case 4-4

llb 1-A ’15-16CONSTI LAW CASES 3. PEOPLE VS. FIGUEROA, 335 SCRA 349 Under Art. III, Section 12 [1] of the Constitution, a suspect in custodial investigation must be: 1. 2. 3. informed of his right to remain silent; warned that anything he says can be and will be used against him; told that he has the right to counsel, and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. In this case, accused-appellant was given no more than a perfunctory recitation of his rights, signifying nothing more than a feigned compliance with the constitutional requirements. (People vs. Samolde, July 31, 2000) It is always incumbent on the prosecution to prove at the trial that, prior to in-custody questioning, the confessant was informed of his constitutional rights. The presumption of regularity of official acts does not prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. Hence, in the absence of proof that the arresting officers complied with the above constitutional safeguards, extrajudicial statements, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, made during the custodial investigation, are inadmissible not only against the declarant but with more so against 3rd persons. THIS IS SO EVEN IF SUCH STATEMENTS ARE GOSPEL TRUTH AND VOLUNTARILY GIVEN. Such statements are useless EXCEPT AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE VERY POLICE AUTHORITIES WHO VIOLATED THE SUSPECT’S RIGHTS. 4. PEOPLE V DUENAS, 426 SCRA 248 Appellant was a convicted felon for the crime of homicide[4] in Criminal Case No. 1414 in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Baler, Aurora. He was serving sentence in the Iwahig Prison Farm, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, when he escaped from confinement on July 11, 1995. On November 29, 1996, at around 8:00 a.m., Cesar Friginal was cutting grass in his rice field in Sitio Gabgab, Brgy. Buhangin, Baler, Aurora, when he heard two gunshots. He instinctively turned to the direction where he heard the shots and, from about a hundred meters away, saw a short man wearing green clothes running away. At first, he ignored the occurrence but when he saw people trooping to the vicinity, he joined the crowd and there saw a dead woman on the ground. The woman was later identified as his cousin and neighbor, Elva Ka Elving RamosJacob.[5] On December 6, 1996, Dr. Nenita S. Hernandez, municipal health officer of Baler, Aurora, conducted a post mortemexamination on the victim. Her autopsy report showed the following: I - Head: 1. wound, gunshot, lacerated II - Arm: 1. wound lacerated 4 cm. long, lateral aspect, right wrist. CAUSE OF DEATH: The most probable cause of death was brain damage and hypovelmic shock due to gunshot wounds of the brain.[6] In a manifestation, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) narrated what it viewed as the factual antecedents of the case: On December 18, 1996, appellant tried to enter the house of one Benny Poblete in Brgy. Buhangin, Baler, Aurora, without permission. Benny and his father Harold Poblete tied appellants hands until the police arrived. Police Officer Noel C. Palmero then apprehended and detained appellant at the Baler Police Station. The next day, or on December 19, 1996, appellant sought voluntary confinement for safekeeping because there were threats upon his life brought about by his involvement in the aforementioned incident of theft against the Pobletes. Right after his apprehension, appellant intimated to Police Officer Palmero that he has information regarding the death of Ka Elving. Police Officer Palmero then instructed appellant to think about it over (sic) first. Four days after or on December 23, 1996, Police Officer Palmero asked the still detained appellant if he was ready to divulge the information regarding Ka Elvings death, to which appellant answered yes. Appellant was then informed of his constitutional rights, including the right to secure the services of a lawyer of his own choice. Police Officer Palmero told appellant that if he cannot afford the services of counsel, he would even be provided with one for free. By eleven oclock that same morning, Atty. Josefina S. Angara, upon the polices invitation, arrived at the Baler Police Station to talk to appellant. Atty. Angara spoke with appellant in private for about thirty (30) minutes. Appellant blamed Benny for kicking him and causing him to suffer chest pains. Atty. Angara asked appellant what really happened. Before long, appellant admitted that he was commissioned by Benny to kill the victim. Atty. Angara warned him of the seriousness of his implications but appellant was adamant in confessing to the murder of Ka Elving. The lawyer-client conference was briefly interrupted by lunchtime. By one-thirty in the afternoon, however, the inquisition resumed. Between the hours of three thirty and four oclock in the afternoon, appellant completed hisSinumpaang Salaysay where he confessed to the killing of Ka Elving. The statement of appellant was initially written on pad paper, thereafter it was typewritten. However, by the time the Sinumpaang Salaysay was finalized, it was already past office hours such that the attestation before the municipal mayor was postponed until the following morning. Afterwards, because of persistent chest pains, appellant was then brought to the Aurora Memorial Hospital to be medically examined. However, Police Officer 1 llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES Palmero did not inquire as to the results of the medical examination. The results of the medical examination were not offered in evidence. The following morning, December 24, 1996, appellant, who was escorted by the police, was brought before the then Municipal Mayor of Baler, Aurora, Arturo S. Angara. Mayor Angara read the signed Sinumpaang Salaysay before administering the oath. He probed appellant if the signature appearing in the Sinumpaang Salaysay was his and whether he understood the contents of the said document. Subsequently, Mayor Angara affixed his signature on appellants Sinumpaang Salaysay. In substance, the contested Sinumpaang Salaysay states that Benny Poblete commissioned one Cesar to kill Ka Elving. Cesar, in turn, contacted appellant for the hit. For more than a week, appellant and Cesar, together with a certain Manny Gonzales, stalked the victim. On November 29, 1996, appellant acted as a lookout while his companions shot the victim.[7] On the other hand, appellant testified that, before noon on December 14, 1996, [8] he went to the house of one Benny Poblete to see his brother-in-law, Erwin Bernardo, who was working for the Pobletes. Since his brother-in-law was not around, Harold, son of Benny Poblete, invited him to a drinking spree. While they were drinking, police officers Alfredo Miel and Amoranto Aquino arrived and arrested him. He was brought to the municipal hall where he was forced to admit the killing of Elving Jacob. For three consecutive nights, he was mauled. As a result, his eyes became swollen and his chest ached. Unable to endure the pain any longer, he owned up to the crime.[9] On December 23, 1996, PO3 Noel C. Palmero, in the presence of Atty. Josefina Angara, took appellants statement. Appellant claimed that neither investigating officer Palmero nor Atty. Josefina Angara apprised him of his constitutional rights during the custodial investigation. The following day, he was brought to Mayor Arturo Angara before whom he swore to his affidavit containing his confession.[10] Dr. Roberto A. Correa of the Aurora Memorial Hospital testified that he conducted a medical examination of the appellant at around 2:00 p.m. on December 23, 1996. During the examination, he found a three-inch lacerated wound on appellants right arm and a biositis tenderness (inflammation of the muscle) in his right scapular area. He further testified that the lesions were caused by a sharp instrument. Aside from these lesions, Dr. Correo did not notice any other injuries on the body of the appellant.[11] On rebuttal, Atty. Angara belied the accusation of Dueas. She testified that at past 10:00 a.m. on December 23, 1996, policemen came to her office and requested her to assist the appellant who was then under custodial investigation. She arrived at the police station at past 11:00 a.m. and was introduced to the appellant. During her private conversation with the appellant, she apprised him of his constitutional rights and told him that whatever he said could be used against him. She discouraged him from giving his confession but appellant was determined to do so. The questioning resumed at about 1:30 p.m. and lasted up to 4:00 p.m. While the investigation was going on, appellant complained of chest pains so she requested that appellant be brought to the hospital for medical attention. PO3 Palmero was also presented as rebuttal witness. He disclaimed mauling the appellant. He admitted that appellant was indeed complaining of chest pains but it was allegedly the result of the kick by Harold Poblete. In contrast with his previous declaration that he fetched Atty. Angara at around 3:30 p.m. to assist appellant during the investigation, PO3 Palmero now claimed that the interrogation lasted about three hours, that is, from 1:00 p.m. up to about 4:00 p.m. on December 23, 1996. He also declared that appellant was given medical attention after the interrogation.[12] Relying principally on the extrajudicial confession of the appellant on December 23, 1996 (which was later repudiated), the trial court rendered its decision convicting appellant of the crime charged: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Catalino Dueas, Jr. GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Murder qualified by evident premeditation, and considering the presence of the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and in the absence of any mitigating circumstance, hereby sentences him to suffer the extreme penalty of DEATH and further orders him to indemnify the heirs of the victims in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and to pay the costs. SO ORDERED.[13] Hence, this automatic appeal. According to appellant, the extrajudicial confession which the trial court relied on heavily for his conviction was infirm because the confession was secured through force and intimidation, a violation of his constitutional rights. For the State, the OSG filed a manifestation and motion in lieu of appellees brief, seeking the reversal of the challenged decision and the acquittal of Dueas on the ground of involuntariness of his extrajudicial confession. The OSG underscored the fact that it was forced out of appellant by means of threats, violence and intimidation, thus violating his rights. The appeal is meritorious. In convicting the appellant, the court a quo reasoned as follows: The extrajudicial confession of accused Dueas, Jr. was freely and voluntarily given and that his retraction and claims of violence and coercion were merely belated contrivances and efforts of exculpation. The statement (Exh. B-Stip.) itself reveals that there was compliance with the constitutional requirement on pre-interrogation advisories, thus: PASUBALI: Ikaw Catalino Dueas, Jr., ipinagbibigay alam ko sa iyo, na ikaw ay inuusig sa isang kasalanan, pinapaalala ko sa iyo na sa ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas ay karapatan mo ang manahimik at hindi sumagot sa mga tanong ko sa iyo at magkaroon ng Abogado ng sarili mong pili, ito ba ay nauunawaan mo? SAGOT: Opo. TANONG: Alam mo ba at naipaliwanag ng iyong abogado na anumang salaysay mo sa pagsisiyasat na ito ay maaring gamitin laban sa iyo? SAGOT: Opo. The Court finds no merit in the insinuation of the defense that Atty. Josefina Angara was not Dueas own choice as counsel for the interrogation (TSN, October 4, 2001, p. 4). 2 llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES xxx xxx xxx In the present case, accused even admitted that he trusted Atty. Angara when he signed his sworn statement in the presence of the said counsel (TSN, November 23, 2000, p. 9). Absent any showing that the lawyer who assisted the accused was remissed (sic) in her duties, it can be safely concluded that the custodial investigation of Dueas was regularly conducted. As could be observed, the confession is replete with details that could not have been concocted by the police authorities. According to Dueas, he is one of those who killed Elva Jacob; that his companions were Manny Gonzales and one Cesar; that Benny Poblete contacted Cesar who in turn contacted him (accused) for the purpose of killing Elving Jacob because his (Benny Pobletes) daughter Rhea who died in September, 1996 might still be alive were it not for the witchcraft of Elving Jacob and her siblings; that he (accused) was contacted by Cesar in November, 1996 at the market near the terminal of Baliwag Transit in Cabanatuan City; that he and Cesar were together when they went to Baler, Aurora and they just fetched Manny Gonzales at the gasoline station in Maria Aurora, Aurora; that they hatched the plan of executing Elving Jacob in the middle of November, 1996 at the house of Benny Poblete; that at that place and time, Cesar was given three thousand pesos (P3,000.00); that he (accused) did not know Cesar well but could describe the latters distinctive features; that Cesar and Manny Gonzales were armed with a .38 cal. revolver; that they conducted a surveillance on Elving Jacob for more than a week to determine her movement in going to and from the ricefield she is working on at Sitio Gabgab, Brgy. Buhangin, Baler, Aurora; that on November 29, 1996, at about eight oclock in the morning, they positioned themselves under a canal, feigning to be catching fish, until Elving Jacob passed by; that his two companions followed Elving Jacob, while he remained on top of the canal and acted as a look out; that, not long thereafter, he heard two gunshots; that they left the scene and reunited at Santiagos house in Brgy. Suklayin, Baler, Aurora; that on December 18, 1996, at around one oclock in the afternoon, he was instructed by Cesar to go to the house of Benny Poblete to collect the balance of five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); and that he was arrested there by the police. The confession is replete with details that only the confessant could have known and which, therefore, show that the confession was executed voluntarily (People vs. Jimenez, 105 SCRA 721). Also, the confession of the accused is exonerative in nature as it points to other member of the group as the triggerman. The exculpatory tone of admission of the crime and the abundance of details negate violence and maltreatment in obtaining a confession. A guilty person seldom admits his guilt fully and completely. He has a tendency to explain away his conduct or minimize his fault or crime or shift the blame to others. xxx xxx xxx The defense tried to impress to the Court that the policemen subjected the accused to cruel and painful punishment to extract his confession, thus: ATTY. NOVERAS TO THE ACCUSED Q During the third time they mauled you and told you to admit responsibility for the death of Elving Jacob, what happened? A I already admit (sic) because I could not bear the pain anymore, Sir. xxx xxx xxx Q What else, if there are any? A They could (sic) not allow me to sleep. They just throw water on me so I could not sleep or rest. (TSN, October 4, 2000, pp. 3-4). But, Q You said you were forced and intimidated to give the confession in connection with the death of Mrs. Jacob, did you tell Atty. Angara about the fact? A I did not. Q Why? A HOW COULD I TELL THAT WHEN THE POLICE OFFICERS WERE THERE SURROUNDING ME? (Emphasis ours) (Ibid, p. 6) xxx xxx xxx PROS. RONQUILLO TO THE ACCUSED Q Did you file any charge to (sic) the policemen who mauled you? A No, sir. Q Why? A BECAUSE I HAVE NO ONE TO TELL ON AND I AM AFRAID FOR THEM, SIR (sic). (TSN, November 23, 2000, p. 11) A review of appellants extrajudicial confession discloses certain facts and circumstances which put his culpability in doubt. Under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, persons under custodial investigation have the following rights: (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 have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (4) xxx xxx xxx There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions covered by this constitutional provision: (1) those resulting from third degree methods like torture, force, violence, threat and intimidation, and (2) those given without the benefit of the Miranda warnings.[14] Viewed against this backdrop, certain circumstances in this case need to be carefully reviewed and considered. On December 18, 1996,[15] appellant was arrested for theft on the request of a certain Benny Poblete. PO3 Palmero admitted that at the time of the arrest, appellant was not committing any crime. He was detained overnight without any charges. The following day, PO3 Palmero claimed that appellant supposedly sought voluntary confinement for his own protection. The police blotter entry, however, was not offered in evidence. Only a certification of such entry was presented, which 3 Q Were you still in the police station when he was brought back? A Maybe I was not there. an indication that physical coercion occurred at one point from the time of his arrest up to the execution of his extrajudicial confession. on December 23. 105 SCRA 721 (1981)]. the post mortem examination was already available to the police. that he was tied around the mouth by towels. Data regarding the murder weapon. As succinctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General: xxx at the time of the execution of the extrajudicial confession. Jacob. sir.m. 1996. The latter. Bolanos. On those dates. InPeople vs. sir. It stated that the failure of the accused to complain to the swearing officer or to file charges against the person(s) who allegedly maltreated him. He testified: Q You said you were forced and intimidated to give the confession in connection with the death of Mrs. But appellant adequately explained why he did not tell anybody about the police brutality he had suffered. Immediately after accomplishing the affidavit. Q Did you try to inquire what was the result of the examination being conducted upon Catalino Dueas? A Not anymore. The extrajudicial confession was taken five days later. that his hands were tied with shoe strings.m. We entertain no doubt that the constitutional requirement was violated. When confronted on this matter. were already known to the PC investigators at the time the statements were allegedly signed by the said accusedappellants. Sir. She arrived at the police station at around 11:00 a. July 22. on December 23. 1996 requesting her to assist a suspect under custodial investigation. [16] The trial court considered appellants claim of maltreatment as but a lame excuse. the voluntary confinement tale appears to be an afterthought to cover up the appellants illegal arrest and detention. Correa found positive marks of violence on the latters body.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES certification was not even signed by appellant. the police authorities already knew of the murder of Ka Elving. although he had the opportunity to do so. was erroneously applied by the trial court in the case at bar. The interrogation resumed after lunch and lasted till 4:00 p. do you know who was the police officer who brought him? A I do not know the jailer at the time. But he was brought to the hospital. Aragon's statement. 1996 or five days after his arrest. the PC would have known details and facts such as. Atty. Angara. This fell terribly short of the standards demanded by the Constitution and Section 2 of RA 7438. and even before appellants arrest. all of which were stated in the confessions. It must be emphasized that the presumption of voluntariness of an extrajudicial confession arises only when the replete details could have been supplied by no other person but the perpetrator himself [People vs. sir. and could not have been known to or invented by the investigators. The only purpose of the maltreatment could have been to force him to admit guilt against his will. (sic)[18] Furthermore.[20] Appellant was arrested before noon on December 18. during which Dr. who assisted him in the execution of his extrajudicial confession. Appellant executed his sworn statement on his alleged involvement in the killing of Ka Elving on December 23. that Pedro Eslamado was abducted and killed. however. RONQUILLO Q Did you file any charge to (sic) the policemen who mauled you? A No. The facts and details contained in at least three of the confessions.[21] we held that: 4 . just before he was about to put his confession in writing. and Juarez' statement. The three confessions referred to all appear to have been executed after the body of the deceased Pedro Eslamado had been exhumed by the PC team on July 15. which is not the case here. Abayon. and conferred with the appellant for about 30 minutes. Angara testified that policemen came to her office at past 10:00 a. 1996. Q Why? A Because I have no one to tell on and I am afraid for them. will still seek voluntary confinement when there are no charges against him. then. the whereabouts of the cadaver were properly within the knowledge of the investigating officers. already behind bars. Mariano Aragon and Jose Juarez. Under the circumstances. July 23. incidentally not of appellants choice. anymore. Abayon's statement is dated July 16. 1971. the confession is considered to have been voluntarily given. did you tell Atty. sir. Q If you could not remember anymore if you were the one who bring (sic) him to the hospital. Also worth mentioning is the belated appearance of Atty.m. Q Are you sure of that? A Yes. meant that the confession was voluntary. Q Why? A How could I tell that when the police officers were there surrounding me. the wounds sustained by the victim. could have easily filled up the details of the crime in the extrajudicial confession. No person in his right mind. Angara about that fact? A I did not. it is evident that appellant had already been in detention for five days before he came to be assisted by a lawyer. those of Reynaldo Abayon. This rule. In this case. Q Why? A Because I could not remember anymore the person who accompanied him. rebuttal witness PO3 Palmero had nothing but evasive and unresponsive answers: Q Did you personally bring Dueas to the hospital? A I could not remember. appellant made the following declaration: PROS.[17] On cross-examination. From the foregoing.[19] we held: It is a settled rule that where an alleged confession contains details and is replete with facts which could have possibly been supplied only by the perpetrator of the crime. In People vs. Base. appellant sought medical attention. where his remains were buried. 1971. the trial court misapplied the rule that a confession is presumed voluntary where the same contains details and facts unknown to the investigator which could have been supplied only by the perpetrator of the crime. conviction for malversation through negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves that mode of commission of the offense. Sandiganbayan. that he saw a short man in green clothes running away from the vicinity of the crime.[23] What is sought to be avoided is the evil of extorting from the very mouth of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of an offense. you still waited until December 23. Q So. When PO3 Palmero was first put on the witness stand. 1996 was inadmissible as evidence. the record is bereft of any substantial evidence to sustain the judgment of conviction. 2. He maintains that he signed the sworn statement while confined a the Philippine heart center and upon assurance that it would not be used against him. Angara who said that the interrogation of appellant lasted from about 1:30 p. we hold that the appellants extrajudicial confession dated December 23. 1996. the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baler.. his testimony did not implicate the appellant in the murder of Elving Jacob.[22] Well-settled is the doctrine that the purpose of providing counsel to a person under custodial investigation is to curb the uncivilized practice of extracting a confession. This was the doctrine laid down in the case of Samson vs. on December 23. 103 Phil. Angara.m. isnt it? A Yes. right after appellants arrest. up to about 4:00 p. on rebuttal. Angara to assist appellant at about 3:30 p. He likewise claimed that his constitutional rights to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against and due process were violated. since the extrajudicial confession of appellant was given in violation of the safeguards in Article III. 1996. according to Dr. all accused were convicted by the Sandiganbayan. PO3 Palmero changed his story and declared that the interrogation of appellant lasted about three hours from about 1:00 p. Q So you already know that on December 18.. 1996 that whatever Catalino Dueas will reveal to you will give you lead in solving the investigation in connection with the death of Elvira Jacob. sir. 217 and 171 [8] in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. But how could the interrogation of appellant have taken place within that time-frame when. The Director of Prisons is directed to inform this Court of his compliance within ten days from receipt of this decision.. The adjustment in the time cited may have been made to conform to the earlier testimony of rebuttal witness Atty. the very evidence with which to prosecute and thereafter convict him. 475 SCRA 248 Ynares-Santiago. According to PO3 Palmero. to 4:00 p. 1996?[26] In view of the foregoing. isnt it? A Yes. even through the slightest coercion which might lead the accused to admit something untrue. However. [25] Accused Ochoa interposed an appeal and claimed that his conviction was based on his alleged sworn statement and the transcript of stenographic notes of a supposed interview with an NPC personnel and the report of the NBI. when you arrested him what did he actually told (sic) you? A Before we put him in jail at the Baler Police Station he told us that he has (sic) to reveal something about the death of Elvira Jacob. J. Court of appeals. Jr.m. your honor. Section 12 of the Constitution. The interrogation lasted more or less an hour. While the Information charged the accused of willful and intentional commission of the acts complained of while the Decision found the accused guilty of inexcusable negligence. 2220. The claim that his affidavit is inadmissible in evidence in accordance with section 12 [1] of the Bill of Rights is not tenable. [24] These constitutional guarantees are meant to protect a person from the inherently coercive psychological. 1996 for that revelation. JOSE TING LAN UY. Branch 96. Thats all. Correo and the appellants medical record. sir.m. the doctor conducted his medical examination of the appellant at around 2:00 p. After trial. Facts: For allegedly diverting and collecting funds of the National Power Corporation intended for the purchase of US Dollars from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). Appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime of murder and his immediate release is ordered unless there is reason to return him for confinement at the Iwahig Prison Farm in Puerto Princesa City or to detain him for some other valid cause. 277. the accused-appellants were charged of Malversation through Falsification of Commercial Documents as defined and penalized under Arts. if not physical. Aurora. in Criminal Case No. Even if the information charges willful malversation. on December 23. he testified that he fetched Atty.m. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. And with the exclusion thereof. WHEREFORE. As he testified on cross-examination: Q On December 18.m. Held: 1. He was not assisted by counsel nor he was apprised of his constitutional rights when he executed the affidavit. (Diaz vs. the witness having said only 5. convicting appellant Catalino Dueas. atmosphere of such investigation. Finally. the court notes the material discrepancy between the testimony of PO3 Palmero and that of Atty. the latter already insinuated to him that he would confess his participation in the killing. JR. Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person as a suspect. is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES An accused who is on board the police vehicle on the way to the police station is already under custodial investigation and should therefore be accorded his rights under the Constitution. The “investigation” under said provision refers to “custodial investigation where a suspect has 5 . et al. While it is true that one Cesar Friginal was presented as a witness by the prosecution.m. 302 SCRA 118). regardless of the absence of coercion or the fact that it had been voluntarily given. He was not informed of his constitutional rights when he executed his extrajudicial confession. When there is no need to inform the accused/suspect of his rights. (NOTE: In People vs. and (3) he must be told that he has a right to counsel. accused-appellant stated that. he was not allowed to be seen. we hold accused-appellant’s extrajudicial confession is invalid. (ii) made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. Art. therefore. and he refuted that he misused proceeds oftickets also stating that he was prevented from settling said amounts. The protective mantle of section 12. his lawyer did not really assist him. As regards his counsel. when arraigned both accused pleaded not guilty. article III does not apply to administrative investigations (People vs. the PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted. he was not informed of his constitutional rights before his statement was taken. The extrajudicial confession of accused-appellant is not admissible in evidence. (iii) express. 175 SCRA 216). Under Art. Clearly. custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has began to focus on a particular person as a suspect (People vs. and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. He testified that during his detention. 6. and that if he is indigent. The findings of the Audit team were given to him. Ordono. the same was not covered by Section 12. whether verbal or non-verbal. Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. CA. the confession of the accused was obtained during an administrative investigation by NPC and therefore. He proffered a compromise however this did not ensue. may attempt to legitimize coerced extrajudicial confessions and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an offense on television (People vs. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’ written admission and statement. (2) he must be warned that anything he says can and will be used against him. A suspect’s confession. In fact. Succinctly stated. an extrajudicial confession must be: (i) voluntary. Accused-appellant Samolde claimed that he was beaten up by the police. verbal admission made to a radio announcer who was not a part of the investigation (People vs. As the above quoted portion of the extrajudicial confession shows. the rights enumerated by the accused are not available BEFORE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATORS ENTER THE PICTURE. confession to a private individual (Kimpo vs. 334 SCRA 673). even a videotaped interview where the accused willingly admit his guilt in the presence of newsmen is not covered by the said provision though the trial courts were warned by the supreme Court to take extreme caution in admitting similar confessions because of the distinct possibility that the police. Zuela. Clearly. Andam. However. a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. and he did so only after he had been subjected to some brutality by the police. to which defendants argued that the confession was taken without the accused being 6 . signifying nothing more than a feigned compliance with the constitutional requirements. Issue: Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the accused-appellant admissible in evidence. Endino. contrary to what was stated in his extrajudicial confession. A letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle the amount of P76. accused-appellant was given no more than a perfunctory recitation of his rights. the confession made before a Municipal Mayor was held admissible as evidence). §12(1) of the Constitution. For this reason. Art. This manner of giving warnings has been held to be “merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect. even if appellant’s confession were gospel truth. a suspect in custodial investigation must be given the following warnings: “(1) He must be informed of his right to remain silent. Duenas. lest visitors notice his swollen face. Facts: Accused-appellant Ramil Samolde was charged. III of the Constitution. when taken without the assistance of counsel. with the connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners. It was alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. PEOPLE V SAMOLDE. 426 SCRA 666). III of the Constitution) Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines. accused-appellant was not properly apprised of his constitutional rights. III. 232 SCRA 53). Judge Ayson. 1-A. Ramos pleaded not guilty. assigned at its Baguio City station. 336 SCRA 32 To be admissible in evidence. PP V JUDGE RUBEN AYSON Confession made to the officials of Philippine Airlines during an investigation is admissible in evidence despite the fact that he was not informed of his rights during custodial investigations since said officials are not bound by the requirements of Section 12. 323 SCRA 589). without a valid waiver of such assistance. 1. Jr. Held: No. That investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline. with the crime of murder.. together with Armando Andres. 353 SCRA 307).llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES already been taken into police custody and that the investigating officers begin to ask questions to elicit information and confessions or admissions from the suspect. Clearly. or even to a Mayor approached as a personal confidante and not in his official capacity (People vs. and (iv) in writing.000. is inadmissible in evidence. First. 2. PP V MAQUEDA British Horace William Barker (consultant of WB) was slain inside his house in Tuba. Benguet while his Filipino wife. he was not informed of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. incriminatory in character. The Sinumpaang Salaysay is inadmissible because it was in clear violation of the constitutional rights of the accused." Pursuant to Section 12(3) of the Bill of Rights therefore. Two household helpers of the victims identified Salvamante (a former houseboy of the victims) and Maqueda as the robbers. Maqueda also admitted his involvement in the commission of the robbery to Prosecutor Zarate and to Salvosa. Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as evidence the admission and statement of accused. Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant Bail. 2) nor force. no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him. He stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering to be a State witness in the above entitled case. Quezon where he signed a Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein he narrated his participation in the crime. The exercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under Section 12(1) of the Bill of Rights are not confined to that period prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information but are available at that stage when a person is "under investigation for the commission of an offense. and as to the other admission (Salvosa). when the two accused asked them for directions.not present in case at bar). He must claim it and could be waived. criminal. Mike Tabayan and his friend also saw the two accused a kilometer away from the house of the victims that same morning. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. is actually put to the witness. Section 20 of the 1987 constitution provides that the right against selfincrimination (only to witnesses other than accused. 3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence. And yet. Issue: Whether or Not the trial court was correct in holding that the Sinumpaan Salaysay is admissible as evidence. violence. Held: No. Afterwards he was brought to the Benguet Provincial Jail. Maqueda was then arrested in Guinyangan. As to the admissions made by Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa. he still confessed when he did not have to do so. in any civil. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena. Teresita Mendoza was badly battered with lead pipes on the occasion of a robbery. But unless and until such rights and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial." the right can be claimed only when the specific question. It cannot be claimed at any other time. While he was under detention. Respondent Judge did not admit those stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. threat. Arizona: the rights of the accused include: 1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed. the accused was already facing charges in court. The contention of the trial court that the accused is not entitled to such rights anymore because the information has been filed and a warrant of arrest has been issued already. such extrajudicialadmission is inadmissible as evidence. he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. it was given to a private person therefore admissible. The individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement.” It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry. This is accorded to every person who gives evidence. whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena. but in connection with Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a state witness." Held: No. 7 . despite his knowing fully well that a case had already been filed in court. intimidation. Quezon. Maqueda voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the course of an investigation. unless what is asked is relating to a different crime charged. According to SPO3 Molleno. He no longer had the right to remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to refuse to be a witness and not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES represented by a lawyer. it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case. Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in miranda v. is untenable. Second. Hence this appeal. The right is not to "be compelled to be a witness against himself. or to refuse to testify altogether. He was taken to Calauag. At the time of the confession. and to beinformed of such right. or administrative proceeding. he informed Maqueda of his constitutional rights before he signed suchdocument. A motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was denied. the trial court admitted their testimony thereon only to prove the tenor of their conversation but not to prove the truth of the admissionbecause such testimony was objected to as hearsay. It is a right that a witness knows or should know. Concededly. Be that as it may. the police brought the 2 accused to the office of the PAO lawyer in Balaoan. La Union. explained to them each of the questions and answers taken during the investigation. La Union. both accused were apprised in their own dialect of their constitutional right to remain silent and to be assisted by a competent counsel of their choice. 232 SCRA 53 The protective mantle of sec 12 Article III does not apply to confession to a private individual 4. the right of the accused to counsel automatically attached to them. The girl was later identified as Shirley Victore. At the end of his narration Ordoño affixed his thumbmark on his statement in lieu of his signature as he did not know how to write. who 3 days before was reported missing. may be given in evidence against him. the police thereupon invited the 2 suspects and brought them to the police station for questioning. where practicing lawyers 8 . Confession. Upon their acquiescence and assurance that they understood their rights and did not require the services of counsel. At such point. MTC judge of Balaoan. Issue: Whether the custodial investigation made in the presence of the municipal mayor. 15 years old. Roland Almoite immediately went to radio station DZNL and played the taped interview on the air. Upon conclusion of the interview. even though their confessions were already written in their dialect. leading radio announcer of radio station DZNL. Thereafter. the trial court adjudged Ordoño and Medina guilty of the crime of rape with homicide attended with conspiracy. 3. PEOPLE V ORDONO. Upon such assurance that they had not been coerced into giving and signing their confessions. The investigators however could not at once get the services of a lawyer to assist the 2 accused in the course of the investigation because there were no practicing lawyers in the Municipality of Santol. Ordono and Medina were charged for rape with homicide. On 11 December 1997. the statements of the 2 accused where nevertheless taken. Santol. La Union. who further apprised the 2 accused of their constitutional rights and asked them if they had been coerced into signing their confessions. after informing the accused of their rights the police sought to provide them with counsel. a resident of Barangay Guesset. the 2 separately went back to Atty. La Union. He likewise advised them to ponder the consequences of their confessions. and/or the taped interview containing the accused’s confessions are admissible as evidence. They assured Judge Bautista that their statements had been given freely and voluntarily. After a week or so. After Medina said his piece. Ordoño and Medina returned to the police station one after another and acknowledged that they had indeed committed the crime. Corpuz apprised each of the accused of his constitutional rights and. Corpuz then signed their statements as their assisting counsel. a remote town of the Province of La Union. La Union. He and Ordoño hoped that the parents of Shirley Victore would forgive them. Held: Custodial investigation began when the accused Ordoño and Medina voluntarily went to the Santol Police Station to confess and the investigating officer started asking questions to elicit information and/or confession from them. He then affixed his signature on his statement and so did his wife. Corpuz and informed him of their willingness to affix their signatures and thumbmarks for the second time in their respective confessions. etc. 334 SCRA 673 The protective mantle of sec 12 Article III does not apply to verbal admission made to a radio announcer who was not a part of the investigation Facts: On 5 August 1994. explained the contents of their respective statements. Bautista. the automatic review. in a complete turnabout. On 10 August 1994.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES Note: a distinction between a confession and admission has been made by the SC: Admission of a party. However. for lack of evidence then directly linking them to the crime. the police immediately conducted an investigation and put their confessions in writing. the 2 accused pleaded not guilty. Hence. Once again Atty. Atty. PAO lawyer Oscar B. his remorse in having committed the crime was so great but his repentance came too late. and the remoteness of the town to the next adjoining town of Balaoan. and imposed upon each of them 2 death penalties on the basis of their extrajudicial confessions. Poblacion. Santol. Postmortem examination conducted by Dr. or of any offense necessarily included therein. — The act. parish priest. followed by a few members of the MTC staff who witnessed the signing. News about the apprehension and detention of the culprits of the rape-slay of Shirley Victore soon spread that Roland Almoite. the decomposing body of a young girl was found among the bushes near a bridge in Barangay Poblacion. The same interview was played again on the air the following morning and was heard by thousands of listeners. for assistance and counseling. his wife and mother suddenly burst into tears. But before doing so. accompanied them to Judge Fabian M. On arraignment. which was duly tape-recorded both accused admitted again their complicity in the crime and narrated individually the events surrounding their commission thereof. KIMPO V CA. Corpuz apprised the 2 accused of their constitutional rights. the Chief of Police and other police officers of Santol. in attendance to listen to and witness the giving of the voluntary statements of the 2 suspects who admitted their participation in the crime. and finally. they were allowed to go home. visited and interviewed them. La Union. La Union. a medico-legal officer of the NBI. leading them to defer the affixing of their second signature/thumbmark thereon. In a closed-door session. the Municipal Mayor. However. and to subscribe the same before him. Pacito Ordoño narrated his story in the afternoon. Arturo Llavore. followed by all the other witnesses who listened to his confession. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged. declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. the investigation was conducted with the Parish Priest. Acting on their admission. Judge Bautista finally asked Ordoño and Medina to affix their signatures/thumbmarks on their respective confessions. A couple of days later. Medina and Ordoño were detained at the Santol police station. Unidentified sources pointed to Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina as the authors of the crime. According to Medina. Acting on this lead. none could be furnished them due to the nonavailability of practicing lawyers in Santol. In the interview. revealed that the victim was raped and strangled to death. the police should have already desisted from continuing with the interrogation but they persisted and gained the consent of the accused to proceed with the investigation. Dennis struggled and succeeded momentarily to free himself from his attacker. It could not cure the absence of counsel during the custodial investigation when the extrajudicial statements were being taken. The second affixation of the signatures/thumbmarks of the accused on their confessions a few days after their closed-door meeting with the PAO lawyer. In the absence of such valid waiver. We have held that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. the PAO lawyer and other witnesses. and to witness the voluntary execution by the accused of their statements before the police. enlightened them on the possible repercussions of their admissions. Consequently. in the presence and with the signing of the MTC judge. it was the original copy of the taped interview. the voices therein were the voices of the 2 accused. the Municipal Mayor. Although there was a showing that the PAO lawyer made a thorough explanation of the rights of the accused. it was not altered. (1) and (3). no police authority ordered or forced the accused to talk to the radio announcer. Nonetheless. In relation to this. suddenly and without warning lunged at Dennis Aquino and stabbed him repeatedly on the chest. hence their uncounselled confession to him did not violate their constitutional rights. PP V ZUELA. par. Art. Under the circumstances. the 2 assailants fled in the direction of the airport. The taped interview likewise revealed that the accused voluntarily admitted to the rapeslay and even expressed remorse for having perpetrated the crime. III. While it may be expected that police officers were around since the interview was held in the police station. as Roland Almoite testified. (1). and even gave them time to deliberate upon them. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. A review of the contents of the tape as included in Roland Almoite's testimony reveals that the interview was conducted free from any influence or intimidation from police officers and was done willingly by the accused. they requested the presence of the Parish Priest and the Municipal Mayor of Santol as well as the relatives of the accused to obviate the possibility of coercion. The interview was not in the nature of an investigation as the response of the accused was made in answer to questions asked by the radio reporter. as in fact he was not. may attempt to legitimize coerced extrajudicial confessions and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an offense on television Facts: On a busy street in Puerto Princesa City in the evening of 16 October 1991. this did not cure in any way the absence of a lawyer during the investigation. stunned by the unexpected attack. even a videotaped interview where the accused willingly admit his guilt in the presence of newsmen is not covered by the said provision though the trial courts were warned by the supreme Court to take extreme caution in admitting similar confessions because of the distinct possibility that the police. 12. are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the accused to admit something false. When the accused talked to the radio announcer. the defense never submitted evidence to prove otherwise. this aid and valuable advice given by counsel still came several days too late. The apparent consent of the 2 accused in continuing with the investigation was of no moment as a waiver to be effective must be made in writing and with the assistance of counsel. statements made by herein accused to a radio announcer should likewise be held admissible. pars. and. the participation of the police authorities was only to allow Roland Almoite to conduct an interview. the requisite standards guaranteed by Art. Art. pleaded to Galgarin to stop. the taped interview was offered to form part of the testimony of witness Roland Almoite to whom the admissions were made and to prove through electronic device the voluntary admissions by the 2 accused that they raped and killed Shirley Victore. The rights enumerated under Sec. The defense objected to its acceptance on the ground that its integrity had not been preserved as the tape could easily have been spliced and tampered with. III. uncle of Edward Endino. If the lawyer's role is diminished to being that of a mere witness to the signing of a prepared document albeit an indication therein that there was compliance with the constitutional rights of the accused. To the credit of the police. The standards utilized by police authorities to assure the constitutional rights of the accused therefore fell short of the standards demanded by the Constitution and the law. of the Constitution do not cover the verbal confessions of the 2 accused to the radio announcer. It could have no palliative effect. the admissions of the accused before the radio announcer and duly tape-recorded are bolstered and substantiated by the findings of the NBI Medico-Legal Officer as reflected in the Autopsy Report/Post Mortem Findings. Dennis dashed towards the nearby Midtown Sales but his escape was foiled when from out of nowhere Edward Endino appeared and fired at Dennis. 12. are not met. By analogy. Securing the assistance of the PAO lawyer 5 to 8 days later does not remedy this omission either. not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. Sec. there was no showing that they were within hearing distance nor within the vicinity where the interview was being conducted. likewise did not make their admissions an informed one. At most. However. an emboldened Gerry Galgarin (@ Toto). they did not talk to him as a law enforcement officer. the Parish Priest of Santol. 323 SCRA 589 The protective mantle of sec 12 Article III does not apply even to to a Mayor approached as a personal confidante and not in his official capacity 6. not by the police or any other investigating officer. Dennis' girlfriend Clara Agagas who was with him. the relatives of the accused. the Court is inclined to admit the authenticity of the taped interview. Despite allegations to the contrary. PP V ENDINO. 5. At that stage. with the connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners. 353 SCRA 307 In fact. As Dennis staggered for safety. III. the Chief of Police and other police officers of the municipality could not stand in lieu of counsel's presence. Sections 12. any admission obtained from the 2 accused emanating from such uncounselled interrogation would be inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding. As with the interview taken by DZNL radio announcer Roland Almoite.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES could be found. Admissions obtained during custodial investigation without the benefit of counsel although reduced into writing and later signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the Constitution. 9 . of the Constitution.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES Meanwhile. i. On 18 October 1991. Niño. they stopped at the ABS-CBN television station where Galgarin was interviewed by reporters. it is prudent that trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions. and proceeded to Manila where they separated. after attacking Aquino. wounded and bleeding. with the connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners. sought refuge inside the Elohim Store where he collapsed on the floor. upon their arrest of some of the accused. HELD: Confession given by the accused without the assistance of counsel. Detection of coerced confessions is admittedly a difficult and arduous task for the courts to make. prompting the relatives of the deceased spouses Simon and Corazon Hermida to file a vehement opposition. However. would have been sympathetic with him. The trial court found Galgarin guilty of murder qualified by Treachery. particularly in cases such as this where it is essential to make sharp judgments in determining whether a confession was given under coercive physical or psychological atmosphere. openly and publicly in the presence of newsmen. The protection under Section 12 . to which comment thereto was filed by the prosecution. His interview was shown over the ABS-CBN evening news program TV Patrol. During trial. an Information for the murder of Dennis Aquino was filed against Edward Endino and Gerry Galgarin and warrants were issued for their arrest.e. Thus. they left for Roxas. THE PLACE OF INTERROGATION IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION BUT THE TONE AND MANNER OF QUESTIONING BY THE POLICE AUTHORITIES. The antecedent facts and proceedings in the instant case unfold. the trial court issued on 26 December 1991 an order putting the case in the archives without prejudice to its reinstatement upon their apprehension. the line between proper and invalid police techniques and conduct is a difficult one to draw. Custodial investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect. Langging gave them money for their fare for Manila. For in all probability. while on the way to the police station. with him heading for Antipolo. he could have easily sought succor from the newsmen who. because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a medium for admitting one's guilt. and the recurrence of this phenomenon in several cases. there was custodial investigation when the police authorities. was waiting. in all likelihood. III. may attempt to legitimize coerced extra-judicial confessions and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an offense on television. Galgarin disowned the confession which he made over TV Patrol and claimed that it was induced by the threats of the arresting police officers. he was fetched from the Antipolo Police Station by PO3 Gaudencio Manlavi and PO3 Edwin Magbanua of the Palawan police force to be taken to Palawan and be tried accordingly. A word of counsel then to lower courts: "we should never presume that all media confessions described as voluntary have been freely given. immediately asked them regarding their participation in the commission of the crime . Held: The interview was recorded on video and it showed Galgarin unburdening his guilt willingly. On 19 November 1992. We have a sworn duty to be vigilant and protective of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They took the boat for Batangas. Palawan. He was immediately taken into temporary custody by the Antipolo Police." 7. when the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting confession from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense. On 28 February 1994. where they stayed for a few days. Gerry Galgarin was arrested through the combined efforts of the Antipolo and Palawan police forces at a house in Sitio Sto. According to Galgarin. It requires persistence and determination in separating polluted confessions from untainted ones. if he had indeed been forced into confessing.725. 341 SCRA 307 When custodial investigation is deemed to have started.00 as compensatory damages and P72.000.35 as actual damages. On their way to the airport. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Adolfo Alcoseba filed a motion to drop accused Rogelio Lascua and Baselino Repe to be utilized as state witnesses. Indeed. This type of confession always remains suspect and therefore should be thoroughly examined and scrutinized.. It is not suggested that videotaped confessions given before media men by an accused with the knowledge of and in the presence of police officers are impermissible. Issue: Whether the ABS-CBN interview recording Galgarin’s confession is admissible as evidence. Such a situation would be detrimental to the guaranteed rights of the accused and thus imperil our criminal justice system. Galgarin appealed for Edward to give himself up to the authorities. III of the Constitution begins when a person is taken into custody for investigation of his possible participation in the commission of a crime. Dennis. This is line with the provisions of RA 7438 which makes it applicable even when a person is merely invited for questioning. or from the time he is singled out as a suspect in the commission of the crime. However. is inadmissible in evidence. Antipolo. Art. PP. He was grasping for breath and near death. Early in the evening of the following day. V BARIQUIT. although not yet in custody. Such confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. Clara with the help of some onlookers took him to the hospital but Dennis expired even before he could receive medical attention. where his sister Langging who is Edward's mother. Video footages of the interview were taken showing Galgarin admitting his guilt while pointing to his nephew Edward Endino as the gunman. Art. and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Dennis Aquino in the amount of P50. even while they were still walking along the highway on their way to the police station. the police. Rizal. 10 . sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. 12. He asserted that the videotaped confession was constitutionally infirmed and inadmissible under the exclusionary rule provided in Sec. Besides. as both accused remained at large. XXX As to the second assigned error. was there any lawyer who assisted him at the time of the investigation? Atty. pleaded not guilty to the charge. Article III of the Constitution explicitly provides: 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 have competent and 11 . according to him. in a certain room. in pursuance of their conspiracy.on their way to the police station.000. another ground is that witness was not around. After an exhaustive perusal of the records. conspiring. with intent to gain. did then and there willfully. the herein accused. Atty. CONTRARY TO LAW. COURT: No. by an investigator and you asked him whether he was present during that investigation. Philippine Currency. Court: Yes. SPO4 Marcelino Perez. entered anew a plea of not guilty. XXX Upon the arrest of Baselino and Emegdio. accused-appellant Pedro Bariquit withdrew his earlier plea of guilty and. to the damage and prejudice of the said owner spouses Simon Hermida and Corazon Manabat Hermida of said items and the cash aforestated. CBU-35462. confederating and mutually helping one another. the above-named accused. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. accused was assisted by a lawyer during that custodial investigation. conducted further questioning of the accused "in the investigation room" of the Police Station.[3] with Robbery with Homicide. the trial court resolved to drop and discharge Rogelio Lascua as "party-accused" in Criminal Case No. however." (emphasis ours) At the trial. Japanese money. as well as the testimonies of the police officers pertaining thereto. and accused Baselino Repe. passbook. upon being re-arraigned. Q: And where was this investigation room located? A: Inside the police station. accusedappellants question the admissibility of the testimonies of the police officers who propounded questions and conducted the custodial investigation without apprising them of their constitutional rights. for having been obtained in clear violation of accused-appellants' rights enshrined in the Constitution. assault. he was not listening. that by reason or on occasion of the said robbery and for the apparent purpose of enabling the said accused to take. accused-appellants argue that certain physical evidence such as the blanket. and brothers Emegdio and Rogelio Lascua. by means of violence against and intimidation upon persons. for the purpose of utilizing him as state witness. Flores: Immaterial and irrelevant. Atty. the accusatory portion of which reads: That on or about the 8th day of February 1994 at around 2:00 o' clock dawn. In the course of trial. unlawfully and feloniously attack. we find inadmissible the uncounselled extra-judicial admission of accused-appellants. Baselino Repe and brothers Pedro and Cristituto Bariquit. and you asked him whether at the time of the investigation. Dela Victoria: He was not listening. in a Second Amended Information. steal and carry away the aforestated personal belongings of spouses Simon Hermida and Corazon Manabat Hermida. Section 12. Q: When the accused were investigated. accused-appellant Pedro Bariquit entered a plea of guilty while accused-appellants Cristituto Bariquit. were charged. The ground for that is not correct. there were many people looking but the investigation room was closed in order that people will not disturb the investigation. wallet and cash are likewise inadmissible in evidence. Q: But you could see the accused being investigated? A: No sir. Q: Where was the accused investigated? A: At the investigation room. Moreover. in the Municipality of Naga. Dela Victoria: It was your theory that there was actually an investigation conducted? COURT: There was an investigation. were you present? A: We were there but we did not listen to the investigation. Jr. Your Honor. Your Honor. inasmuch as the same were recovered and obtained by the police as a result of accused-appellants' uncounselled admission. armed with bladed weapons. who corroborated the testimonies of SPO3 Lino Tapao and SPO1 Avelino Selloria. steal and carry away without the consent of the owner thereof one (1) gold necklace and Three Thousand Pesos (P3. That time. knife. because the testimony witness stated (sic) he drive away some of the onlookers. the police immediately commenced investigation of the two accused by propounding questions regarding the commission of the crime even while they were still walking along the highway. Q: You mean to say there was a lawyer but you did not notice? A: I don't know whether there was lawyer at that time the investigation was conducted.[46] (emphasis ours) According to SPO1 Selloria. bolo. he did not see whether there was a lawyer or not. He said he was present. Emegdio Lascua. (to witness): Q: You did not see any lawyer there to assist the accused during investigation? A: I did not notice. In support thereof. Jr. only he did not hear and see the investigation because the door was closed. Jr. Upon arraignment. Your Honor because as a matter of fact." In an order dated 14 July 1994. necklace. to wit:[47] "Q: Who conducted then the custodial investigation of this case? A: SPO4 Marcelino Perez. Province of Cebu. and one (1) blanket which were placed by the owner Spouses Simon Hermida and Corazon Manabat Hermida on their wooden trunk. Q: At the time when the accused was investigated. hack and stab the spouses Simon Hermida and Corazon Manabat Hermida and inflicting upon them several injuries which caused the said victims' death. did then and there willfully. more or less.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES On 28 June 1994. also. unlawfully and feloniously take.00) cash. accused-appellants aver that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. the prosecution likewise presented PO1 Kenneth Abella and PO1 Joel Faciolan. should have been informed of his constitutional rights under Article 3. "Q: When you asked questions. Any information or admission given by a person while in custody .e.which may appear harmless or innocuous at the time without the competent assistance of an independent counsel . no other questions were asked on Emegdio Lascua and Baselino Repe? "A: Yes sir. sir. when under custody.[72] we considered inadmissible the verbal extrajudicial admission of accused-appellant Ramon Bolanos on the ground that he. he must be provided with one. It may not be amiss to observe that under R. on cross-examination. SPO1 Avelino Selloria testified: "Q: Along the way. the requisites of a "custodial investigation" are applicable even to a person not formally arrested but merely "invited for questioning. During trial. "COURT: Reform. Pedro and Roel were in Tuyan. Bolanos. XXX Verily. as you said. Repe? A: We asked both Repe and Emegdio as to who were their companions. Bravo. in People vs. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel." An investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as suspect. "Q: That was all you asked both of them? That was the only question you asked them? A: We asked them who were their companions and where were they. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. the interrogation conducted by the police on accused-appellants Emegdio and Baselino falls under the term "custodial investigation" pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence and the provisions of Republic Act 7438. Pangdan.. Pedro Bariquit. you have conducted investigation on Repe. when the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense. even while they were still walking along the highway on their way to the police station." (emphasis ours) Moreover.A. "Atty. this Court. speaking through Madame Justice Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes. "Q: What (was) their answer? "A: We asked them why they robbed and killed.[71] Thus. "ATTY. that person is under custodial investigation? "Atty. immediately asked questions and conducted custodial investigation of said accused-appellants regarding their participation in the commission of the crime. "Q: Therefore. as their companions. "being already under custodial investigation while on board the police patrol jeep on the way to the Police Station where formal investigation may have been conducted. i. it is of no moment that the questioning was done along the highway while Baselino and Emegdio were being led by the police to the 12 . We were walking along. Flores: He is asking for opinion. The policeman's apparent attempt to circumvent the rule by insisting that admission was made during an `informal talk' prior to custodial investigation proper is not tenable." Analogously in the present case. we asked questions along the way. the police authorities. XXX XXX XXX "Q: So aside from these 2 questions. upon the arrest of Emegdio and Baselino.[75] In the case before us. In the recent case of People vs. They informed me that and (sic) Roel was just in Isabela. Dela Victoria: Q: What were the questions you asked to the accused? "A: We asked whether they were the ones who robbed the couple. "Q: It was only Emegdio who said that? "A :Because it was him whom I asked. "COURT: "Q: What was their answer? "A: They said they had planned the robbery.[70] It bears stressing that the rights under Section 12 are accorded to "any person under investigation for the commission of an offense. Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES independent counsel preferably of his own choice. aptly observed: The accused was under arrest for the rape and killing of Juanita Antolin and any statement allegedly made by him pertaining to his possible complicity in the crime without prior notification of his constitutional rights is inadmissible in evidence.[73] where we applied the exclusionary rule. SARINO: "Q: Who said that? "A: Emegdio." (emphasis ours) To our mind.should be struck down as inadmissible. because we were walking along the road. SPO1 Selloria stated:[74] "A: From the area where we arrested them. 7438. or from the time he is singled out as a suspect in the commission of the crime. What questions did you ask Mr. the mantle of protection under this constitutional provision covers the period from the time a person is taken into custody for investigation of his possible participation in the commission of a crime. the accused were already under your custody? "A: Yes. XXX XXX XXX 3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.[69] Courts are not allowed to distinguish between preliminary questioning and custodial investigation proper when applying the exclusionary rule.Records reveal that no counsel was present to assist Emegdio and Baselino during the interrogation nor was accused-appellants informed of their rights under the Constitution. Simon Hermida and Corazon Hermida. Cristituto Bariquit and Roel Lascua and they further informed me they had come here already to Tuyan. "Court: "Q: And what was their answer? "A: They mentioned. although not yet in custody. a phrase minted by Mr. when Teresita Dano arrived and asked for his help. Margosatubig.the putrid source . herein appellant. which was some one hundred meters away. the Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga del Sur charged appellant with the crime of murder.[5] Seeing that his efforts to stop the fraternal quarrel were of no use and fearful of being hit in the affray.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES station. at Tiguian. PP V DANO. regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given. we also declare inadmissible the money and necklace recovered from accused-appellants for being tainted as "fruits of the poisonous tree. In this jurisdiction. The records. we consider the extrajudicial admissions of accused-appellants and the testimonies of the police officers in relation thereto inadmissible. 1994 at around 6:30 oclock in the evening. attack. Emeterio. Trial on the merits then ensued. The prosecution presented four witnesses: Wilfredo Tapian. and Teresita Dano. a carpenter. does not violate appellant’s constitutional rights AND THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. Such admission. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained. (Kanaog diri kay magkamatay ta. the place of interrogation is not at all a reliable barometer to determine the existence or absence of Custodial investigation. unlawfully and feloniously. the above-named accused. to wit: " We have not only constitutional ized the Miranda warnings in our jurisdiction. the burden to prove that an accused waived his rights to remain silent and the right to counsel before making a confession under custodial investigation rests with the prosecution. the accused-appellants' uncounselled admissions. it becomes inadmissible in evidence. then and there. armed with a scythe was shouting at appellant. no counsel was present when Emegdio and Baselino answered the questions propounded to them by the police. indeed. but to no avail. Alicando. On his way. at around half past six oclock in the evening. the barangay captain of Tiguian. Emeterio leaped at appellant who was standing with his head out of the window and slashed appellant with his scythe but missed. as gleaned from the records. the records show that such evidence were derived or recovered from a polluted source. wilfully. as follows: That on or about March 16. SPO3 Jesus Reales of the Philippine National Police (PNP). even without the assistance of a lawyer. do not fall under custodial investigation. spontaneous statements voluntarily given. both along the highway and at the police station. Wilfredo saw the victim pacing back and forth in appellants front yard.[76] In the instant case. United States. We also have adopted the libertarian exclusionary rule known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree". Wilfredo left for home. Suddenly. appellant was arraigned and with the assistance of counsel de parte. without which such uncounselled admissions or any other evidence obtained as a result thereof.[1] On May 3. to wit. On arriving at appellants house. 1994. [4] Appellant also advised his younger brother to go home. the police officers were remiss in performing such duty and the prosecution equally failed to discharge such burden. The fruit of the poisonous tree' is at least once removed from the illegally seized evidence but it is equally inadmissible. 1994. but the latter refused to listen. even if the confession contains a grain of truth. Demosthenes Peralta. attacked his brother Alberto.)[3] Wilfredo tried to pacify the victim who kept repeating his challenge while striking his scythe on the ground. Under these circumstances. The latter told 13 . and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Between the hours of six and seven oclock that same evening.[78] this Court explicated the principle. he met appellant. 339 SCRA 515 However. In People vs.[6]Demosthenes went to appellants home to investigate. was informed by Wilfredo and a certain Fernando Teves that the Dano brothers were quarreling. prosecution witness Wilfredo Tapian was resting in the house of a Neneng Miras in Tiguian. the police authorities should have properly apprised them of their constitutionally-protected rights. Stated otherwise. Further. Zamboanga del Sur. 1994. Demosthenes Peralta. did. Of striking material significance is and the fact that the tone and manner of questioning by the police. in the latters house. whereas the fruit of the poisonous tree' is the indirect result of the same illegal act. more or less.are deemed likewise inadmissible in evidence against the accused-appellants. On April 11." 8. Margosatubig. In view of these constitutional infirmities attendant to the interrogation.[2] Wilfredo immediately rushed to appellants house. hack and stab his brother Emeterio Dano inflicting several mortal wounds causing his instantaneous death.[79] According to this rule. For. once the primary source (the 'tree') is shown to have been unlawfully obtained. to come down so they could fight to the death.[77] Applying the exclusionary rule. The victim. To put it differently. are bereft of any finding that the police labored to properly apprise accused-appellants of their rights. Zamboanga del Sur. widow of the victim. pleaded not guilty to the charge. Teresita told Wilfredo that her husband." Clearly. illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act. any secondary or derivative evidence (the 'fruit') derived from it is also inadmissible. who was looking out of the window. but it was made without the assistance of counsel. reveal that they already presumed accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime and singled them out as the despicable authors thereof. or proceeding therefrom . the barangay captain of Tiguian. Philippines. as where appellant orally admitted killing the victim before the barangay captain (who is neither a police officer nor a law enforcement agent). The prosecutions evidence established the following: On March 16." The burden has to be discharged by clear and convincing evidence. assault. It is also the burden-of the prosecution to show that the evidence derived from confession is not tainted as "fruit of the poisonous tree. Margosatubig. Contrary to law with qualifying aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery. with treachery and evident premeditation. Justice Felix Frankfurter in the celebrated case of Nardone vs. [7] Demosthenes left appellant in Wilfredos house and proceeded to appellants residence where he saw the bloody corpse of the victim sprawled in the yard. armed with a scythe.000. that it was the same scythe that his brother was carrying during the incident. Early in the morning of the next day. Emeterio wanted to buy the horse.[29] The court below disbelieved appellants version of the incident and decided as follows: WHEREFORE.00 as actual damages.He further argues that the trial court should have declared his statements before the police inadmissible when they were objected to during the trial.[9] Demosthenes fetched appellant from Wilfredos house and took him to the police station. the pertinent issues for our consideration are: (1) Did the trial court err in admitting the extrajudicial confession of the accused? (2) Did the court a quo err in failing to appreciate appellants defense of self-defense and/or defense of relatives. or at the least incomplete self-defense and/or defense of relatives? (3) Did it err in convicting appellant of murder qualified by treachery and imposing the penalty therefor? On the first issue. appellant avers that it was error for the trial court to give weight to the admissions made by appellant during custodial investigation (Exhibit E). [24] She claimed. near the stairs. contained in the police blotter. as well as her children.[21] They grappled for the scythe while in the porch. however. At the request of the police station commander. Appellant claimed that he acted in self-defense and in defense of his family. without assistance of counsel. He told his brother to go home but the latter.[32] A confession to be admissible must satisfy the following requirements: (1) the confession must be voluntary. Appellant contends that his constitutional and statutory right to counsel during custodial investigation was violated when the police took his statements without a lawyer to assist him. (2) the right to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES Peralta he had killed Emeterio and voluntarily surrendered to him. March 16. secondary to multiple hacking wounds.[25] Appellant denied owning the scythe found by the barangay captain beneath his house.000. P3. and (4) the confession must be in writing. He turned over the scythe to the police. who appeared disturbed. (2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel.[11] The scythes wooden handle had the name Alberto Dano carved on it. the trial court held: 14 . he looked out the window and saw his brother Emeterio outside.[27] He was sure. (3) the confession must be express. (Boy kanang diha kay magpatay ta)[16] At first. reads: [S]ubject admitted of (sic) killing his younger brother as the latter was drunk and provoked him for (sic) a scythe duel right downstair(s) of his house that prompted him to get his scythe and come down from his house and allegedly boxed first his brother and subsequently hacked several times as he was already commanded by his evil thought(s). Instead. appellant threw the scythe under his house and went to the barangay captain to surrender.00 by way of unrealized earnings and to pay the costs. had their eyes closed in shock and fear.[33]In convicting the accused of the offense charged.m.[14] She did not turn over the scythe to the police. which her late husband carried on that fateful day. to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of P50. defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Seeing that he had killed his brother. which caused the former to resent him.[22] When they hit the ground. but when it was repeated several times. hereby sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. when he heard somebody shout Boy. he kept on hitting the ground with the scythe. Appellants wife and children screamed and cried in fear. but appellant bought it ahead of him. 1994.[23] He said he was not in a normal state of mind. which he evaded. Appellant did not know how many times he hit his brother or how many wounds he inflicted. compensatory damages of P2.000.[13] The victims widow admitted that the scythe. and (3) the right to be informed of these rights.[31] These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.[19] The door partially opened after Emeterio slammed it several times. The necropsy report established that the cause of death was acute blood loss.[17] Without any provocation on his part.[26] He did not know why his name was engraved on the wooden handle of said scythe. that she did not see how the victim was killed as they were inside the house and she.[12] When interrogated by the police. Demosthenes took photos of the corpse.[18] Emeterio then ascended the stairs to push open the bamboo door on the porch leading to their living room.[10] He conducted a further examination of the crime scene and found a bloodstained scythe beneath appellants house. and read into the records without objection by the defense. was returned to her by some people in their barangay. He narrated that he and his family were preparing to go to bed at around 6:30 p. appellant. qualified by treachery. A person under investigation for the commission of an offense is guaranteed the following rights by the Constitution:(1) the right to remain silent. however. His spouse largely corroborated appellants version of the first round of the fratricidal affray. come down and we will fight to death. which he later turned over to the police.[30] Simply stated. and to be provided one if he cannot afford the services of counsel.[8] He noticed that the body bore several hacking and slashing wounds. The latter examined the victims body. still lying in appellants yard. [20] Appellant held and twisted his brothers wrist to disarm him of the scythe. then tumbled down the stairs. the victim was dead. admitted he killed his brother. and there being no proof of any modifying circumstances either to aggravate or mitigate the liability. judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Alberto Dano y Jugilon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.[28] Appellant explained that he had a previous misunderstanding with the victim over the purchase of a horse from his cousin Doroteo Oliver on installment basis. SO ORDERED. did not heed his words. The pertinent portion of his statement. Demosthenes fetched a doctor from the town proper of Margosatubig.00 by way of indemnity for the death of said victim. Emeterio suddenly leaped at him and attacked him with the scythe. he tried to ignore the challenge.[15] The defense presented appellant and his spouse as its witness. 1994. he also admitted appellant was interrogated by the police regarding the incident. 9. 346 SCRA 458 Simply stated.[39] Moreover. hence is entitled to full faith and credit. (2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. A person under investigation for the commission of an offense is guaranteed the following rights by the Constitution:(1) the right to remain silent. when taken without the assistance of counsel without a valid waiver of such assistance regardless of the absence of coercion or the fact that it had been voluntarily given. given the failure of the prosecution to offer it in evidence.[37] The blotter recorded the incident immediately after the crime and another entry in the morning. the same entry carries great weight and high probative value. even if done without the assistance of a lawyer. in the absence of any proof of tampering or alteration thereof. Appellant admitted killing the victim before the barangay captain. It having been entered at the time when the accused had just surrendered to the authorities in a remorseful attitude and in a spontaneous manner free of any extraneous influence and coaching of a lawyer. the trial court held: Accuseds testimony on the witness stand however. however. we find merit in appellants claim that his constitutional rights were violated. where he admitted the killing of his younger brother Emeterio Dano as the latter was drunk and provoked him for (sic) a scythe duel right downstairs of his house that prompted him to get his scythe and come down from his house and allegedly boxed first his brother and subsequently hacked several times as he was already commanded by evil thoughts. During the formal offer of evidence by the prosecution. 1994. contradicts his version appearing on the police blotter of the police station of Margosatubig dated March 16.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES Accuseds testimony on the witness stand however.[48] There is valid reason. What we find offered by the prosecution as evidence is the testimony of SPO3 Jesus Reales on the authenticity of the entries on the police blotter. defense counsel admitted the authenticity of the extract of above entry in the police blotter (Exhibit B. appellant avers that it was error for the trial court to give weight to the admissions made by appellant during custodial investigation (Exhibit E). he was familiar with investigation procedures.[40] Under cross-examination. than the selfserving version of the accused given on the witness stand which is more a product of an after-thought and concocted story than an honest and truthful version of what actually happened.[31] These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.[49] The constitutional requirements on custodial investigation do not apply to spontaneous statements made in a voluntary manner whereby appellant orally admitted authorship of the crime. prosecution) containing the foregoing recital as testified to by SPO4 Jesus Reales. to strike down the lower courts reliance on the assailed police blotter entry in convicting appellant. This Court therefore considers the recital in said entry more credible and easy to believe.[42] Considering the foregoing circumstances. Appellant contends that his constitutional and statutory right to counsel during custodial investigation was violated when the police took his statements without a lawyer to assist him. we noted that SPO3 Reales admitted that as an assistant investigator. PP V MAYORGA.[34] We have carefully scrutinized the records including the List of Exhibits for the Prosecution[35] and the prosecutions offer of evidence[36] and nowhere find mention of Exhibit E. the trial court erred when it relied on the supposed extrajudicial confession of appellant in the police blotter. First. (3) the confession must be express. the pertinent issues for our consideration are: (1) Did the trial court err in admitting the extrajudicial confession of the accused? (2) Did the court a quo err in failing to appreciate appellants defense of self-defense and/or defense of relatives. or at the least incomplete self-defense and/or defense of relatives? (3) Did it err in convicting appellant of murder qualified by treachery and imposing the penalty therefor? On the first issue. is presumed to have been accomplished in the regular performance of official duties by the police officer who made the entry.This presumption cannot by itself prevail over positive averments concerning violations of the constitutional rights of an accused. is not in violation of appellants constitutional rights. whether verbal or non-verbal. All these.[44] is inadmissible in evidence.[41] but there was no showing whatsoever appellant was assisted by counsel during custodial investigation. Such entry in the police blotter when not objected to. Such admission. where he admitted the killing of his younger brother Emeterio Dano as the latter was drunk and provoked him for (sic) a scythe duel right downstairs of his 15 . and to be provided one if he cannot afford the services of counsel. We also find the courts reliance on the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed[46] misplaced. (2) the right to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice.[32] A confession to be admissible must satisfy the following requirements: (1) the confession must be voluntary. therefore.He further argues that the trial court should have declared his statements before the police inadmissible when they were objected to during the trial. who is neither a police officer nor a law enforcement agent. Evidence which has not been formally offered cannot be considered by courts.[43] A suspects confession. contradicts his version appearing on the police blotter of the police station of Margosatubig dated March 16.[38] We also noted in the records that the defense objected to the admission of the testimony of SPO3 Reales because said witness is incompetent to testify as to the entryhaving admittedthat he was not one who entered that (sic) events in the police blotter andthat he has no knowledge when the entries in the police blotter were made. recorded what was observed on the scene of the crime including a description of the prostrate body of the accused. and (4) the confession must be in writing. Extrajudicial confessions must conform to the requirements of the Constitution. do not suffice to acquit appellant of the offense charged. [45] even if appellants confession were gospel truth.[33]In convicting the accused of the offense charged. and (3) the right to be informed of these rights. [47] It was also error for the trial court to have considered and relied on the questioned entry in the police blotter.[50] What the Constitution proscribes is the compulsory or coercive disclosure of incriminating facts. Then.[40] Under cross-examination. whether verbal or non-verbal. 11. All these. Miranda vs. even if done without the assistance of a lawyer. In fact. It having been entered at the time when the accused had just surrendered to the authorities in a remorseful attitude and in a spontaneous manner free of any extraneous influence and coaching of a lawyer. 354 SCRA 413 The accused was under coercive and uncounselled custodial investigation by the police without a lawyer for 2 and a half days . PP V CABILES.[43] A suspects confession. when taken without the assistance of counsel without a valid waiver of such assistance regardless of the absence of coercion or the fact that it had been voluntarily given. The officers did not advise Miranda that he had a right to have an attorney present. Guidelines for police investigation. defense counsel admitted the authenticity of the extract of above entry in the police blotter (Exhibit B. 10.[39] Moreover. than the selfserving version of the accused given on the witness stand which is more a product of an after-thought and concocted story than an honest and truthful version of what actually happened. the trial court erred when it relied on the supposed extrajudicial confession of appellant in the police blotter. Arizona] On 13 March 1963.[38] We also noted in the records that the defense objected to the admission of the testimony of SPO3 Reales because said witness is incompetent to testify as to the entryhaving admittedthat he was not one who entered that (sic) events in the police blotter andthat he has no knowledge when the entries in the police blotter were made. Arizona. There he was questioned by two police officers. The police then took him to "Interrogation Room No.[37] The blotter recorded the incident immediately after the crime and another entry in the morning. PP V PATUNGAN. Not only was the accused subjected to custodial investigation without counsel. recorded what was observed on the scene of the crime including a description of the prostrate body of the accused. What we find offered by the prosecution as evidence is the testimony of SPO3 Jesus Reales on the authenticity of the entries on the police blotter. ESCOBEDO V ILLINOIS. is presumed to have been accomplished in the regular performance of official duties by the police officer who made the entry. hence is entitled to full faith and credit. Appellant admitted killing the victim before the barangay captain. he was likewise denied effective assistance of counsel during the taking of his extra-judicial confession. We are inclined to believe that when he was brought to the IBP Office. therefore. 378 US 478 2. in the absence of any proof of tampering or alteration thereof. however. his body and his will were in no position to raise any objection much less to complaint to the IBP lawyer about what he has gone through. Such admission. when it is deemed to have started Read: 1.[49] The constitutional requirements on custodial investigation do not apply to spontaneous statements made in a voluntary manner whereby appellant orally admitted authorship of the crime.[42] Considering the foregoing circumstances. the officers emerged from the interrogation room with a written confession signed by Miranda. to strike down the lower courts reliance on the assailed police blotter entry in convicting appellant. 2" of the detective bureau.[34] We have carefully scrutinized the records including the List of Exhibits for the Prosecution[35] and the prosecutions offer of evidence[36] and nowhere find mention of Exhibit E. Extrajudicial confessions must conform to the requirements of the Constitution. A lawyer who could just hear the investigation going on while working on another case hardly satisfies the minimum requirements of effective assistance of counsel. is not in violation of appellants constitutional rights. Assistance of counsel must be effective.[41] but there was no showing whatsoever appellant was assisted by counsel during custodial investigation. we find merit in appellants claim that his constitutional rights were violated. vigilant and independent. Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a Phoenix police station. [47] It was also error for the trial court to have considered and relied on the questioned entry in the police blotter. At the top of the statement was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was made voluntarily. do not suffice to acquit appellant of the offense charged. 284 SCRA 199 2. without threats or 16 . we noted that SPO3 Reales admitted that as an assistant investigator. he also admitted appellant was interrogated by the police regarding the incident.[48] There is valid reason. the IBP lawyer was working on an appeal in another case while the extrajudicial confession was being taken. Miranda vs. The mere presence of a lawyer is not sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement of assistance of counsel. Such entry in the police blotter when not objected to. First. Evidence which has not been formally offered cannot be considered by courts. the same entry carries great weight and high probative value. given the failure of the prosecution to offer it in evidence. [45] even if appellants confession were gospel truth. He was there identified by the complaining witness. he was familiar with investigation procedures.[44] is inadmissible in evidence.This presumption cannot by itself prevail over positive averments concerning violations of the constitutional rights of an accused. We also find the courts reliance on the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed[46] misplaced. During the formal offer of evidence by the prosecution. Two hours later. he was brought to the IBP Office where a lawyer assisted him in his extrajudicial confession. prosecution) containing the foregoing recital as testified to by SPO4 Jesus Reales.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES house that prompted him to get his scythe and come down from his house and allegedly boxed first his brother and subsequently hacked several times as he was already commanded by evil thoughts. This Court therefore considers the recital in said entry more credible and easy to believe. 759.[50] What the Constitution proscribes is the compulsory or coercive disclosure of incriminating facts. who is neither a police officer nor a law enforcement agent. 384 US 436 Facts: [No. He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years' imprisonment on each count. The conviction was affirmed without opinion by the Appellate Division. Stewart was charged with kidnapping to commit robbery. this time with respect to the robbery of a savings and loan association and a bank in Sacramento. and at about 11:45 p. Nothing in the record specifically indicates whether Stewart was or was not advised of his right to remain silent or his right to counsel. Held: In No. Issue: Whether the written confessions made in uncounselled interrogation." At his trial before a jury. police officers went to Stewart's house and arrested him. m. and the officers testified to the prior oral confession made by Miranda during the interrogation. 760. New York] Michael Vignera. None indicated that Stewart was ever advised of his rights. the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. [No. At about 3 p. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest. also without opinion. that any statement he made could be used against him. Stewart was taken to the University Station of the Los Angeles Police Department where he was placed in a cell. Stewart was isolated with his interrogators." At 11 p. the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession and affirmed the conviction. A report was also received from the FBI that he was wanted on a felony charge in California. Sometime thereafter he was taken to the 66th Detective Squad. and a paragraph on each of the statements states. the sentences to run consecutively. One of the officers asked Stewart if they could search the house. At his trial. are not admissible as evidence. Vignera was found guilty of first degree robbery. These four were jailed along with Stewart and were interrogated. His statements were introduced at trial. No other steps were taken to protect these rights. on 20 March 1963. it is clear that Miranda was not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation. police also arrested Stewart's wife and three other persons who were visiting him. At the time of Stewart's arrest. 584. On appeal. Roy Allen Stewart was pointed out to Los Angeles police as the endorser of dividend checks taken in one of the robberies. Police then brought Stewart before a magistrate for the first time. The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. In argument to the Court of Appeals. On appeal. nor was his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any other manner. Shortly before noon they informed the FBI that they were through interrogating Westover and that the FBI could proceed to interrogate him. Thus he was not effectively apprised of his Fifth Amendment privilege or of his right to have counsel 17 . m. He was subsequently adjudged a third-felony offender and sentenced to 30 to 60 years' imprisonment. in connection with the robbery three days earlier of a Brooklyn dress shop.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES promises of immunity and "with full knowledge of my legal rights. Vignera was not warned of any of his rights before the questioning by the detective and by the assistant district attorney. At about 7:15 p. At noon. At trial one of the agents testified. was picked up by New York police on 14 October 1960. The local authorities took him to a police station and placed him in a line-up on the local charges. "for detention. During the ninth interrogation session. transcripts of the first interrogation and the confession at the last interrogation were introduced in evidence. that the agents advised Westover that he did not have to make a statement. Stewart admitted that he had robbed the deceased and stated that he had not meant to hurt her. The transcription of the statement taken was also introduced in evidence. United States] At approximately 9:45 p.. understanding any statement I make may be used against me. Stewart] In the course of investigating a series of purse-snatch robberies in which one of the victims had died of injuries inflicted by her assailant. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. the sentences to run concurrently. m. California. three special agents of the FBI continued the interrogation in a private interview room of the Kansas City Police Department. "Go ahead. This verbatim account of these proceedings contains no statement of any warnings given by the assistant district attorney. and by the Court of Appeals. to which he replied. Westover vs. the court emphasized heavily the fact that Miranda did not specifically request counsel. the State contended that Vignera had no constitutional right to be advised of his right to counsel or his privilege against self-incrimination. when he was confronted with an accusing witness. nor his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself. m. he was formally arrested. 31 January 1963. The mere fact that he signed a statement which contained a typed-in clause stating that he had "full knowledge" of his "legal rights" does not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights. [No." The search turned up various items taken from the five robbery victims. They took him to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan. At Vignera's trial on a charge of first degree robbery. Except during the first interrogation session. he was booked. the Supreme Court of California reversed. rape. Second Department. the interrogating officers were asked to recount everything that was said during the interrogations. the 70th Precinct in Brooklyn. Vignera was questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and Vignera's answers. the written confession was admitted into evidence over the objection of defense counsel. Since there was no evidence to connect them with any crime. 761. from the testimony of the officers and by the admission of the State of Arizona. 760. He was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment on each count. Vignera was identified by the store owner and a saleslady as the man who robbed the dress shop. The jury found Stewart guilty of robbery and first degree murder and fixed the penalty as death. and murder. On appeal. Westover was tried by a jury in federal court and convicted of the California robberies. Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies. m. [No. the police then released the other four persons arrested with him. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Westover was ever given any warning as to his rights by local police. The police then transported him to still another station. however. He denied any knowledge of criminal activities. Vignera vs. In reaching its decision. remittitur amended. Similarly in No. Westover signed separate confessions to each of these two robberies which had been prepared by one of the agents during the interrogation. 759. Without these warnings the statements were inadmissible. with the accused not appraised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one during the inerrogation. California vs. After two or two and one-half hours. In a number of instances. and that he had the right to see an attorney. police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions. While at the 66th Detective Squad. the detective testified as to the oral confession. During the next five days. a son of the old woman. 2 on the neck. Tormon said that Severino met Fausta at a store in the morning of Oct 23. chief of police of Cabatuan corroborated by circumstantial evidence from witnesses. Duero. Another one said he saw Severino near the stairs at around 6 pm. Lastly in No. 104 SCRA 379 Inasmuch as the prosecution in this case failed to prove that before Duero made his alleged oral confession he was informed of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel and because there is no proof that he knowingly and intelligently waived those rights. Law enforcement authorities are not precluded from questioning any individual who has been held for a period of time by other authorities and interrogated by them without appropriate warnings. *ISSUE: WON TC erred in convicting Duero on the basis of his oral confession to the police station commander. an octogenarian housekeeper living alone. A different case would be presented if an accused were taken into custody by the second authority. that the old woman's things were scattered in the bedroom. FACTS: Sunday PM. *NATURE: Automatic review of the decision convicting Duero of robbery w/ homicide. In dealing with custodial interrogation. She sustained 2 gaping wounds on the right cheek. No eyewitness testified as to the commission of the offense. vs. The crime was discovered in PM the next day by the bgy captain. In these circumstances an intelligent waiver of constitutional rights cannot be assumed. A piece of wire was tied around her neck. Despite the fact that the FBI agents gave warnings at the outset of their interview. There is no evidence of any warning given prior to the FBI interrogation nor is there any evidence of an articulated waiver of rights after the FBI commenced its interrogation. His wife. When Olmos informed bgy Cpt. Another witness testified that Severino told him that he would rob Fausta. Severino testified that he was in his house when the crime was perpetrated. there is nothing in the facts that Westover knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent and his right to consult with counsel prior to the time he made the statement. another on the right shoulder and a bruise on the cheek. No force. was killed in her house located at Barrio Banguit. Noticing that the windows of the old woman's house had not been opened. Fausta Duero. neighbor and friends. removed both in time and place from his original surroundings. he requested Olmos to inform his uncle. Oct 24. confirmed his alibi. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. 1976. The principal evidence of the prosecution is the testimony of Lt Lujan. As alibi. 1976. 584." All the foregoing provisions are new except the first sentence. now revised or expanded in sec 20. Lujan declared that Severino voluntarily confessed to him that he committed the crime but refused to sign a confession. Nor can a knowing and intelligent waiver of these rights be assumed on a silent record. A mallet was found on the floor near the victim's body. Salvador found that money and pieces of jewelry were missing. Severino repudiated his alleged oral confession and even claimed that he was maltreated by the police. Iloilo. In No. HELD: YES. 761. Severino was calling the old woman. regarding the right against selfincrimination (nemo tenetur seipsum accusare). Cabatuan.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES present and his statements are inadmissible. violence. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The record simply shows that the defendant did in fact confess a short time after being turned over to the FBI following interrogation by local police. At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover. his confession is inadmissible in evidence. Patrolman Alag also heard him confess & that it was he who induced the commission of the crime. Patrolman Tormon declared at the prelim exam. from Westover's point of view the warnings came at the end of the interrogation process. to peep through the bedroom window. Duero knew that Fausta had money bec Fausta's daughter Mauring repaid her P1K. A scythe was sticking in her neck. he had been in custody for over 14 hours and had been interrogated at length during that period. Salvador Duero. Furthermore. (1935 Consti). and to be informed of such right. Fausta was willing to lend Severino P100. to come to the house. 18 . P. and then adequately advised of his rights and given an opportunity to exercise them. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. the Court will not presume that a defendant has been effectively apprised of his rights and that his privilege against self-incrimination has been adequately safeguarded on a record that does not show that any warnings have been given or that any effective alternative has been employed. SolGen agrees w/ counsel de oficio's contention that Severino's oral confession is inadmissible in evidence by reason of Art IV Consti: "SEC 20. 3. Stewart's steadfast denial of the alleged offenses through eight of the nine interrogations over a period of five days is subject to no other construction than that he was compelled by persistent interrogation to forgo his Fifth Amendment privilege. he asked the grandson of the old woman. intimidation. threat. The FBI interrogation began immediately upon the conclusion of the interrogation by Kansas City police and was conducted in local police headquarters. conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes. . conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes. "An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an atty followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver . provided the waiver is made voluntarily knowingly and intelligently. Respondents countered that the group of Morales were already under surveillance for some time before they were arrested and that the warrantless arrest done is valid and at the same time the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was already suspended. It does not affect volunteered statements of guilt by persons not in police custody. But because the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus remains suspended “with respect to persons at present detained as well as other who may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion. After discarding Duero's oral confession. . but also of the consequences of forgoing it . the right to remain silent. HELD: Normally. Immediately after arrest: "Further. resulting in self-incriminating statements w/o full warnings of constitutional rights. and that he has a right to the presence of an atty. (must be clear & unequivocal) "Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. or incident thereto. 2-a Duties of the Police Arresting Officers. Therefore. circumstantial evidence against him is not adequate for his conviction. . subversion. procedural safeguards for in-custody interrogation of accused persons: Chief Justice Warren's summary of the procedural safeguards for persons in police custody where the interrogation is regarded as the commencement already of the trial or adversary system: "Prior to any questioning. RULING: Acquitted. . such a warning is an absolute pre-requisite in overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere . The suspension of the privilege of the writ is to enable the State "The warning must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. subversion. ." The Miranda ruling does not mean that the police should stop a person who enters a police station and states that he wishes to confess to a crime. the Federal Supreme Court made it clear that what is prohibited is the "incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege. among them the right to counsel. and for all other crimes and offenses committed by them in furtherance of or on the occasion thereof. MORALES-MONCUPA V JUAN PONCE ENRILE. that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him. where the offense for which the detainee was arrested is anyone of the said offenses he has no right to bail even after the charges are filed in court. the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent. In the Miranda case.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES The new provisions in sec 20.” the natural consequence is that the right to bail for the commission of anyone of the said offenses is also suspended. The crimes of rebellion. the warning will show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it . the warning is needed simply to make them aware of it ¾ the threshold requirement for an intelligent decision as to its exercise. and the right to bail. 121 SCRA 538 Habeas Corpus – The Right to Bail In April 1982. his confession is inadmissible in evidence. and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct attacks on the life of the State. "An individual need not make a pre-interrogation request for a lawyer. . a heavy burden rests on the govt to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel . Morales alleged that they were arrested without any warrant of arrest. Failure to ask for a lawyer does not constitute a waiver. . "More important. . "If the interrogation continues w/o presence of an atty and a statement is taken. rebellion being a non-capital offense is bailable. 19 . or in connection therewith. To hold otherwise would defeat the very purpose of the suspension. Art IV 1973 Consti were adopted from the ruling in Miranda vs. Arizona w/c specifies the ff. QC. Just as an individual has right to self-defense when his life is endangered. His acquittal follows as a matter of course. . so does the State. Morales and some others were arrested while driving a motor vehicle in Laong-Laan St. . The accused who does not know his rights and therefore does not make a request may be the person who most needs counsel. the right to a speedy and public trial. that their constitutional rights were violated. 1. They were charged in CFI Rizal for rebellion punishable under the RPC. As restated by Chief Justice Warren in the Miranda case: Inasmuch as the prosecution in this case failed to prove that before Duero made his alleged oral confession he was informed of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel and because there is no proof that he knowingly and intelligently waived those rights. "The defendant may waive these rights. "For those unaware of the privilege. ISSUE: Whether or not Morales et al can post bail. Thereafter. that even with Cambel supporting him. Not getting any answer from the victim. T-Nakikilala po ba naman ninyo and dalawang lalaking pumasok sa loob ng kuwarto ninyo? S-Kung sakaling makita ko uli ay maaari kong makilala. Initially. emanating from the second floor where the victim. Mrs. Remedios Domingo. thereby inflicting upon the said Atty. Manila but was pronounced dead on arrival. T-At ano ba naman ang isinigaw mo? S-Magnanakaw. he found a rectangular hole which used to hold an air-conditioning unit. Dimasalang. the accused executed a salaysay. and a wall clock and table clock beside the rectangular hole. he advised the accused and the victim's son. putian and suot na damit. she was awakened by moaning sounds. Cambel saw the victim clutching. Dec. testified that on August 26. 154-157) (2) Melanio Cambel declared that he was the family driver and was renting an apartment owned by the victim which is just a few meters from his house. the victim was heavy. Jude Hospital. "Melanio. 5-6. and with whom she was united in lawful wedlock. 32." Awakened by her call. a lessee on the ground floor of the victim's house. xxx xxx xxx 26. a single bed with a white blanket in disorder. P. Melanio proceeded to the victim's house. He likewise noticed some pieces of wood placed under a parked heavy truck on the east yard. 1980. Sept. xxx xxx xxx 31. lived. 1980. she hesitantly muttered "Magnanakaw. T-Ano po ba ang hitsura nila? S-Yun pong sumaksak sa asawa ko ay maitim. magnanakaw. Viduya and was let in by Lydia Firmanes. the accused did not answer. Philippines. 1980. which was only four (4) meters away. Upon entering. (TSN. you better go upstairs. Folder of Exhibits) 20 . assault and use personal violence upon the person of ATTY. his wife. 27. Exh. who had been a lessee in the same house for twenty five (25) years and had known her lessor to suffer from a heart ailment. H. 10. unlawfully and feloniously attack. did then and there wilfully. with intent to kill. mga 5'3 po. xxx xxx xxx 15. Viduya. the detention becomes punitive in character and the detainee regains his right to freedom. by then and there stabbing him several times with a bladed weapon.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES to hold in preventive imprisonment pending investigation and trial those persons who plot against it and commit acts that endanger the State’s very existence. lending him support so that the latter would not fall. ano naman ang inyong nakita? S-Dalawang lalaki. the said accused. 28. Cambel asked the accused why she stabbed her husband. (Rollo. he nevertheless fell down. with both hands. v MATOS-VIDUYA. T-Nang maganap ang pangloloob sa inyo at pananaksak sa asawa mo hanggang sa makaalis ang dalawang lalaki. nasaan ba naman ang mga taong kasama mo sa bahay? S-Nagising silang lahat sa pagsigaw ko. Cambel ran towards the victim. He ran upstairs to the house of Atty. Melanio. pp. 4) The prosecution presented the following evidence: (1) Mrs. 18-30) Bagallon testified that at 3:15 in the morning of August 26. soaked in a pool of blood. She shouted. 1980. her husband. Diosko. ang isa ay nakatayo sa tabi ng kama ko at may nakatutok na patalim sa aking ulo at sa kabilang kama naman ay nakita ko na may isa pa ring lalaki na sumasaksak sa aking asawa. 1981. Salvador Viduya. pp. Melanio Cambel." Since other persons had by then arrived. but upon being questioned for the second time. Jose Viduya y Tavares mortal stab wounds which were the direct cause of his death immediately thereafter. in the City of Manila. Atty. He extended the search to the ground floor of the house and recovered two pieces of bladed knives at the east yard of the victim's residence which was used as parking space for heavy trucks. As Cambel approached them. T-Ano ba sa alam ninyo and dahilan ng kanyang pagkamatay? S-Sinaksak dahil sa panloloob na ginawa sa amin. (TSN. a cousin of the accused. the handle of the refrigerator located just outside the door leading to the victim's room. pp. holding a knife with both hands. nakasuot ng dark color at yong tumutok naman sa akin ay may mga 5'2. Significant portions of the said salaysay are quoted. p. February 24. JOSE VIDUYA y TAVARES. presumed that the latter was having a heart attack. The accused informed him that those pieces of wood used to cover the rectangular hole. 1980. For this measure of self-defense to be effective. magnanakaw!!! (Emphasis ours. declared that he conducted an on-thespot ocular inspection of the victim's house and found. Where the filing of charges in court or the trial of such charges already filed becomes protracted without any justifiable reason. On the east wall.. Quite notable in this case however is that the 2nd division of the SC reiterated the Lansang Doctrine as opposed to what they ruled in the Garcia-Padilla Case. she stooped down saying "Diosko. However. T-Nang marinig ninyo ang ungol na nanggaling sa inyong asawa at kayo nga noon ay nagising. trying to conceal the knife from him. At about midnight of August 26. Read: 1. followed by a thud. Sampaloc. the right to bail must also be deemed suspended with respect to these offenses. to go with him to the police headquarters for a formal investigation. She immediately ran towards the apartment of the victim's family driver. Western Police District. Oct. slender. Cambel inquired from him what happened but the latter was too weak to speak. However. 1990 That on or about the 26th day of August. at about 12 o'clock midnight. an investigator of the Crimes against Persons Section of the Manila Police Force. The victim was brought to St. your sir might have a heart attack. Still holding the victim. 260-268) (3) Florentino Bagallon. Cambel requested assistance to bring the victim to the hospital. in the bedroom of the victim and the accused. Immediately standing behind the victim was the accused. there is a difference between preventive and punitive imprisonment. (TSN. 1980. leaning thereon for support. Domingo. pp. as follows: xxx xxx xxx 7. kayumanggi. One of the knives had a bended blade. he was aroused from his sleep by the shouts of Remedios Domingo who was telling him to go upstairs as his "sir" might be having an attack. 11. at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning of the same date. the accused was again invited to the police headquarters for further investigation. Bagallon into signing her extrajudicial confession (TSN. March 27. however.00). this Court hereby sentences the accused Virginia Matus to suffer the penalty ofRECLUSION PERPETUA. 431) since he told her that she will not be detained if she signs the document. Nicandro. Philippine currency and to pay the costs of suit. in holding that the extrajudicial confession is admissible. 352). one pointing a knife at her temple and the other stabbing her husband. 1982. the lower court rendered its decision adjudging the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide. The version of the defense. pp. To allow such a happenstance would render illusory the protection given to the accused during custodial investigation. 1980 at 2:20 in the morning. 372) After due trial. she declared that one of the malefactors was a certain Edito Pateño. It is also elementary that a Fiscal or Prosecutor cannot be a lawyer for the accused at the same time. p. the right against self-incrimination. What the Constitution requires in Article III Section 12 (1) is the presence of competent and independent counsel. it is undisputed that the extrajudicial confession was executed without the presence of counsel. This time. (Exhibit "L". [1986]. p. p. Assistant Fiscal Mendoza stated that his main functions as Assistant Fiscal in the City of Manila are to prosecute cases and to render duties as an inquest fiscal. Folder of Exhibits) She recognized Melanio Cambel. 141 SCRA 289. Virginia Viduya again executed a "salaysay" (Exhibit "M". June 10. WHEREFORE. Viduya executed her extrajudicial confession wherein she categorically admitted authorship of the killing of her husband. MENDOZA) kaya hindi ko na kailangan and abogado. 12.000. 17. cannot exercise the function of defense counsel even during custodial investigation. bears repeating: xxx xxx xxx Like other constitutional rights. the answer of the accused ("Nandiyan naman po si Fiscal kaya hindi ko na kailangan ng abogado") is a palpable indication that she did not fully understand her in-custody rights. hence it cannot be said that she knowingly and intelligently waived those rights. (Exhibits "N". She saw two men. An assistant fiscal. 1980 at about 5:30 in the afternoon. she claimed that she merely acted in self-defense. 1981. this appeal. However. Folder of Exhibits) Upon arraignment. March 17. the blade became bent.. their former employee.. The rule espoused in People v. June 10. to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Jose Viduya in the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12. p. he must be provided with one. Moreover. 17. 427. ano ngayon and iyong masasabi? S. (Emphasis supplied) In this case. In her second "salaysay" executed on the aforesaid date and time. 11.428). Later.Nandiyan naman po si Fiscal (pointing to Assistant Fiscal DOMINGO A. and to be 21 .. force. this Court holds that accused Virginia Matus Viduya is guilty of the crime of Parricide as defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. p. p. (Rollo. He cannot pretend to act as defense counsel. (Rollo. The appellant assigns the following errors: I THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED. 1981. (TSN. 15) Hence. reasoned out that there is no prohibition for Assistant Fiscal Domingo A. she reiterated her narration contained in her first "salaysay" executed earlier that morning. p. THE SAME HAVING BEEN SIGNED WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND BEING INVOLUNTARY AND UNCORROBORATE Article III. one who will effectively undertake his client's defense without any intervening conflict of interest. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. She ran after them shouting "Magnanakaw. Bagallon also stated that on August 26. Section 12 (1) of the 1987 Constitution mandates that: 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 have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. including the right of a person under investigation to remain silent and to counsel. Mrs. Mrs.. coercion or intimidation be used to secure from a person under custodial investigation his statement. during the trial is as follows: The accused and her husband were asleep in separate beds when she was awakened by her husband's moans. the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. 13. 1981. Folder of Exhibits) The trial judge. as the man who stabbed her husband (TSN. (Exhibit "L". The relevant and dispositive portion of the judgment are quoted as follows: xxx xxx xxx Finding the confession made by the accused Virginia Matus Viduya admissible in evidence together with the convincing proof of the corpus delicti by the prosecution. We quote the relevant excerpt from the extrajudicial confession: xxx xxx xxx T. magnanakaw" but they had already escaped. xxx xxx xxx (Exhibit "N" p. p. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. * Whether or not the subsequent trial of a confessant's case will be assigned to him as prosecutor is immaterial. In his testimony. or a fiscal for that matter. She identified Edito Pateño as the man who poked a knife at her temple.Ikaw ay may karapatan pa rin kumuha ng serbisyo ng isang abogado para makatulong mo sa imbestigasyong ito at kung wala kang makukuha. p.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES xxx xxx xxx Pfc. Pateño was about to stab her so she parried the knife and tried to wrest it away from him and in the process. 13) Section 12(1) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution favors the accused and is fully applicable to this case. Folder of Exhibits) On August 30. She was misled and deceived by Pfc. Cambel even threatened and slapped and nearly choked her to death at the first night of the wake because he could not force her to sleep (TSN. Folder of Exhibits). Mendoza to act as counsel for the accused as it is his primordial duty not only to prosecute a case but also to protect the rights of an accused and to see that no violence. ikaw ay aming bibigyan ng libreng abogado. their family driver. must replace the former persuading. 20 SCRA 451 [1967]). Dramayo. This Court. it must be made knowingly and intelligently. Bagallon in extracting the abovementioned confession from the accused. Two knives were involved in the stabbing.. a Casanova and failed to repair the headlamp of their car on time-such motive is too incredible to believe. Ramirez. The attempt is not convincing. L-59378 February 11. however. may be waived.. As the trial court ruled: xxx xxx xxx The claim of accused that it was Melanio Cambel who stabbed her husband for reasons that he had been indifferent. The Solicitor General capitalizes on the inconsistencies in the three affidavits which the accused executed prior to the taking of her extrajudicial confession. 116 SCRA 48 [1982]. the prosecution's evidence is not strong enough to adduce proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is the guilty party. Co. is the reason for the present Bill of Rights provision on extrajudicial confessions. "they have only one degree—the third degree. never cared to bring the victim to the hospital. justified or not. The constitutional presumption of innocence can be overcome only by proof beyond reasonable doubt. WHEREFORE. Moreover. is sufficient to sustain the lower court's conviction of the accused. most of them serious. (Vda. He is of the persuasion that her issuance of three statements. In trying to exculpate herself. we are not satisfied that the constitutional presumption of innocence accorded to the accused-appellant has been overthrown. Whatever is repugnant to these belong to the miraculous and could not be of judicial cognizance (People v. Inc. Considering the paucity of the State's evidence. Human perception can be warped by the impact of events and the testimony colored by the unconscious workings of the mind. the appellant delivered to informant four (4) sticks of 22 . it is idle to talk of waiver of rights. No. pp. Baquiran. the appellant tried to shift culpability to another person. and coercing of. the JUDGMENT of the trial court convicting the accused-appellant is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another entered ACQUITTING her on reasonable doubt. No better test has yet been found to measure the value of a witness' testimony than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind. (People v. a waiver of the right must not only be voluntary. after investigation of the whole record. could have been inflicted by a woman under the circumstances of his testimony. or total dependence on extrajudicial confessions.00 bills Thereupon. the appellant Nelia Nicandro y Velarma. the truth of which she affirmed in open court but the contents of which differ from each other. BLT Bus Co. is of the view that the conflicting affidavits executed by the accused merely weaken her defense and cannot be considered as circumstantial evidence for the prosecution. This Court.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES informed of such right. Nicandro 141 SCRA 289 Facts: After the complaints and reports were verified to be true. 2. A rule firmly entrenched in our criminal justice system is that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. The remaining issue left for determination is whether or not the prosecution evidence. therefore. 1415) But though the accused's defense is weak. is another circumstantial evidence of her culpability. To be valid. That he slapped and choked her when every body were (sic) asleep at the first night of the wake at the Funeraria Paz and she did not shout but merely cried are beyond the comprehension of human instinct. 163 SCRA 453 [1988]) In the case before us. the trial court's complete reliance on only one of three (3) extrajudicial statements and its total rejection of the two other statements without any independent evidence or proof for such action. the defense of the accused is weak. People v. an entrapment with the confidential informant acting as the buyer of marijuana was organized. The extrajudicial confession having no probative value on the grounds that it was executed without the presence of counsel and there having been no intelligent waiver of the right to remain silent. this Court no longer deems it necessary to inquire into the alleged deceit employed by Pfc. PP V NICANDRO G. pointing to the accused as the author of the crime. which presupposes an awareness or understanding of what is being waived. Other than Melanio Cambel's testimony. (Rollo. Cambel testified that he saw the accused behind the victim. however.R. Better investigation procedures and more sophisticated techniques. Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible in itself. has no other recourse but to acquit the accused-appellant. (People v. It is high time that our law enforcement agencies learn to live with the new requirements of the Bill of Rights. absent the extrajudicial confession. that he was drunkard." This perception. 34 SCRA 618 [1970]) It is a common knowledge and a recognized custom within us that no relative or friend will sleep on the very first night of a wake-more so when the case of death is a shocking one. is not explained. It should become a thing of the past. 1986 People vs. This ruling has been reinforced and made clearer by the new provision of the Bill of Rights. A former Senator and distinguished libertarian was reportedly asked about academic qualifications of policemen and he answered. which is the degree of proof that. not to mention industry and persistence. holding a knife with both hands. It stands to reason that where the right has not been adequately explained and there are serious doubts as to whether the person interrogated knew and understood his relevant constitutional rights when he answered the questions. there is no other evidence. It is not shown how twelve stab wounds. The informant asked to buy some marijuana cigarette and gave appellant the two (2) marked P 5. The police team formed to carry out the entrapment plan was alerted of the presence of the drug pusher. A thorough review of the prosecution's evidence discloses that the only proof linking the accused to the killing of her husband is the testimony of Melanio Cambel. alias ‘Nel’. de Bonifacio v. 42 SCRA 59 [1971]) The prosecution failed to produce such proof. produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind of the appellant's culpability. direct or circumstantial. Negotiations ensued but briefly between the Informer and the three accused. but refused to reduce her confession to writing. deliver. the degree of explanation required will necessary vary. was frisked and got from the right front pocket of her pants the two (2). Rollo. Accused Manuel Recla was seen to have actually hand over the prohibited stuff to the Informer. 123 SCRA 327. followed by a private vehicle wherein PFC Romeo Jesus. Pat. Crisanto Garcia and others. sprang the net. marked P5.g. readily admitted his guilt but refused to give any written statement. (See People vs. it would not be sufficient for a police officer just to repeat to the person under investigation the provisions of Section 20. By then. therefor. intelligence and other relevant personal circumstances of the person under investigation. The Informer claimed that she could now buy some prohibited stuff (e. Now. 1982.00 denomination were given to the Informer. and placed under arrest the three accused. the suspected marijuana leaves and cigarette were sent to the Forensic Division of the NBI for examination. While thereat. 122 SCRA 312: People VS. in the City of Manila. PP V DUHAN That on or about the 29th day of June. the suspected dried marijuana leaves were actually seen being passed from one accused to the other until the actual handing over of it to the Informer. three suspects (who turned out to be the herein three accused) immediately approached the taxi. at a discreet distance. Accused Reyes in turn was frisked and found inside his wallet was a stick of a hand rolled suspected marijuana cigarette. among other entries. Immediately the police team closed in and nabbed the appellant. In a "Manifestation and Motion In Lieu of Appellee's Brief" filed by the Solicitor General's Office under date of March 31. 5 of the Western Police District located at United Nations Avenue. (Decision. Ramos. 3. the marked P5. after being informed of his constitutional right TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO COUNSEL. Caguioa. a view of the material occurrences is presented quite at odds with that set out in the appealed decision: The credible evidence instead shows that the four policemen indiscriminately rounded-up appellants at two separate places at the corner of Jorge Bocobo and Remedios Street in Malate. Manila. E) and the Booking and Information Sheet for each of the accused were prepared (Exhs. unlawfully and knowingly jointly sell or offer for sale to the public the following: dried marijuana leaves wrapped in an aluminum foil and one (1) stick of marijuana cigarette.. who were all in civilian clothes. In the Trial Court's view. Before the payment. He is not only duty-bound to tell the person the rights to which the latter is entitled. When the Constitution requires a person under investigation “to be informed” of his right to remain silent and to counsel. Accused. 1982 pursuant to a police saturation drive. a confidential informer (whose name was not divulged for security reasons but was simply described as an 18-year old lady) went to Police Station No. e. the right of a person under interrogation “to be informed” implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain. As soon as the latter left. which is a prohibited drug. did then and there wilfully.. the police operatives were some 5 to 10 yards away.) The Solicitor General agrees with the appellants. what the person under interrogation may or may not do. the following. They were then brought to the police station. Manila on the evening of June 29. Suffice it to say that a simpler and more lucid explanation is needed where the subject is unlettered. the Informer's taxi as it was cruising towards the 'suspected' area. pp. more particularly on his right hand pocket. give away to another or distribute any prohibited drugs. Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of the accused constitutional rights to be informed of his rights and to warnings. 1986. informing them that they were being rounded-up for verification 23 .) In other words. the police operatives. F." (People vs. and forced them to ride in their private vehicle to the police headquarters. As soon as the Informer arrived at the place. the prosecution had succeeded in establishing by competent evidence the following facts: On or about 7:00 o'clock in the evening of 29 June 1982. marijuana leaves or cigarettes) from herein suspects.g. just as accused Jose Duhan himself received the marked 3-P5. boarded. since the right “to be informed” implies comprehension. he must also explain their effects in practical terms. Three (3) marked money bins in P5. G and H). Held: Yes. appellant orally admitted having sold the four (4) sticks of marijuana cigarettes and the ownership of the marijuana flowering tops taken from her pocket.00 bills were taken from Duhan's pants.00 bills. for which reason they are entitled to an acquittal at least on reasonable doubt. and in a language the subject fairly understands. all members of the Drug Enforcement Unit of the said police command. 51-52. They invoke the familiar doctrine that "an accused should be convicted on the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution and not on the weakness of his defense. Article IV of the Constitution.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES marijuana cigarette.00 bills as payment for the marijuana. Immediately. as it cannot truly be said that the person has been “informed” of his rights. and from the left pocket of her pants the marijuana flowering tops wrapped in a piece of newspaper. and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding what is conveyed. there is a denial of the right. demonstrates the existence of a quite different version of the facts. Each of the three (3) accused signed the Sheet which contains. PFC Segundino Bautista. so to speak. Upon being investigated and after having been duly apprised of her constitutional rights. Sunga. The result: positive for marijuana (Exh. depending upon the education. As a rule. it must be presumed to contemplate the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. Ermita. Short of this. The latter boarded an unidentified taxi.) Upon the other hand. The pertinent police report (Exh. Philippines. 95 SCRA 2. the said accused not being authorized by law to sell. but on the contrary. the appellants contend that the evidence on record does not justify the Trial Court's findings. C and D). The latter was following. tsn. Martha Oliva Vda. it was error for the Trial Court to have admitted and appreciated against the appellants the Booking and Information Sheets prepared by a Police Investigator. 1983). Joves or Pfc. the marijuana cigarette fell and another policeman picked it up. the same could be attributed to their lowly stations in life and their fear and belief that nothing would come out of such course of action (pp. one after the other. Appellant Duhan declared that what was forcibly taken from him was his personal money of P25. As a rule. The policemen found no drugs on the persons of the appellants. (Decision. p. tsn. Bautista. 11. he would have Identified and testified on the existence and due execution of Exhibits E. tsn. 1983). One policeman inserted a stick of marijuana cigarette inside the back pocket of appellant Duhan. F.00. Upon their arrival at the police station that same evening.) The accused. Joves admitted having heard the old woman protesting the arrest of her son Duhan. at the suspected area when the policemen rounded-up the appellants that evening. and that her son was not involved in any illegal sale of prohibited drug or marijuana. 8. She was told to follow them to the police headquarters. Indeed. 5. the policemen manhandled and beat appellants Recla and Reyes inside the vehicle. 1983. this Court has in turn come to agree with the Solicitor General that in this case the prosecution has indeed failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES purposes. She returned the following day with the money. de Duhan. and they should therefore be acquitted. one policeman approached her. and this time inserted it in the wallet of appellant Reyes. after being informed of his constitutional right TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO COUNSEL. he readily admitted his guilt. on their way to the police precinct that evening. 17. 1983. But even if they had indeed made the verbal confessions imputed to them as alleged in the Booking and Information Sheets. subsequently denied in effect having made any such verbal admissions of guilt. All the three appellants were brought inside the comfort room of the police station. 8. however. 7-8. additionally. She could not raise the money at that time because her employer was out of town (pp. p. prepared for them three Booking and Information Sheets. 11. Feb. 13. 8. tsn. 1983). 8. 11. tsn. Appellants maintained their innocence and refused to admit what the policemen wanted them to admit (pp.4-5. where they were subjected to maltreatment and forced to admit the possession of two foils of marijuana leaves and two marijuana cigarettes. Paradoxically. When the old woman pleaded that she ride along to accompany her son to the police headquarters. not the alleged three five-peso marked bills (p. 1982. 8. demanding P100. therefore. 'G' and 'H'). S. At the trial. however. tsn. mother of appellant Duhan. 17. tsn. tsn. tsn. mother of appellant Duhan. Worst still when the policemen were processing her son's papers. Duhan being a street vendor. 8-9. Feb. Feb. After the body searches of the appellants by the policemen inside the police precinct. no other than Mrs. 1983). In fact. 1983. Pfc. Bautista . 16. 25. Instead. 1983). and saw her son Duhan being investigated and made to admit possession of marijuana. 5. pp. Bautista. Pat. Jan. readily admitted his guilt but refused to give any written statement. Joves confirmed the presence of an old woman. containing the following paragraph: Accused. Pfc. p. She followed later and went to the police station. The mere assertion by a police officer that after an accused was informed of his constitutional right to remain silent and to counsel. it would not be sufficient for a police officer just to repeat to the person under 24 . 1983). The testimonies of three appellants. saying that her son was there to buy something at the store. 1983. the same would not be acceptable as evidence against them because the constitutional preconditions for their admission had not been complied with. "F". Feb. the policemen refused to accommodate her. tsn. it must be presumed to contemplate the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. Their narration regarding the abusive actuations and acts of maltreatment inflicted upon them by the policemen during their ride to and while under custodial investigation at the police station that same evening is more reliable and trustworthy. If the appellants and their relatives no longer filed any complaint against the abusive and corrupt policemen with the proper authorities. are clearly obvious for their sincerity and straightforwardness. that as both the defense and the Solicitor General have pointed out.). 20. 6. 6. allegedly for verification purposes. March 25. informing her that her son was only being taken for verification purposes (pp. Jan. G and H".00 from appellant Duhan for buying stork candies for sale on the streets. 4-5. Nov. "the testimony of PFC. the contradictory nature of Pat. 15. the policemen made body searches on the appellants. When appellant Duhan took out his handkerchief. She cried because it was not true (pp. had said witness testified. It may not be amiss to stress. which satisfactorily and convincingly explained the reasons for their innocent and lawful presence at the suspected area that evening.. pp. tsn. Id. This Court has already ruled that: When the Constitution requires a person under investigation 'to be informed' of his right to remain silent and to counsel. tsn. appellants were separately confronted and were asked to give their names. 8. de Duhan. appellants were brought to a cell room and locked up inside (pp. Joves' testimony and the failure of the prosecution to present the vital witnesses and the important pieces of evidence alluded to only serve to strengthen the defense version of the case. for each of the appellants and respectively signed by them (Exhs. 2.00 so that her son could be released. does not make the supposed confession admissible against the purported confessant. Feb. he was boxed by the policeman (pp.. Feb. lone prosecution witness Pat. which they later respectively signed (Exhibits 'F'. but she could not find Pat. Feb. the police investigator. When appellant Reyes protested. was dispensed with by the Trial Fiscal after he had obtained from the Defense a stipulation to the effect that. S. 8. Appellants did not give any written statements to the police. Joves poked a gun at appellant Duhan's back and then forcibly took the latter's personal money. Bautista to whom she would give the money because of her belief that they were the only ones who could release her son (pp. 7. 50. 13-14. as corroborated by witness Martha Oliva Vda. Instead. upon their belief and the police assurances that they were for verification purposes and that they would be released there after. " G " and "H"). 19-20. no searches on their persons were made by the policemen upon their apprehension at the suspected area. Rollo. 20-21.) After a careful and thoroughgoing review of the evidence. True to form and practice. except P25. Id). Pat. tsn. knowingly and intelligently. By custodial interrogation. in the cited case of People vs. at the hearing on 3 June 1974.) WHEREFORE. which means that he is not adequately educated to understand fairly and fully the significance of his constitutional rights to silence and to counsel. provided the waiver is made voluntarily. The defendant may waive effectuation of those rights. Absent such affirmative showing. Issue: Whether the right to remain silent and right to counsel during custodial investigation may be waived. the admission or confession made by a person under investigation cannot be admitted in evidence. e.. however.. People vs. The prosecution may not use statements. the alleged waiver herein falls far short. but there was an objection on the part of the defense counsel based on the ground of such statement being inadmissible in evidence. Upon arraignment on 5 October 1973. Now. after the raffle. (pp. as the statement was taken by the police without any counsel assisting the accused in the investigation. Caguioa. and then taking his statements down. 122 SCRA 312. the prosecution presented Corporal Conrado Roca of the Meycauayan Police Department. He is not only duty-bound to tell the person the rights to which the latter is entitled. in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. PP. before whom a written statement of Yupo and his alleged waiver of his right to remain silent and to be assisted by a counsel of his own choice was taken. the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent. prom. Statements made during the period of custodial interrogation to be admissible require a clear intelligent waiver of constitutional rights. stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Ramos. the degree of explanation required will necessarily vary. the appealed decision is reversed and set aside and another one entered ACQUITTING appellants on reasonable doubt. Tested by such a clear and unequivocal standard. and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney. SO ORDERED. we mean 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. Nelia Nicandro y Valarma G. Article IV of the Constitution. that any utterance may be used against him. Ramos. 321-322. If. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. since the right 'to be informed' implies comprehension. an information for murder against Paquito Yupo y Gonzales (Criminal Case 146-V-73). Lydia Begnotia. The records do not reveal that these requirements have been fully complied with. Upon his refusal to reconsider such ruling. either retained or appointed. Likewise.) xxx xxx xxx As it is the obligation of the investigating officer to inform a person under investigation of his right to remain silent and to counsel. Yupo pleaded not guilty. 1986.R. Miguel Tribol.' We hold that the verbal admissions of appellant during custodial investigation may not be taken in evidence against him. it is not enough that the police investigator merely informs him of his constitutional rights to silence and to counsel. the petition for certiorari was filed. it appearing that the accused was not assisted by a counsel when it was given. who allegedly received the ante mortem statement of the victim. nor was there any showing that appellant has been represented by counsel during custodial investigation. being assigned to Branch VIII. he was questioned on the incriminating answers in such statement to the police.) In other words. with the case. if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated. (See People vs. the prosecution having presented 6 witnesses. intelligence and other relevant personal circumstances of the person under investigation. In consonance with Section 20 of the Bill of Rights which states that 'any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. Judge Caguioa sustained the objection of the defense on the view that such judicial confession of the accused is inadmissible in evidence for being unconstitutional. Costs de oficio. there can be no questioning. Thus. what the person under interrogation may or may not do. After this witness had identified the statement of Yupo and the waiver. Held: While there could be a waiver of the rights of an accused. Roca of the Police Force of Meycauayan. so it is the duty of the prosecution to affirmatively establish compliance by the investigating officer with his said obligation. the police may not question him. he must also explain their effects in practical terms. that any statement he does not make may be used as evidence against him. depending upon the education. Then. 5. otherwise a court's jurisdiction starting at the beginning of the trial may be lost in the course of the proceeding. (People of the Philippines vs. worded thus: "Ipinaaalam ko sa iyo na ikaw ay sinisiyasat tungkol sa isang paglabag 25 . 95 SCRA 312. the following measures are required. presided by Judge Eduardo P. Prior to any questioning. The trial of the case then proceeded. No. He likewise stated that such right could not be waived. it must be intelligently waived. and that he has the right to the presence of a counsel. Yupo merely answered in a monosyllabic "Opo" to Corporal Conrado B. either retained or appointed. this Court said: In the case at bar. and his common-law wife. and in a language the subject fairly understands. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed.g. . Short of this. V CAGUIOA Facts: The Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed on 14 September 1973. Suffice it to say that a simpler and more lucid explanation is needed where the subject is unlettered. unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it. Caguioa. February 11. including the father of the deceased. the suspect being warned prior to questioning that he has a right to remain silent. there is a denial of the right. he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking. and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding what is conveyed. as it cannot truly be said that the person has been 'informed' of his rights. L-59378. the interrogating officer must have patience in explaining these rights to him. the right of a person under interrogation 'to be informed' implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain. appellant has only finished Grade VI.. Rodolfo Tribol. As mandated.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES investigation the provisions of Section 20. Because of this behavior. 1980. the 70-year-old father of the victim. When the body was brought to the couple's house. something would happen to her. where accusedappellant followed him to report that Consolacion could not be found. or on January 19. Hernandez for the autopsy. regret or even sorrow for his wife having met her untimely demise. then to the creek where the body was. The latter got the bolo from above the cooking place. went to Barrio Magupit. 11 which the trial court found to have been voluntarily executed. going up and down the house and consuming a large amount of water. quarters. He advised accused-appellant to look for her. Consolacion married accused-appellant Miguel Lasac.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES sa batas na iyong ginawa. 1980. Accused-appellant was asked by the police to produce his bolo and was invited for questioning in the police head. 8 Sgt. the barrio captain requested somebody to fetch the police. Hernandez was called in for the autopsy. testified that in the evening of March 15. Lasac allegedly executed an affidavit. disclosed that she suffered sixteen [16] stabbed. stating that they were going to gather vegetables. but did not find any. Rufo suggested that the barrio captain detain the accused-appellant. They searched the area for evidence. 4 No one witnessed the killing. but suspicion fen on accused appellant in view of a number of circumstantial evidence which were later testified to by the prosecution witnesses. during which time the police started their investigation. He noted that Lasac did not show any remorse over Consolacion's death. testified that at around 8 o'clock in the morning of March 15. He ordered the corpse to be brought to accused-appellant's house and called in Dr. Consolacion was found dead atop a big stone in the middle of a creek about 70-150 meters away from the conjugal dwelling. He also asked Lasac to bring him the clothes Lasac was wearing that morning. The lower court likewise observed that during accused-appellant's testimony. the search team. Oriental Mindoro. 6. corroborated Salagubang's testimony as regards accused-appellant's behavior at the night of the incident and the observation on the condition of the bolo and the clothes. 1980. together with Sgt. testified that a week before the incident at bar. Six [6] months after they separated. These pieces of wearing apparel were "malumigmig" [a bit wet]. Lasac handed him a T-shirt and short pants which he observed to be a little bit wet. Rufo surmised that accused-appellant killed his wife out of jealousy as Consolacion used to tell him and his wife that she was being maltreated by accused-appellant because she dressed up nicely. Faltado. The blade was clean but smelled somewhat "malansa" [fishy]. 10 On the basis of the affidavit of admission. he went to the house of the accused and the victim to request the latter to tend his store as he wanted to attend a ball game. He likewise observed Lasac's going up and down the house and frequent drinking of water. Rufo requested several barrio mates to help look for Consolacion. He further testified that LASAC voluntarily executed the affidavit of admission 9 after he had informed the latter of his constitutional rights and that the same was voluntarily signed before Municipal Judge Zacarias Garcia. accused-appellant was observed to be restless. passed by the creek and found the corpse. accused-appellant told him that if Consolacion did not change her ways. They went to the house of accused. at dapat mo ring mabatid na anuman ang sabihin mo dito ay maaaring gamitin ng ayon o laban sa iyo. the police asked Rufo and his wife to look for the clothes accused-appellant was wearing at the time of the incident in question.appellant. Rudy Guerra. 1981. he saw accused appellant going to the scene of the crime. He invited Lasac to the police headquarters for questioning. to investigate a killing reported in behalf of one Rufo Garcia. An autopsy conducted by Dr. Lasac was released but was re-arrested. Rufo went to the ball game. At twilight he proceeded to his store where accused-appellant informed him that Consolacion had not been found despite the search conducted by the barrio captain and other residents of the barrio. Rufo then left the spouses' house to tether his carabao as he had nevertheless decided to attend said ball game. incised and hacked wounds in different parts of her body. On March 15. Oriental Mindoro. At around 1 o'clock in the afternoon. Sgt. the fact that his bolo smelled "fishy" [malansa] which to the trial court's mind indicated the smell of blood and the fact that the apparel worn by the accused on that fateful day was found to have been recently laundered and still wet.. a private practising physician. "he never showed any sign of remorse. 7 admitting his guilt. Edgardo Hernandez. ikaw ay may karapatan na huwag magsalita kung ayaw mo at may karapatan ka rin na magkaroon ng abogado na iyong gusto. accused allegedly told them not to pass there as they had already gone to said place before. The following morning. Salagubang examined it and found it a little wet. 6 Sgt. magsasalaysay ka pa rin ba?" and that was all. Station Commander of the Integrated National Police of Bongabong. When the group suggested that they search by the creek and its surroundings. 12 the trial court rendered the judgment under review on December 11. His demeanor in the witness chair . together with the circumstantial evidence consisting of accused-appellant having tried to mislead the search team from going to the creek. 1980. After the police had arrived. 5 Rufo Garcia. Pfc. Dr. Notwithstanding. On this suggestion. Accusedappellant refused for Consolacion.. Because of this behavior. Bongabong. thus: Flaviano Mauro. was of a character 26 . On March 24. he suspected Lasac of having killed the deceased He therefore asked Lasac to produce his bolo. neither crying nor embracing the cadaver of his wife. his ' restlessness during the time the body was brought to his house as well as during the vigil. 148 SCRA 630 Braulio Dipasupil and the deceased Maria Consolacion Garcia lived together as common-law husband and wife for about six [6] months. Rufo's wife found a T-shirt and short pants hanging between the "aparador" and the wall. a 53-year-old farmer. separated into two [2] groups. A one-night wake was held. After he had done this. PEOPL V LASAC. bago ko ipagpatuloy ang pagtatanong sa iyo. Matibay and Csc. he. 1980. Rudy Guerra of the INP of Bongabong. Justino Salagubang. We now weigh the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the trial court. People v. The affidavit in question contained the following: PAHIWATIG: Ipinaaalam ko sa iyo [sic] Mr. No. the bolo's wetness could have been caused by his perspiration. that appellant's wearing apparel was also a bit wet [malumigmig] indicating it was washed to remove bloodstains. The tests of sufficiency for circumstantial evidence to support conviction under Section 5. indeed. Miguel LASAC na ikaw ay nasa ilalim ng pag-uusig tungkol sa isang kasalanan na iyong kinasasangkutan. likewise. Rudy Guerra himself during his crossexamination. appellant appeared restless. Q Was he really represented by a counsel at the time you were taking the affidavit of admission? A No. that there is more than one circumstance. Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court. We see no need to further dwell on accused-appellant's allegation of torture and maltreatment. it is our holding that standing alone. such fact does not warrant the conclusion nor are they proof that appellant killed his wife. which provides: Sec. shall be inadmissible in evidence. that appellant's bolo smelled of fish [malansa] and a little bit wet indicating it was washed. 1986 that: The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Neither was he informed that if he was indigent. there is nothing in the record to support such allegation nor any other indication that would totally negate the veracity of appellants' claim that he..G. water could be splashed in a manner as to wet the bolo's scabbard. After a thorough study of the testimonial evidence from which the aforecited circumstantial evidence was drawn by the trial court. and that during the wake. sir. since the appellant used the bolo to cut bamboo. it must be realized that people react differently to death. this "advice" given to accused-appellant did not satisfy the requirements of Section 20. He did not testify that his bolo was wet because he kept it near the faucet of the water jar His testimony 17 is to the effect that he usually tucked his bolo in its scabbard on the post near the faucet of the water jar It is not beyond the natural course of events that by the proximity of the water jar to the post where appellant usually tucked his bolo in its scabbard. 15 Another factor adding to Exhibit B's legal insufficiency is that the waiver by the accused-appellant of his right to counsel was made without the assistance of counsel.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES emanating from a person who was satisfied with what he did as a measure or act of revenge. Also.R. that the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. that the appellant's bolo and wearing apparel were indeed washed. On the prosecution's charge that appellant intentionally misled the persons searching for his wife by claiming he had already looked for her at the creek but did not find her there. While accused-appellant was informed of his right to remain silent. As to the appellant's alleged queer behavior during the wake. a lawyer would be appointed for him. Having cast aside Exhibit B as inadmissible for the reasons above-stated. the bolo itself. 16 We have ruled in Morales v. as the prosecution sought to prove. Sison. He said they were wet of perspiration because he wore them when he cut bamboo. 121 SCRA 538. at ipinaaalam ko rin sa iyo na sa ilalim ng ating Saligang-batas ay may karapatan ka na magsawalang-kibo at magkaroon ng sarili mong piling manananggol tungkol sa gagawing imbestigasyong ito ang lahat bang ito ay nauunawaan mo? S Opo. Appellant explained that his bolo was a little bit wet because its scabbard was wet. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. 135 SCRA 465 and People v. 20. Ponce Enrile. Galit. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. looked for his wife in said area. 18 Besides. and that the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. have not been ably met. intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against hint Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. Appellant's behavior on that fateful day may have been caused by the trauma of his wife's sudden and brutal death. he would wish to have the assistance of counsel the interrogation would cease until an attorney is present. 27 . 14 However. drank a large amount of water and showed no signs of sorrow or remorse over his wife's death. sir.e. in whole or in part. 70906. thus: Q Now. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. i. Appellant has. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. May 30. and thus. did you explain to Miguel LASAC that it is his constitutional right that he should be represented by counsel before he gives his affidavit? A Yes. viz: that appellant misled the persons searching for his wife by telling them that he had already looked for his wife at the creek. if the water jars faucet is opened. said circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to support a judgment of conviction since they consist primarily of unsubstantiated suspicions on the part of the witnesses for the prosecution. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down. Furthermore. sir. he was not accordingly informed that anything he might say could and would be used again! t him in court. accused-appellant's affidavit of admission is inadmissible in evidence for having been obtained in violation of Section 20. T Matapos mong malaman ang iyong karapatan ikaw ba ay magbibigay ng iyong malayang salaysay? S Opo. violence. This fact was admitted by Sgt. Any person under investigation for the commission of in offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed of such right. explained why his wearing apparel were "a bit wet" [malumigmig]. accused-appellant was not made to understand that if. even if. Q And what was his answer then? A He told me that he no longer needs the presence of a counsel. before preparing that affidavit of admission. at any time during the interrogation. threat. No force." 13 We agree with both accused-appellant and the Solicitor General that Exhibit B. R. which the suspect declared that he bought the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. the circumstantial evidence cited by the trial court is not sufficient to produce a moral certainty as to the guilt of the appellant for the crime charged. Gutierrez. US vs. 1981 also prepared by the witness Patrolman Cruz. 1986. placed Malcon Olevere under arrest after they found in his possession dried marijuana leaves. ET AL. 2010 ABAD. The following evidences produced by the prosecution establish nothing to support the conviction of the accused. because if his guilt is not satisfactorily established. Moreover. Such kind of evidence is considered hearsay The guilt of the accused has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and he is. Toledo (85 SCRA 355) The court relied on on Olevere’s sworn statement. ramos was arrested and place under custodial investigation by the Drug Enforcement SEction of the PWD b)Malcon Olevere executed a written sworn statement implicating the accused as the source of the marijuana leaves. PP. recovered marijuana leaves from one ROGELIO RAMOS. there always arises a presumption of his innocence until the contrary is proved and in such a case. 4 Phil. Exhibit "A" The Booking Sheet and Arrest Report of accused Rogelio Ramos prepared by witness Patrolman Cruz Exhibit "B" Crime Report dated May 6. therefore. the circumstances proven should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to but one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the defendant to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person. alledgedly. Requisites of a Valid confession 1. verbally admitted for the commission of the offense charged c) Court of First Instance of Manila now the Regional Trial Court) found the accusedappellant Ramos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in view of the verbal admission given by the appellant himself and the evidence offered and admitted in court.R. which is considered a hearsay evidence.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES We agree with the Solicitor General that appellant's explanations have indubitably cast a reasonable doubt as to the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to convict him beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of killing his wife. is not admissible against him because he was not assisted by counsel. 122 SCRA 312 Facts of the Case: A )The police officers.R. as the affidavit of admission executed by the appellant. PEOPLE V RAMOS. Oral testimonies The accused was denied the due process of law when a sworn statement was admitted as evidence but the witness was not presented in the court.. November 24. 2-b. All the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other. 185710 28 . beyond an reasonable doubt that the accused is the author of the crime. and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. No. No. Before a conviction can be had upon circumstantial evidence. the evidence does not fulfill the moral certainty to support conviction. Mr. The adverse party was not given the right to cross-examine the witness which would easily facilitate the fabrication of evidence and the perpetration of fraud. People vs. all evidence intended to support or corroborate it must likewise fail. Exhibit "D" examined marijuana leaves. Exhibit "C" Sworn Statement of Malcon Olevere y Napa. Exhibit "E" the envelope containing the marijuana leaves which was confiscated from Malcon Olevere. being the prosecution's basic evidence. an other evidence which tend to support this basic evidence become useless. 19 No general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which in any case will suffice. G. consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty. 185710. J. The constitutional right to meet witnesses face to face in order not to deprive persons of their lives and properties without due process of law is well-protected in our jurisprudence. As held in People vs. [Emphasis supplied] That the circumstantial evidence upon which the prosecution anchored its case fails to meet the standard of moral certainty is underscored by said evidence's inability to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis but the single one of guilt. 21 Under the premises. G. if the same does not fulfill the test of moral certainty sufficiently strong to offset the presumption of innocence. In an earlier case. 20 It is indispensable that the evidence be derived from interrelated facts and duly proven in a manner that will lead to the logical and rational conclusion. 22 WHEREFORE. The accused. Tolentino. he is unquestionably entitled to be acquitted. and accused-appellant Miguel LASAC is ACQUITTED D of the crime charged. The prosecution’s failed to present necessary evidence to establish Ramos’ guilt. this Court had occasion to rule that "since circumstantial evidence is as strong as its weakest link. 50103. G. if facts or circumstances apparently inculpatory. V TUNIACO. January 10. the accused has the Tight to be acquitted even if his innocence be doubtful. Where the principal basic evidence upon which the prosecution rests its case fails. NO. entitled to acquittal 6. ROMULO TUNIACO. 493. the judgment of conviction appealed from is hereby reversed.: This case is about the requirements of a valid extrajudicial confession and the establishment of the existence of corpus delicti in murder cases. may equally be explained showing innocence. He was later recaptured.00 as exemplary damages. Although the prosecution and defense stipulated that Atty. They got Cortez drunk then led him out supposedly to get the money he needed. on June 6. Dondon Cortez threatened to report his drinking companions’ illegal activities to the police unless they gave him money for his forthcoming marriage. 2001 the RTC rendered judgment. Tabucon explained the substance of it to accused Aleman who then signed it in the presence of Atty.00 as civil indemnity. the trial court had Aleman subjected to psychiatric examination at the Davao Mental Hospital. This prompted the court to require the Provincial Jail Warden to issue a certification regarding Aleman’s behavior and mental condition while in jail to determine if he was fit to stand trial. Accused Datulayta. The Rulings of the Court 1. the hospital sent word that Aleman had escaped. Tabucon noted the presence of Atty. in the amounts of P50. CR-HC 00311. causing him to fall. accused Datulayta pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of Homicide. finding accused Aleman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Labangal. Besinga. however. When asked if he had any complaint to make. He even denied ever knowing the lawyer. When he refused. Accused Tuniaco used the same gun to pump some bullets into Cortez’s body. P25. Accused Aleman also testified that he could not remember having been assisted by Atty. accused Aleman turned on Cortez and stabbed him on the stomach. The Issues Presented Accused Aleman raises two issues: a) whether or not the prosecution was able to present evidence of corpus delicti. General Santos City. the group found a spot covered with burnt rice husks and a partially burnt body of a man. and brought him to the Lagao police station. When queried if the suspects would be willing to give their statements. some police officers took him from his aunt’s house in Purok Palen. He was there asked to admit having taken part in the murder of Cortez. Aleman appealed to this Court. 1992. On his arrival at the sub-station. the police officer started taking down Aleman’s statement. affirming the decision of the RTC with the modification that directed accused Aleman and Datulayta to indemnify the heirs of Cortez. On being arraigned. as they were walking.R.000. 2008. and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.00 as moral damages. According to Aleman. About a foot from the body.000. foundation.000.000.00 to the victim’s family. all three accused. Then they covered him with rice husks. He testified that sometime in 1992. The court also ordered him to pay death indemnity of P70. For some reason. of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) who was conversing with those taken into custody for the offense. The three accused brought Cortez to Apopong near the dump site and. The evidence of a dead body with a gunshot wound on its back would be evidence that murder has been committed. accused Tuniaco filed a demurrer to evidence which the Court granted. whom he observed to be in good physical shape. Datulayta handed over the gun to Aleman who fired another shot on Cortez’s head.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES The Facts and the Case The city prosecutor of General Santos City charged the accused Romulo Tuniaco. recanted what he said to the police during the trial. When trial in the case resumed. On being re-arraigned at his request.m. Jeffrey Datulayta. shortly after. Tabucon pointed to Atty. the latter. Aleman’s new PAO lawyer raised the defense of insanity. pleaded not guilty to the murder charge. Besinga during the police investigation. to the dump site where they left their victim’s body. Ruperto Besinga. Before anything else. Officer Tabucon next took the statement of accused Aleman. On June 15. and P25. Aleman answered in the affirmative.56 caliber gun and an armalite rifle. for making the same threats and now they decided to do it. 1992 the police brought Aleman to the City Prosecutor’s Office where he swore to his statement before an assistant city prosecutor. and b) whether or not accused Aleman’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence.00 to the heirs of Cortez.000. Tabucon warned Aleman that anything he would say may be used against him later in court. P50. Based on the findings of the RTC. But. Besinga who claimed that he was assisting all the suspects in the case. and a police inspector. the court rendered judgment on January 21. The warden complied. On October 8. Atty. they tortured him until he agreed to sign a document admitting his part in the crime. Besinga said that they were. Some other police officer first took the statement of accused Jeffrey Datulayta.00 and moral damages of P50. or substance of a crime. Corpus delicti has two elements: (a) 29 . Accused Aleman said that in the course of a drinking bout with accused Datulayta and Tuniaco at around 9 p. Datulayta and Tuniaco had already planned to kill Cortez in Tupi. South Cotabato. the city prosecutor. they found the shells of a 5. Corpus delicti has been defined as the body. Aleman said that he had none. officer Tabucon informed accused Aleman in Cebuano of his constitutional right to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel of his own choice and asked him if he was willing to give a statement. and Alex Aleman with murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City in Criminal Case 8370. After some search. After the prosecution rested its case. Jr. in the morning of June 13. drew out his single shot homemade M16 pistol and shot Cortez on the head. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment of six years and one day and to pay P50. stating that Aleman had been observed to have good mental condition and did not commit any infraction while in jail. assisted by Atty. 1992 some police officers from the Lagao Police Sub-Station requested police officer Jaime Tabucon of the Central Police Station of General Santos City homicide division to take the statement of accused Alex Aleman regarding the slaying of a certain Dondon Cortez. Besinga assisted accused Aleman during the taking of his extrajudicial confession. In the afternoon.00 as temperate damages. On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. When Aleman said that he had no lawyer. jointly and severally. He said that he met them only at the city jail where they were detained for the death of Cortez. resulting in the dismissal of the case against him. on the other hand. Besinga.000. After taking down the statement. Aleman further denied prior association with accused Tuniaco and Datulayta. Afterwards. accused Datulayta and Aleman led Tabucon.000. 1991 FACTS: in particular 391 On August 13. On December 12. the bathing at the artesian well "as if washing away stains of blood". such as. The prosecution is burdened to prove corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or by circumstantial or presumptive evidence. The defense claims that the prosecution failed to prove corpus delicti since it did not bother to present a medical certificate identifying the remains found at the dump site and an autopsy report showing such remains sustained gunshot and stab wounds that resulted in death. While such report or testimony is useful for understanding the nature of the injuries the victim suffered. A lawyer. Accused Aleman claims. But corpus delicti need not be proved by an autopsy report of the dead victim’s body or even by the testimony of the physician who examined such body. the trial court absolved the widow and Wilkins of any participation in the filling for lack of proof. such corroboration is circumstantial evidence against the person implicated in it. commenced a day earlier but it was not until the morning of the following day. before the taking of his statement. Marcos and Robert. where no physical evidence of violence was presented. Decision reversed. cases Read: 1. 1986. as the lower court noted. That physical confirmation. Further. even signed a certification that the investigator sufficiently explained to him his constitutional rights and that he was still willing to give his statement. police authorities. What is more. Constitutional right to remain silent. All that is needed is an effective communication between the interrogator and the suspect to the end that the latter is able to understand his rights. Tabucon testified that he spoke to Aleman clearly in the language he knew. Under the doctrine of interlocking confessions. August 13. it is improbable that the police fabricated Aleman’s confession and just forced him to sign it. or the prosecutor who administered his oath. To be informed of the Right to remain silent. sufficiently establishes the corpus delicti of the crime. Moreover. conversing with counsel at the police station. Of course. ISSUE: Is the extrajudicial confession of Marcos admissible in evidence? HELD: No. This appears to have been done in this case. Besinga did not dispute this claim. Marcos agreed to come back and sign his statement. The police had invited the deceased's widow and her sons for questioning about the killing. Aleman. acting upon a report. although Aleman claimed that he bore torture marks on his head. Besinga. that statement must be admissible in evidence. accused Datulayta’s confession corroborate that of Aleman in important details. Galit. 2. 1985. But this does not apply here. the son of the deceased Pelagio Jimenez told his mother that his father had not come home the previous night: that the search for the deceased. b) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel. that a man has died and (b) that some person is criminally responsible for it. that long questions followed by monosyllabic answers do not satisfy the requirement that the accused is amply informed of his rights. who was living separately from them. his relatives. he. Hence this appeal. joined by Atty. The police investigators learned that Marcos. and Wilkins. Atty. 1986. 3. Atty. A draft of the confession was prepared by the investigating officer but Marcos was not able to sign the same due to the absence of the judge before whom it is supposed to be sworn and signed. refused to sign his statement. he never brought this to the attention of his counsel. It is a settled rule that where the defendant did not present evidence of compulsion. Here.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES that a certain result has been established. 1985. for example. c) express. citing People v. all these will be considered as indicating voluntariness. no law or jurisprudence requires the police officer to ascertain the educational attainment of the accused. Aleman asserts that he was lacking in education and so he did not fully realize the consequences of a confession. noting that the unsigned confession is admissible in evidence inasmuch as evidence aliunde corroborated such confession. Marcos. Besinga. the deceased's violent quarrels with his children and occasions that he had been boxed and hit by his children. the trial court found Marcos and Robert guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide. 30 . Both accused contest such ruling. Here. assisted accused Aleman during the custodial investigation. not working with or was not beholden to the police. Subsequently. where he did not institute any criminal or administrative action against his supposed intimidators. In an order dated July 21.104 SCRA 1-a. Officer Tabucon testified that he saw accused Aleman. Dec. came upon the corpse of Pelagio Jimenez below a cliff near a balite tree. and the shells of the guns used in killing the victim. Nor is the presentation of the murder weapons also indispensable since the physical existence of such weapons is not an element of the crime of murder. They also learned from the persons they interviewed of circumstances that drew their suspicion to the son. People vs. But as the CA said. coming after his testimony of the gruesome murder. The appellate court is correct in ruling that such allegation is baseless. assisted by a former judge whose presence was requested by the police authorities. There is no reason for it not to be. but upon his return. Confession to be admissible must be a) voluntary. the police authorities found the remains of Cortez at the place pointed to by accused Aleman. an information for parricide was filed against the widow and her sons. that deceased Pelagio was finally found dead. Marcos Jimenez. 10. These requirements were met here. and d) in writing. Aleman alleges torture as the reason for the execution of the confession. they are not indispensable proof of such injuries or of the fact of death. The confession has details that only the person who committed the crime could have possibly known. Robert. exception 2. Hence. 1990 3. as a result of 7 wounded inflicted upon different parts of her body by a blunt instrument. the trial judge dictated his decision on the case in open court. Held: As held in Morales vs. 175 SCRA 216 4. While she asked him if he had voluntarily given the statements contained in the typewritten document. and that (2) said right cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Extrajudicial confession without the assistance of counsel. Aspili. Natividad Fernando. the case was referred to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further investigation in view of the alleged limited facilities of the Montalban police station. Trial was held. or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means — by telephone if possible — or by letter or messenger. police authorities of Montalban picked up Francisco Galit. Mrs. Judge Cruz.000. was found dead in the bedroom of her house located at Barrio Geronimo. 240 SCRA 541 8. NBI Agent Flores conducted a preliminary interview of the suspect who allegedly gave evasive answers to his questions. not only the confession but also any admissible obtained in the course thereof are inadmissible against him or his co accused. (1) to have a competent and independent counsel of his own choice and if he cannot afford the services of counsel. Accordingly. 9 September 1977. however. Neither can the confession prejudice his co-accused. finding Galit guilty as charged and sentencing him to suffer the death penalty. a widow. he must be provided with one. Loveria. P. Francisco Galit allegedly voluntarily executed a Salaysay admitting participation in the commission of the crime. Galit had been obtained and interrogated almost continuously for 5 days. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure 31 .llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES Section 12 (1).00. PEOPLE V JUDGE AYSON. inadmissible as evidence. the former judge was not present when Marcos was being interrogated by the police. vs. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. by any person on his behalf. Article III OF THE 1987 Constitution declares that a person being investigated by the police as a suspect in an offense has the right. Rizal. the supposed waiver made therein of his constitutional right to counsel of his own choice. a relative. to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of P110. and to pay the costs. They covered his face with a rag and pushed his face into a toilet bowl full of human waste. In view of the inadmissibility in evidence of the confession. Ponce Enrile. vs. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer. the rest of the evidence of the prosecution is inadequate to overcome the presumption of innocence raised by the fundamental law in favor of both the accused. P. it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest. Gamboa vs. 165 SCRA 675 5. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. But the following day. Galit was brought to the NBI where he was investigated by a team headed by NBI Agent Carlos Flores. and on 11 August 1978. The interrogation of Marcos Jimenez having been conducted without the assistance of counsel. in an information filed before the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig. 8 September 1977. an ordinary construction worker (pion) living in Marikina. she did not ask Marcos if was is willing to have her represent him. Galit. This is not the mode of solicitation of legal assistance contemplated by the constitution. In this case. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. "At the time a person is arrested. Issue: Whether a monosyllabic answer to a long question suffices as a voluntary admission that may be used against the accused. to no avail as he consistently maintained his innocence. this is far from being substantial compliance with the constitutional duty of police investigators during custodial interrogation. Rizal. Rizal. On the following day. Montalban. The typewritten confession is unsigned and was in fact expressly rejected by Marcos. Furthermore. and that any statement he might make could be used against him. P V AGUSTIN. He implicated Juling Dulay and Pabling Dulay as his companions in the crime. not only because it was obtained in violation of the constitution but also because of the principle of res inter alios acta. 187 SCRA 47 6. 135 SCRA 465 Facts: In the morning of 23 August 1917. his brother Robert. November 21. Galit was charged with the Crime of Robbery with Homicide. the former judge whose assistance was requested by the police was evidently not of Marcos Jimenez' own choice. Actually. or suspicion of the murder. among others. With Galit's will having been broken. PP V PINLAC. More than 2 weeks thereafter. The investigating officers began to maul him and to torture him physically. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. and no valid waiver of such right to counsel have been made. she was the police officers' own choice. 162 SCRA 675 7. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. immediately after the accused had terminated the presentation of his evidence. Hence. he admitted what the investigating officers wanted him to admit and he signed the confession they prepared. the automatic review. The lawyer who assists the suspect under custodial interrogation should be of the latter's own choice. People vs. if any. not one foisted on him by the police investigators or other parties. his sisters and other relatives did not know that he had been brought to the NBI for investigation and it was only about two weeks after he had executed the salaysay that his relatives were allowed to visit him. there were no eyewitnesses. the same must be rejected in toto. Instead there should be several short and clear questions and every right explained in simple words in a dialect or language known to the person under investigation. GR No. again Galit was not assisted by counsel of his choice.. January 31. Galit is from Samar and there is no showing that he understands Tagalog. at the time of his arrest. 1989 (Including the duty of Police Officers in connection with said right) 13. shall be inadmissible in evidence. or a friend. Galit was not permitted to communicate with his lawyer. especially where the prisoner claims having been maltreated into giving one. June 29. Moreover. P vs. vs. Donato. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. In fact. 162 SCRA 220 32 . and not even fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime. P. The only evidence against Galit is his alleged confession. Trial courts are cautioned to look carefully into the circumstances surrounding the taking of any confession. These constitute gross violations of his rights.llb 1-A ’15-16 CONSTI LAW CASES herein laid down. P vs. no state witnesses. Alegre. 85 SCRA 266 11. a relative. 77116. At the supposed reenactment. Where there is any doubt as to the voluntariness. His statement does not even contain any waiver of right to counsel and yet during the investigation he was not assisted by one. Cui.l983 12. 9. P vs. Draculan vs." Herein. Camalog. no property recovered from the accused. Jr. 94 SCRA 109 10. in whole or in part. A long question followed by a monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the requirements of the law that the accused be informed of his rights under the Constitution and our laws. Borromeo.