ence) the trial court and

CA did not err in reBecting their common defense of alibi.

HO )AI PANG" Pe*+*+o'er" ,s. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES" Res-o'e'*.

(n 3eptember 6) ;OO;) at around ;;:,! in the e"ening) 9nited Arab 'mirates Airlines Flight 0o.

!6H from &ongkong arri"ed at the 0ino AEuino /nternational Airport +0A/A-. Among the

passengers were ;, &ongkong nationals who came to the 4hilippines as tourists. At the arri"al


7/26

area) Customs 'xaminer 1ilda . Cinco examined the baggages of each of the ;, passengers and

found) all in all) ;H chocolate boxes with white crstalline substance contained in a white

transparent plastic from the baggages of the petitioner and his *"e co?accused. 3ix separate

/nformations all dated 3eptember ;O) ;OO; were *led against petitioner and his co?accused for

"iolation of R.A. 0o. 6s claim that he was depri"ed of his

constitutional and statutor right to confront the witnesses against him. The CA ga"e credence to

the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and Euoted with fa"or the trial court>s ratiocination

regarding the existence of conspirac among the accused.

/339':

$id CA err in not excluding e"idence taken during the custodial in"estigationN

&'$:

0o. 4etitioner takes issue on the fact that he was not assisted b a competent and independent

lawer during the custodial in"estigation. &e claimed that he was not dul informed of his rights

to remain silent and to ha"e competent counsel of his choice. &ence) petitioner faults the CA in

not excluding e"idence taken during such in"estigation. %hile there is no dispute that petitioner

was subBected to all the rituals of a custodial Euestioning b the customs authorities and the 0/

in "iolation of his constitutional right under 3ection ;2 of Article /// of the Constitution) we must

not) howe"er) lose sight of the fact that what said constitutional pro"ision prohibits as e"idence

are onl confessions and admissions of the accused as against himself. 4etitioner did not make

an confession or admission during his custodial in"estigation. &ence) petitioner>s claim that thetrial court erred in not excluding e"idence taken during the custodial in"estigation deser"es

scant consideration.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES" -/a+'*+a--e//ee"

,s.

TO2IAS RI2ADA&O" ROMEO CORPU" FEDERICO 2ASAS" ROSENDO ANOR a' RODOLFO

TORRES"e4e'a'*sa--e//a'*s.

Facts:

The death penalt ha"ing been imposed b the then Circuit Criminal Court of 4asig) Rial in

Criminal Case 0o. CCC?7//?;,2O?Rial for urder) the case is now before us for automatic re"iew.There were originall six +6- accused: Tobias RibadaBo) Romeo Corpu) Federico asas) Rosendo

Anor) Rodolfo Torres and oreto Ri"era) all inmates of the 0ew ilibid 4rison at untinlupa) Rial

(ne of the howe"er) oreto Ri"era) died during the pendenc of the case.

From the e"idence on record) it is clear that on 0o"ember ;H) ;OD;) at about D:6 oPclock in the

e"ening) prisoners from brigade ,?C) untinlupa) Rial succeeded in opening the door of their

dormitor b means of a false ke +tin can- and attacked the inmates from dormitor ,?a) while

the latter were then getting their food rations from the deli"er truck wherein the "ictim was

among them.

/n an in"estigation conducted b the /n"estigation 3ection of the 0ew ilibid 4risons on

0o"ember 2!) ;OD;) all the accused executed statements admitting their participation in the

slaing of ernardo Cutamora. ConseEuentl) an /nformation for urder was *led against themon April 2


8/26

At the presentation of e"idence for the defense) accused Tobias RibadaBo) Romeo Corpu) and

Rodolfo Torres withdrew their pleas of 1uilt. Accused Corpu and RibadaBo also denied their

participation in the killing of ernardo Cutamora) and repudiated their confessions) claiming that

the had signed the same under duress. Accused Federico asas and Rodolfo Torres admitted

ha"ing executed their respecti"e confessions) while accused Rosendo Anor changed his plea of

0ot 1uilt to 1uilt of the lesser o#ense of &omicide.

(n 0o"ember 2H) ;OD


9/26

outlawing their admission and thereb remo"ing the incenti"e on the part of state and police

o=cers to disregard such rights +in the same manner that the exclusionar rule bars admission of

illegall seied e"idence- should be strictl enforced)P and P+T-he outlawing of an such

confessions is plain) unEuali*ed and without distinction whether the in"alid confession be

obtained before or after the e#ecti"it of the Constitution.Q / take exception to the statement in

the main opinion that no law gi"es the accused the right to be so informed of his right to silence

and to counsel before the enactment of the ;OD, Constitution) which does not ha"e an

retroacti"e e#ect. / maintain) as in agtoto) that such a law was enacted as of 5une ;) ;Os claim of him going under torture was doubtful) as e"idenced b the medical

tests done on him. 3econd) the examination of his handwriting in the documents showing his

confession pro"ed that the same was done b him "oluntaril) without being the subBect of


10/26

interrogation through torture. There being said) no proof that the said confession was obtained

through torture and intimidation.

0(. First) what is being contended b petitioner is based on Article 22 of the R4C which states

that J+p-enal laws shall ha"e a retroacti"e e#ect insofar as the fa"or the person guilt of a

felon who is not a habitual criminal.M This cannot be sustained) for the pro"ision being

contemplated is not a penal statute) but a constitutional pro"ision which is found in the ill of

Rights. 3econd) while the reEuirement of a counsel in cases like this is not pro"ided in the ;OD,

Constitution) the same was established in Burisprudence since ;OH,. &owe"er) since theconfession in Euestion was executed in ;OH2) this said ruling cannot appl.

SANTOS ET AL. V. SANDIGAN2A5AN

FACT3:

4etitioners were charged for the complex crime of estafa through falsi*cation after falsifing the

clearing statement issued b the central clearing o=ce of 4/ in order to withdraw the amounts

of 4hp ;) 4hp ,) and 4hp . The were later con"icted for the said crime) in which the *led

a motion for reconsideration. The motion was denied b the 3andiganbaan) prompting the

petitioners to *le the present petition. (ne of the assertions of the petitioners was that their guilt

was not pro"en beond reasonable doubt because of the extraBudicial confessions of petitioners

'stacio and 7alentino are inadmissible due to their right to counsel) pro"ided in 3ection ;2 ofArticle /// of the ;OHD Constitution) being "iolated when these were executed.

/339':

%(0 the right to counsel) as pro"ided in 3ection ;2 of Article ///) can be applied retroacti"el in

the case at bar.

&'$:

0(. As ruled in the case of JFiloteo ". 3andiganbaan)M such right to counsel) when J"iolatedM

prior to the e#ecti"it of the +;OHD- Constitution cannot be applied retroacti"el. Additionall) the

ruling established in ;OH, b the case of Jorales 5r.) ". 'nrile)M which pro"ided that the

wai"erconfession must be made with the ad"ice of a counsel) cannot also be appliedretroacti"el. This is because the law pro"ides that legal decisions form part of the legal sstem)

but such decisions are to be applied prospecti"el.

PEOPLE V. DANO

FACT3:

$emosthenes 4eralta) the baranga captain of Tiguian) was informed b %ilfredo and a certain

Fernando Te"es that the $ano brothers were Euarreling. $emosthenes went to appellant>s home

to in"estigate. (n his wa) he met appellant. The latter told 4eralta he had killed 'meterio and

"oluntaril surrendered to him. $emosthenes left appellant in %ilfredo>s house and proceeded to

appellant>s residence where he saw the blood corpse of the "ictim sprawled in the ard) nearthe stairs. &e noticed that the bod bore se"eral hacking and slashing wounds. $emosthenes

fetched appellant from %ilfredo>s house and took him to the police station.

/339':

%(0 the constitutional right to custodial in"estigation is "iolated when the appellant>s admission

of his crime to the rg. Captain was admitted.

&'$:

0(. Appellant admitted killing the "ictim before the baranga captain) who is neither a police

o=cer nor a law enforcement agent. 3uch admission) e"en if done without the assistance of a

lawer) is not in "iolation of appellant>s constitutional rights. The constitutional reEuirements oncustodial in"estigation do not appl to spontaneous statements made in a "oluntar manner

whereb appellant orall admitted authorship of the crime. %hat the Constitution proscribes is

the compulsor or coerci"e disclosure of incriminating facts.

PEOPLE V. ENDINO

FACT3:

1err 1algarin) uncle of accused 'dward 'ndino) suddenl and without warning lunged at $ennis

and stabbed him repeatedl on the chest. $ennisP girlfriend Clara Agagas who was with him)


11/26

stunned b the unexpected attack) pleaded to 1algarin to stop. $ennis struggled and succeeded

momentaril to free himself from his attacker. $ennis dashed towards the nearb idtown 3ales

but his escape was foiled when from out of nowhere 'dward 'ndino appeared and *red at

$ennis. As $ennis staggered for safet) the two +2- assailants Ged in the direction of the airport.

%eeks after) 1err 1algarin was arrested. &e was immediatel taken into temporar custod b

the 4olice. 'arl in the e"ening of the following da) he was fetched from the police 3tation to be

taken to 4alawan and be tried accordingl.

(n their wa to the airport) the stopped at the A3?C0 tele"ision station where accused1algarin was inter"iewed b reporters. 7ideo footages of the inter"iew were taken showing

1algarin admitting his guilt while pointing to his nephew 'dward 'ndino as the gunman. For his

part) accused?appellant 1err 1algarin disclaimed ha"ing taking part in the slaing of $ennis.

/339':

%(0 the appellant>s admission was "iolati"e of the constitutional pro"ision on custodial

in"estigation.

&'$:

0(. Apropos the court a EuoPs admission of accused?appellantPs "ideotaped confession) we *nd

such admission proper. The inter"iew was recorded on "ideo and it showed accused?appellantunburdening his guilt willingl) openl and publicl in the presence of newsmen. 3uch confession

does not form part of custodial in"estigation as it was not gi"en to police o=cers but to

media men in an attempt to elicit smpath and forgi"eness from the public. esides) if he had

indeed been forced into confessing) he could ha"e easil sought succor from the newsmen

who) in all likelihood) would ha"e been smpathetic with him as the trial court stated in its

$ecision. Furthermore) accused) in his T7 inter"iew +'xh. &- freel admitted that he had stabbed

$ennis AEuino) and that 'dward 'ndino had shot him +AEuino-. There is no showing that the

inter"iew of accused was coerced or against his will. &ence) there is basis to accept the truth of

his statements therein.

PEOPLE V. ARONDAIN

FACT3:

Acting on a report of a robber of a taxicab (=cers found a witness) a securit guard of the

nearb compound) who told them that after he heard a gunshot) he saw two male persons come

out of the taxicab and run toward the *eld at the back of the compound. (ne of them came from

the backseat of the taxicab while the other from the front seat) carring a gun. Acting on the

lead) the police o=cers reEuested the securit guard of the compound to illuminate the *eld. As

soon as the search light was turned on) the policemen saw accused?appellant holding a gun. (ne

of the o=cers *red a warning shot and approached accused?appellant. &e asked him where his

companion was) and he pointed to him who was ling on his bell about H to ;! meters awa.

The police o=cers asked wh the shot the "ictim) and accused?appellant answered that he shot

the "ictim because the latter resisted his demand for mone. &e added that after shooting the

dri"er) he panicked and immediatel scampered awa) lea"ing the mone bills scattered on the

Goor of the taxicab.

/339':

%(0 the confession made b the accused?appellant is admissible as part of res gestae.

&'$:

0(. The confession made b the accused?appellant admitting the crime of frustrated robber

cannot be admitted as part of res gestae. /t must be stressed that said statement) if it was atall made b accused?appellant) was obtained in "iolation of his constitutional rights. 3aid

confession was gi"en after he was arrested and without the assistance of counsel. &e was not

informed of his right to remain silent or right to counsel. From time he was arrested and depri"ed

of his freedom) all the Euestions propounded on him b the police authorities for the

purpose of eliciting admissions) confessions) or an information came within the ambit of a

custodial in"estigation. As such) he was entitled to the rights enshrined under Article ///) 3ection

;2) of the Constitution. Failing to obser"e this constitutional mandate) the alleged confession of

accused?appellant cannot be admitted as e"idence against him.


12/26

PEOPLE VS TA2OGA

FACT3:

'dralin Taboga was charged with Robber with &omicide in an /nformation which reads that with

intent to gain) and with "iolence against persons) entered the house of one Francisca Tubon) and

once inside) with treacher and abuse of superior strength) assault) attacked and stabbed Tubon)

thereb inGicting upon her mortal wounds which necessaril caused the death of said Tubon and

took awa se"eral personal properties belonging to Tubon. &e was likewise indicted for Arson for

setting the "ictim>s house on *re.After *nding the burnt house and charred bod of Tubon) arangga Captain 4agao confronted

Taboga) and the latter readil admitted that he killed Tubon and set her house on *re) causing

the whole house) including the dead bod of the old woman) to be burned.

Taboga was brought to the police station for further in"estigation. r. ario Contaoi) a radio

announcer of $03) went to 4olice 3tation to inter"iew the suspect. Again) Taboga admitted

killing the deceased and setting her and her house on *re.

9pon arraignment) accused?appellant entered separate pleas of Q0ot 1uiltQ to the crimes

charged and interposed an alibi. Accused?appellant also claimed that he was maltreated b the

policemen and forced to admit the crime. Regarding his admission to radio announcer Contaoi)

he narrated that the inter"iew was held inside the in"estigation room of the police station where

policemen were present and that the reporter acted as an agent for the prosecution. Thus) hehad to admit the crimes because he was afraid of the policemen.

The RTC rendered Budgment *nding him guilt beond reasonable doubt of both crimes.

/339': %hether or not confession made b the accused to a radio reporter) a pri"ate person) can

be admitted as e"idence against him.

&'$:

es.

There is nothing in the record to show that the radio announcer colluded with the police

authorities to elicit inculpator e"idence against accused?appellant. 0either is there anthing on

record which e"en remotel suggests that the radio announcer was instructed b the police to

extract information from him on the details of the crimes. /ndeed) the reporter e"en asked

permission from the o=cer?in?charge to inter"iew accused?appellant. 0or was the informationobtained under duress. /n fact) accused?appellant was "er much aware of what was going on.

The records also show that accused?appellant not onl confessed to the radio reporter but to

se"eral others.

Accused?appellant failed to present con"incing e"idence to substantiate his claim that he was

maltreated and compelled to confess. %here the defendants did not present e"idence of

compulsion or duress or "iolence on their persons@ where the failed to complain to the o=cers

who administered the oaths@ where the did not institute an criminal or administrati"e action

against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment@ where there appeared to be no marks of

"iolence) on their bodies and where the did not ha"e themsel"es examined b a reputable

phsician to buttress their claim) all these should be considered as factors indicating the

"oluntariness of the confession.The RTC did not err in admitting in e"idence accused?appellantPs taped confession. 3uch

confession did not form part of custodial in"estigation. /t was not gi"en to police o=cers but to a

media man in an apparent attempt to elicit smpath. The record e"en discloses that accused?

appellant admitted to the arangga Captain that he clubbed and stabbed the "ictim e"en

before the police started in"estigating him at the police station. esides) if he had indeed been

forced into confessing) he could ha"e easil asked help from the newsman.

PEOPLE VS 2ALOLO5

FACT3:

At the waterfalls of aranga /nasagan) Aurora) amboanga del 3ur) on the e"ening of ,August

;OO6) the dead bod of an ;;?ear?old girl 1eneln Camacho +hereafter 1'0'0- was found.The one who caused its disco"er was accused?appellant 5uanito alolo +hereafter 59A0/T(-

himself) who claimed that he had caught sight of it while he was catching frogs in a nearb

creek. &owe"er) based on his alleged extraBudicial confession) coupled with circumstantial

e"idence) the girls unfortunate fate was pinned on him. &ence) in this automatic re"iew) he

seeks that his alleged confession be disregarded for ha"ing been obtained in "iolation of his

constitutional rights) and that his con"iction on mere circumstantial e"idence be set aside.

/339':


13/26

%hether or not the court a Euo gra"el erred in admitting the alleged confession of the accused?

appellant to witnesses lu"iminda cenia and Budge celestino dicon as e"idence against the

accused.

R9/01:

/t has been held that the constitutional pro"ision on custodial in"estigation does not appl to a

spontaneous statement) not elicited through Euestioning b the authorities but gi"en in an

ordinar manner whereb the suspect orall admits ha"ing committed the crime. 0either can it

appl to admissions or confessions made b a suspect in the commission of a crime before he is

placed under in"estigation. %hat the Constitution bars is the compulsor disclosure ofincriminating facts or confessions. The rights under 3ection ;2 of the Constitution are

guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion b the state as would lead the accused to

admit something false) not to pre"ent him from freel and "oluntaril telling the truth.K26/n the

instant case) after he admitted ownership of the black rope and was asked b Cenia to tell her

e"erthing) 59A0/T( "oluntaril narrated to Cenia that he raped 1'0'0 and thereafter threw

her bod into the ra"ine. This narration was a spontaneous answer) freel and "oluntaril gi"en

in an ordinar manner. /t was gi"en before he was arrested or placed under custod for

in"estigation in connection with the commission of the o#ense.

&ESALVA VS PEOPLE

FACT3:

/n the e"ening of 3eptember H) ;OO2) witness 1loria &aboc) together with the "ictim eticia

Aldemo) enBamin 5esal"a +petitioner-) 'log 9baldo);2 5o ontales and Rom 4aladin were at

0ena>s place plaing mahBong. A certain rs. 'ncinas and Att. Alibanto were also there. At about

;! o>clock that night) 1loria>s group left 0ena>s place and boarded the /suu panel of petitioner.

%ith the exception of 5o ontales) the group proceeded to istro Christina to eat and drink. %hile

1loria had softdrink) eticia drank two +2- bottles of beer) and the rest consumed beer and

KFLundador until ;;:,! in the e"ening.After the ate and drank) the group) with the exception of 'log 9baldo who Gagged down a

triccle) once again boarded petitioner>s /suu panel as it was usuall petitioner who dro"e them

home. The "ictim eticia Aldemo was seated at the front seat. 4etitioner dropped Rom 4aladin

at his house *rst) followed b 1loria) who resided some 2! meters awa from eticia>s house.

%hile at 1loria>s house) petitioner wanted to drink some more but 1loria told him to defer it until

the next da because the stores were alread closed. 1loria then ga"e eticia three +,- sticks of

barbecue and accompanied her and petitioner at the gate. After petitioner and eticia boarded

the /suu KpanelL) the former immediatel accelerated his car and went to the direction of 6th

3treet instead of towards Dth 3treet where eticia>s house was situated.

At about ;2:2! earl morning of 3eptember O) ;OO2) the group of 34(; 'dgardo endoa +34(;

endoa- of the 3orsogon 404 obile 4atrol 3ection chanced upon petitioner>s /suu KpanelL in3t. Rafael 3ubdi"ision in K(ur ad>s 7illageL (7) 4angpang) 3orsogon. The police patrol team

approached the "ehicle and 34(; endoa focused a Gashlight at the front portion of the "ehicle

to check what was going on. There) 34(; endoa saw petitioner whom he knew since childhood

seated in front of the wheel so he called out his name. /nstead of heeding his call) howe"er)

petitioner did not respond) immediatel started the engine and sped awa toward 3orsogon town

proper which is directl opposite his place of residence which is Ticol) 3orsogon) 3orsogon.

At about the same time that night) 0oel (lbes) a dri"er for the C3T 3isters holding o=ce at the

ishop>s Compound in 3orsogon) 3orsogon) was also in (7 4angpang. %hile he was walking

from a certain ea>s house) he saw a woman naked from the waist down and ling on her bell on

the highwa. &er Beans and KpantL were beside her. ecause it was raining) (lbes pitied her so

he carried her and her things to the shed some ;! meters awa. As he was doing so) a tricclebeing dri"en b 'duardo $e 7era focused its headlight in his direction. $e 7era called out) Q%hat

is thatNQ ecause he recei"ed no response from 0oel (lbes) he decided to bring his passenger

home *rst and Bust come back to check the site later.

eanwhile) upon reaching the shed) (lbes noticed that the woman was bleeding that he e"en

got stained with her blood. Afraid that he might be implicated) he hurriedl left the woman at

&aelwood such that when $e 7era came back) he no longer found (lbes. $e 7era then

proceeded to the police station to report the incident to K34(;L alaoro.

$e 7era) 34(; alaoro and 34(; 3incua e"entuall returned to comb the area but to no a"ail. (n

their wa back at about ;:; o>clock +sic- in the morning) the met t. Caguia talking with 0oel


14/26

(lbes. $e 7era lost no time in identifing him to be the man he saw with the woman. At this

point) (lbes admitted the allegation but professed innocence. &e admitted he left the woman in

&aelwood where the police found her.

'"entuall) (lbes was in"estigated b the police and was not released until the next da.

&owe"er) because the e"idence pointed to petitioner as the last person seen with the "ictim) a

search for him was conducted. &e QsurrenderedQ at one +;- o>clock in the afternoon accompanied

b Fiscal 5ose 5aona) his *rst cousin.;,

The prosecution highlighted that) per testimon of 1loria &aboc) eticia disclosed to her that

petitioner was courting eticia. &owe"er) eticia told petitioner that the should Bust remain asfriends because she was alread married) and that she lo"ed her handsome husband.;s calls.;6 astl) at about ;:!! p.m. of 3eptember O) ;OO2) petitioner) together

with his *rst cousin Fiscal 5ose 5aona +Fiscal 5aona-) went to the police station) wherein he

"oluntaril intimated to 34(< %illiam $esder +34(< $esder- that eticia Bumped out of his

"ehicle.;D At about ;:2! p.m. of 3eptember O) ;OO2) 34(2 'nriEue Renoria) together with other

police o=cers) Fiscal 5aona) and petitioner inspected the place) which petitioner identi*ed as theplace where he and eticia sat. The found bloodstains thereat.;H

After the prosecution presented twel"e +;2- witnesses) the defense mo"ed for lea"e of court to

*le demurrer to e"idence. (n Februar 2;) ;OO


15/26

FACT3: (n April 22) ;OO,) the marking of the documents to be testi*ed on b the lone

prosecution witness) Auditor ilibeth Rugaan of the Commission on Audit) who conducted the

audit examination) took place before the $eput Clerk of Court of the First $i"ision of the

3andiganbaan. The marking of the exhibits was with the conformit of all of the accused and

their respecti"e counsel.

9pon the completion of the testimon of Auditor Rugaan) the prosecution rested its case and

formall o#ered its e"idence on 5ul 6) ;OO,. Among those o#ered as e"idence were the sworn

statements made b all the accused) including that of petitioner) and pre"iousl marked asexhibits QIQ) QRQ) Q3Q) QTQ) Q9Q) and Q9?;Q for the prosecution. 3aid exhibits were o#ered as part of

the testimon of Auditor Rugaan.

(n August ;O) ;OO,) all the accused +including petitioner- *led their Q5oint (bBections to Formal

(#er of '"idenceQ on the principal ground that the sworn statements were QhearsaQ e"idence.

The 3andiganbaan in its inute Resolution dated August 2


16/26

2s Ci"il 3er"ice eligibilit who purportedl got a rating of H;.2. r.America also disclosed that he recei"ed information that 0er was campaigning for a fee of

H)!!! pesos per examinee for a passing mark in the board examination for teachers. /t was

e"entuall re"ealed that 0er Remolon>s name did not appear in the passing and failing

examinees and that the exam no. !6;2H as indicated in her report of rating belonged to a

certain arlou adelo who got a rating of 6.'stelito Remolona in his written statement of

facts said that he met a certain Att.3alupadin in a bus) who o#ered to help his wife obtain

eligibilit for a fee of ,)!!!pesos. r. America howe"er) informed 0er that there was no "acanc

when she presented her rating report) so 'stelito went to ucena to complain that America asked

for mone in exchange for the appointment of his wife) and that from ;OH6?;OHH)America was

able to recei"e 6 checks at 2)6!! pesos each plus bonus of 0er Remolona. Remolona admitted

that he was responsible for the fake eligibilit and that his wife had no knowledge thereof. (nrecommendation of Regional $irector Amilhasan of the Ci"il 3er"ice) the C3C found the spouses

guilt of dishonest and imposed a penalt of dismissal and all its accessor penalties. (n otion

For Reconsideration) onl 0er was exonerated and reinstated. (n appeal) the Court of Appeals

dismissed the petition for re"iew and denied the motion for reconsideration and new trial.

/339':

%hether or not there was a "iolation of due process as the extra?Budicial admission allegedl

signed b him was in blank form and that he was not assisted b counsel.

&'$:

0(. Right to Counsel is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case under custodial

in"estigation when Euestions are initiated b law enforcement o=cers after a person has been

taken in custod. The right to counsel attaches onl upon the start of such in"estigation. Theexclusionar rule under 4aragraph 2) 3ection ;2 applies onl to admissions made in a criminal

in"estigation but not those made in an administrati"e in"estigation.

ROSARIO V. ASTUDILLO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. 1%$736" NOVEM2ER #$" #00

Facts:

U 4etitoners were hired b %estern arketing) a chain of appliance stores) as sales persons.

enite and Robel were hired as Goor manager and ser"ice?in?chargecashier?relie"er)

respecti"el.


17/26

U An incident ensued later wherein the petitioners and the other accused were in"ol"ed

wherein the dail cash collection report of the compan did not reGect an remittance of

paments from the transactions co"ered b the alleged missing in"oices.

U /t was later found out that the goods co"ered thereb in the in"oices were missing.

Concluding that the transactions under the said in"oices were made but no pament was

remitted to %estern) branch accountant Camilo reported the matter to Aurora orBa) the branch

assistant manager.

U enite soon approached Camilo and reEuested him not to report the matter to the

management) he cautioning that man would be in"ol"ed.U ater) in a subseEuent meeting with the branch manager il (ng) accused?petitioner

(rellana admitted ha"ing brought home some appliances while enite ga"e a handwritten

statement.

U The other accused as well executed statements relating themsel"es to the incidents.

U (n complaint of %estern arketing Corporation) petitioners Astudillo and (rellana were

collecti"el charged with Iuali*ed Theft) along with a certain Robel and enite) under an

information dated 3eptember O) ;OO6.

U Additionall) petitioners) enite and a certain 5a"ier were indi"iduall charged also with

Iuali*ed Theft in four separate informations all dated 3eptember O) ;OO6.

U $uring arraignment) petitioners) with assistance of counsel pleaded not guilt.

U Thereafter) the RTC found the accused?herein petitioners guilt beond reasonable doubtof Iuali*ed Theft.

U (n appeal) the CA a=rmed the RTC>s Budgment with modi*cation as to the penalties

imposed.

/ssue: %0 the emploees> extra?Budicial admissions taken before an emploer in the course of an

administrati"e inEuir are admissible in a criminal case *led against them.

&eld:

The petitioners argue that their extra?Budicial statements were taken without the assistance of

counsel) the are inadmissible as e"idence) following 3ec. ;2) Art. /// of the ;OHD Constitution.

/t bears noting) howe"er) that when the prosecution formall o#ered its e"idence) petitionersfailed to *le an obBection thereto including their extra?Budicial admissions. At an rate) this Court

answers the issue in the a=rmati"e.

The rights abo"e speci*ed +iranda rights-) to repeat) exist onl in Qcustodial interrogations)Q or

Qin?custod interrogation of accused persons.Q And) as this Court has alread stated) b custodial

interrogation is meant QEuestioning initiated b law enforcement o=cers after a person has been

taken into custod or otherwise depri"ed of his freedom of action in an signi*cant wa.Q

The emploee ma) of course) refuse to submit an statement at the in"estigation) that is his

pri"ilege. ut if he should opt to do so) in his defense to the accusation against him) it would be

absurd to reBect his statements) whether at the administrati"e in"estigation) or at a subseEuent

criminal action brought against him) because he had not been accorded) prior to his making and

presenting them) his Qiranda rightsQ +to silence and to counsel and to be informed thereof) etc-which) to repeat) are rele"ant in custodial in"estigations.

4eople ". Tin an 9) 5r. is similarl instructi"e:

Clearl) therefore) the rights enumerated b the constitutional pro"ision in"oked b accused?

appellant are not a"ailable before go"ernment in"estigators enter the picture. Thus we held in

one case +4eople ". Ason) KsupraL- that admissions made during the course of an administrati"e

in"estigation b 4hilippine Airlines do not come within the pur"iew of 3ection ;2. The protecti"e

mantle of the constitutional pro"ision also does not extend to admissions or confessions made to

a pri"ate indi"idual) or to a "erbal admission made to a radio announcer who was not part of the

in"estigation) or e"en to a maor approached as a personal con*dante and not in his o=cial

capacit.

The Court of Appeals did not thus err in pronouncing that petitioners were not under custodialin"estigation to call for the presence of counsel of their own choice) hence) their written

incriminator statements are admissible in e"idence.

ALE&ANDRO 2. DE LA TORRE VS CA AND PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 10#78" AUGUST 16" 1$$8

Facts:

U /n "arious incidents) electrical engineers of 'RAC( who were assigned to inspect six

electric meters installed in Catha 4aci*c 3teel and 3melting Corporation +CA4A33C(- disco"ered

that these electric meters were missing. These engineers suspected that emploees of


18/26


19/26

in"ol"es a general inEuir into an unsol"ed crime and is purel in"estigator in nature. /t has

also been held that an uncounseled identi*cation at the police line?up does not preclude the

admissibilit of an in?court identi*cation. The identi*cation made b the pri"ate complainant in

the police line?up pointing to 4a"illare as one of his abductors is admissible in e"idence although

the accused?appellant was not assisted b counsel.

%e *nd that the trial court did not err in gi"ing due weight and credence to the identi*cation in

open court of the accused?appellant b the pri"ate complainant and his cousin as one of the

kidnappers. oth witnesses had ample opportunit to obser"e the kidnappers and to remember

their faces.

PEOPLE VS. CASIMIRO

FACT3: /n a bu bust operation) after arresting accused?appellant) the policemen took him to the

0arcom (=ce) where the policemen wrote their initials on the brick of mariBuana before gi"ing it

to the e"idence custodian. The policemen prepared a booking sheet and arrest report) a=da"its)

and a reEuest for the laborator examination of the con*scated mariBuana. The also prepared a

Qreceipt of propert seied)Q Accused?appellant signed the receipt without the assistance of

counsel.

/339': %hether or not defendant was properl informed of the charges against him. +0o-

R9/01: The receipt could not be considered e"idence against accused? appellant because it was

signed b him without the assistance of counsel.

The receipt states that a brick of dried mariBuana lea"es was deli"ered b the suspect to a

poseur buer and signed b accused?appellant Albert Casimiro as Qsuspect owner.Q /n e#ect)

accused?appellant admitted that he deli"ered a prohibited drug to another) which is an o#ense

under the law. &a"ing been made without the assistance of counsel) it cannot be accepted as

proof that mariBuana was seied from him. /t is inadmissible in e"idence.

/n 4eople ". (brero) this Court held that an uncounseled statement is presumed b theConstitution to be pschologicall coerced. 3wept into an unfamiliar en"ironment and surrounded

b intimidating *gures tpical of the atmosphere of a police interrogation) the suspect needs the

guiding hand of counsel.

4(2 3upa testi*ed that he informed accused?appellant of his iranda rights while he was being

arrested outside the grocer:

Also) the recitation of the iranda rights to the accused was incomplete and was made without

an e#ort to *nd out if he understood it. /t did not include a statement that) if accused?appellant

could not a#ord counsel) one would be assigned to him.. /t was merel ceremonial and

inadeEuate in transmitting meaningful information to the suspect. 3C ruled that signing of the

receipt without a lawer) the accused?appellant acted willingl) intelligentl) and freel. Thepolice in"estigators did not pause long enough and wait for accused?appellant to sa whether he

was willing to answer their Euestions e"en without the assistance of counsel or whether he was

wai"ing his right to remain silent at all.

The warning was incomplete. /t did not include a statement that) if accused? appellant could not

a#ord counsel) one would be assigned to him. The warning was perfunctor) made without an

e#ort to *nd out if he understood it. /t was merel ceremonial and inadeEuate in transmitting

meaningful information to the suspect. %e cannot sa that) in signing the receipt without a

lawer) accused? appellant acted willingl) intelligentl) and freel. %hat is more) the police

in"estigators did not pause long enough and wait for accused?appellant to sa whether he was

willing to answer their Euestions e"en without the assistance of counsel or whether he waswai"ing his right to remain silent at all.

PEOPLE VS. SA5A2OC

FACT3: %itnesses of the shooting of the deceased 1alam identi*ed enBamin 3aaboc at the 404

4ro"incial &eadEuarters in aombong as the gunman who shot 5oseph 1alam to death. 34(s

&ospital that he and arco Aguirre had robbed Abata is inadmissible in e"idence because it was

gi"en without the assistance of counsel while he +accused?appellant- was in custod.

/ssue:

%hether or not the e"idence is inadmissible because the confession was made without he

assistance of counsel.

Ruling:

The 3upreme Court held that the confession is inadmissible in e"idence under Article ///) 3ection

;2+;- and +,- of the constitution) because it was gi"en under custodial in"estigation and was

made without the assistance of counsel. &owe"er) the defense failed to obBect to its presentation

during the trial with the result that the defense is deemed to ha"e wai"ed obBection to its

admissibilit. 0o error was) therefore) incurred b the trial court in admitting e"idence of the

confession.

PEOPLE VS GONALES

3earches and 3eiures: The right to be secure from an unreasonable search ma be wai"ed

either expressl or impliedl.

Facts:


23/26

Accused?appellants 5oel 1onales and Romeo ernalde were charged with 5oseph ernalde with

robber with homicide under Art. 2Os watch

"alued at 4;!!!.!!) one J3anoM cassette recorder "alued at 46!!.!! and cash amounting to

42)D2.!! with a total "alue of 4


24/26

The contention deser"es no merit. As explained b /nspector alintad) accused?appellant

1onales "oluntaril surrendered the stolen goods to him. %hen he went to the house of

accused?appellant 1onales) the watches) cassette recorder) chainsaw) and spare parts were

gi"en to him. %hat thus happened was a consented search) which constitutes a wai"er of the

constitutional reEuirement for a search warrant. /t has been held that the right to be secure from

an unreasonable search and seiure) as in this case) the exclusionar rule +Art ///) sec ,+2-- in the

Constitution does not appl.

PEOPLE V. &ARA" 166 SCRA %1

The presumption is against wai"er of the constitutional right to counsel. A curt J(poM is

insu=cient to constitute a wai"er. W5ara) 7ergara) and ernadas were all sentenced to death for

robber with homicide. 5ara was also sentenced to death in the companion case of parricide.

The robbed and killed Amparo antigue and uisa 5ara using a hammer and a pair of scissors

while both were sound asleep in the bedroom the shared. The accused took with them a pigg

bank and a uddha bank. The "ictims were found the next morning b their emploees. The

accused ga"e extra?Budicial confessions without the assistance of counsel.WThe presumption is

against wai"er of the constitutional right to counsel. The stereotped ad"ice found in practicallall extraBudicial confession to which police in"estigators tpe together with a curt J(poM is

insu=cient to constitute a wai"erXits tired) punctilious) *xed and arti*ciall statel stle does

not create an impression of "oluntariness or e"en understanding on the part of the accused. The

showing of a spontaneous) free and unconstrained gi"ing up of the right is missing.

F: Appellants were found guilt of robber with homicide for the killing and robber of

Ampara "da. de antigue on 5une O) ;ODH. /n another case) two of the appellants were found

guilt of homicide for the killing on the same date of uisa 5ara while Felicisimo 5ara) the husband

of the deceased) was found guilt of parricide. Two of the appellants) Ramundo 7ergara and

ernardo ernadas) made extraBudicial confessions implicating 5ara as the mastermind. The

confessions were taken while the two were held incommunicado in the presence of *"epolicemen and after two weeks of detention.

&'$: The stereotped Qad"iceQ of the iranda rights appearing in practicall all extraBudicial

confessions which are later repudiated assumed the nature of a legal form or model. /ts tired)

punctilious) *xed and arti*cial stle does not create an impression of "oluntariness or e"en

understanding on the part of the accused. The showing of a spontaneous) free and unconstrained

gi"ing up of a right is missing. %hene"er a protection gi"en b the Constitution is wai"ed b the

person entitled to that protection) the presumption is alwas against the wai"er. ConseEuentl)

the prosecution must pro"e with strong) con"incing e"idence that indeed the accused willingl

and "oluntaril submitted his confession and knowingl and deliberatel manifested that he was

not interested in ha"ing a lawer assist him during the taking of that confession. That proof ismissing in this case.

PEOPLE V. TOLENTINO G.R. NO. 13$17$9

Facts:

(n Februar 2H) ;OO6 appellant 5onathan Fabros and his cousins) 3heila 1uilaan and erwin

edesma) were at their house in uahan) 4asonanca) amboanga Cit when their neighbor

%ilfredo Tolentino called them. %hen asked what it was all about) %ilfredo simpl motioned to

them to come to his house located Bust across the road. (nce the were inside the house)

%ilfredo immediatel re"ealed his plan to kill &ernan 3agario) 3heilaPs stepfather. %ilfredoexplained that it was the onl wa to free 3heilaPs mother ? appellantPs aunt ? of the su#erings

being caused b &ernan. %ilfredo then instructed erwin to go back to the house and get the

bolo of &ernan. erwin obliged) got the bolo) and ga"e it to %ilfredo. Thereafter) the were told

b %ilfredo to go home and wait for &ernan.

Around H:,! in the e"ening) &ernan arri"ed. &e went directl to the kitchen and *xed the bag of

rice he was carring. 5onathan together with 3heila and erwin) Bust staed Euiet in the li"ing

room.ater) %ilfredo with a 2Qx2Q piece of wood in his hand entered the house. &e then followed

&ernan towards the kitchen. %hen about an armslength awa from &ernan) %ilfredo)


25/26

immediatel walloped &ernan on the right side of the neck sending the latter unconscious and

falling face down to the ground. %ilfredo immediatel instructed appellant and erwin to help

him bring &ernan out of the house. ifting &ernan out of the house) %ilfredo held him b the

neck while both appellant and erwin grasped his feet. The then carried &ernan towards the

creek) upon reaching the creekside) the three stopped) then %ilfredo successi"el stabbed

&ernan on di#erent parts of the bod causing the latterPs instant death. After throwing the

"ictimPs lifeless bod in the creek) the three immediatel left. Tolentino called 5onathan) 3heila

and erwin and warned them that if the will tell other people) he will kill them. (ut of fear) the

Bust followed whate"er Tolentino told them.

(n !; arch ;OO6) howe"er) 5onathan was arrested for the death of &ernan 3agario. Accused

5onathan Fabros and %ilfredo Tolentino both denied killing the "ictim. /nstead) the pointed to

each other as the one who killed &ernan 3agario. Fabros pointed to Tolentino as the assailant and

the latter also *ngered the former as the killer of 3agario.

&owe"er) on ;< 5ul 2!!!) long after the trial courtPs decision had become *nal and executor on

his part) %ilfredo Tolentino) apparentl conscience?stricken) executed an a=da"it admitting sole

responsibilit for the death of &ernan 3agario and retracted his testimon implicating accused?

appellant 5onathan Fabros.

The trial court held that the prosecutionPs e"idence positi"el identi*ed %ilfredo Tolentino as the

person who had hit the "ictim with a piece of wood and later stabbed him with a bolo. /t also

ruled that the killing was Euali*ed b treacher and attended b the aggra"ating circumstance of

dwelling.

The court a Euo obser"ed that o"ert and positi"e acts of appellant +5onathan Fabros- manifested

his appro"al of the killing and the concurrence of his acts with those of the other accused.H Thus)

the RTC concluded that Fabros was a co?conspirator and should be held eEuall responsible for

the murder.

&ence) this appeal.

/ssue:

%hether or not appellant +5onathan Fabros- should be con"icted as an accessorN

$ecision:

Appellant cannot be con"icted as an accessor. Article ;O of the Re"ised 4enal Code de*nes an

accessor as one who had knowledge of the commission of the crime and did not participate in

its commission as principal or accomplice) et took part subseEuent to its commission b an of

three modes: +;- pro*ting oneself or assisting the o#ender to pro*t b the e#ects of the crime@

+2- concealing or destroing the bod of the crime) or the e#ects or instruments thereof) in orderto pre"ent its disco"er@ and +,- harboring) concealing) or assisting in the escape of the

principals of the crime) pro"ided the accessor acts with abuse of his public functions or when

the o#ender is guilt of treason) parricide) murder) or an attempt to take the life of the Chief

'xecuti"e) or is known to be habituall guilt of some other crime. To con"ict an accused as an

accessor) the following elements must be pro"en: +;- knowledge of the commission of the crime

and +2- subseEuent participation in it b an of the three abo"e?cited modes.

9nder paragraph 2 of said codal pro"ision) the concealment or the destruction of the bod of the

crime or of the e#ects or the instruments thereof must ha"e been done in order to pre"ent the

disco"er of the crime. That) precisel) is wanting in the present case.

/n his testimon) appellant stated that because he was afraid his co?accused would hurt him if he

refused) he agreed to assist the latter in carring the "ictim towards the ri"er. The fact that

appellant left thereafter likewise indicated his innocence of the charge. 7eril) he adeEuatel

explained his conduct prior to the stabbing incident as one born of fear for his own life. /t is not

incredible for an eewitness to a crime) especiall if unarmed) to desist from assisting the "ictim

if to do so would put the formerPs life in peril.

The presumption of innocence in fa"or of appellant has not been o"ercome b proof beond

reasonable doubt. Thus) he must be acEuitted.


26/26

consti comp_reyes onwards

Documents