Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Rights of Accused during Custodial Investigation

Aballe vs. People


Petitioner was a minor convicted of homicide, whilst under the influence of
drugs. He confessed the crime to the deputy commander when he was
confronted outside a common cr.
TA: EJC not admissible as it was made without counsel but spontaneous
statement is not considered CI, thus admissible.

People vs Ayson
Ayson was charged with estafa, with written admission to superiors.
Respondent judge did not include admission as it was made without counsel.
TA: Ayson was not under custodial investigation, thus, MD not applicable.
Right to counsel starts upon investigation, when police officers start to ask
question to elicit information or confessions.

People vs. Broqueza
Appellant was convicted of selling marijuana to an undercover agent. He
contends the admissibility of the his extrajudicial confession.
TA: Appellant acquitted due to doubt. There was no waiver of MD as seen
from his reply in the confession. Perfunctory conveyance of MD is not
enough.

People vs. Colana
Appellant is convicted for murder in connection with a fraternity rumble. He
contends that the lower court failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
TA: SC upheld the conviction. Confession during the CI is valid. Waiver of MD
may be done during CI.

People vs. De Guzman
Appellant was convicted of murdering 3 people (ambush with a band of
armed men). He contends that right to counsel was not afforded to him.
TA: SC upheld the conviction. Right to counsel starts during questioning, not
including police line-up.

People vs. Duhan
Appellants were convicted for selling marijuana. They contend that their
extrajudicial confession be not admitted as it was taken by
force/maltreatment.
TA: SC acquitted due to reasonable doubt. Perfunctory conveyance not
allowed. MD must be explained in language understandable to accused.
Verbal admission of guilt during CI is not enough.

People vs. Dy
Appellant was convicted for murdering a tourist in his bar. He voluntarily
surrendered but later retracted his testimony.
TA: There was no CI during the surrender; statement was given in an ordinary
manner, thus consti requirement for MR not applicable. Guilty as charged.

Estacio vs. Sandiganbayan
Appellant was convicted with estafa for defrauding the Solid Bank and CB. He
contends admissibility of EJC as it was done without counsel.
TA: Arrival of counsel at the last stage of CI cures the defect as EJC was read
and signed in front of the counsel. MR denied.

People vs. Gamboa
Appellant convicted with murder (gunshot at home). He contends the
admissibility of paraffin test as violative of MD as it was done without
counsel.
TA: SC upheld conviction. Paraffin test is not part of CI, when body is
subjected to examination; only in testimonial compulsion.

People vs. Jara
Appellants were convicted of parricide and robbery with homicide (wife and
woman-lover). They contend the admissibility of confession as it was not
done in the presence of counsel and with coercion. SC found husband guilty
but acquitted others.
TA: EC obtained through coercion is inadmissible. Circumstantial evidence is
admissible if sufficient: >1 circumstance, facts are proven, combination
produces guilt beyond reasonable doubt.


People vs. Javar
Appellant convicted with murder (killed in front of his home). He contends
admissibility of extrajudicial confession.
TA: SC upheld conviction. Although confession was not admitted as it was
done without counsel, other pieces of evidence were overwhelming.

People vs. Jose
Appellants were convicted for raping and abducting Maggie dela Riva. They
contend that their extrajudicial statements are inadmissible as it was not
taken in the presence of counsel.
TA: Sentenced to death penalty. In our jurisprudence, criminal prosecutions
mean the period before arraignment to judgment (after arrest and second
stage of CI).

People vs. Jungco
Appellants convicted of robbery with homicide (killing the owner of a
drugstore). They contend the admissibility of confessions and pictures of
reenactment
TA: SC upheld decision; circumstantial evidence, acceptance of sentence by
other defendants and circumstantial evidence, even though the confession
was not accepted by the court proved the guilt of accused. Re-enactment
pictures are not valid as it was based in an inadmissible confession.

People vs. Layuso
Appellant was convicted of robbery with homicide (killed the maid of the
owner of the house where he used to work). He contends that the confession
was done under force and intimidation.
TA: SC upheld the conviction but lowered the sentence. Confession was done
in the presence of counsel, which is to prevent coercion that would compel
the accused to admit something false, not to prevent self-incrimination.

People vs. Lising
Appellants were convicted with double murder (mistaken identity). They
contend the inadmissibility of extrajudicial confessions.
TA: Extrajudicial statements are admissible when done in the presence of
counsel, and without force or coercion. Interlocking confessions used as
circumstantial evidence and later, corroborated evidence once proven by
facts and circumstances.

People vs. Lumayok
Appellant was convicted by rape with murder. He is a member of a cultural
minority and was made to admit the crime through violence and threat.
TA: Acquitted. The confession was dubious as the appellant was unlettered
and only affixed a thumbmark.

Lumiqued vs. Exevea
Deceased petitioner was dismissed by the OP from his position as Reg. Dir. of
DAR-CAR for malversation of funds through falsification of documents. Upon
appeal, he died, prompting the heirs to ask the Court to reconsider.
TA: OP order affirmed. Right to counsel is not imperative in admin
proceedings, plus he opted to represent himself during same.

Magtoto vs. Manguera
The admissibility of extrajudicial confessions in a previously decided case
(murder, murder, robbery with homicide) done absent a counsel and without
informing him of right to remain silent was assailed upon the effectivity of
the new constitution which upheld the opposite.
TA: MD is prospective. Hence, those admitted before the effectivity of new
constitution are acceptable.

People vs. Mahinay
Appellant is to suffer death for statutory rape (12) with homicide (in a
house). He admitted such crime through extrajudicial confession.
TA: Decision affirmed. 11 requisites of MD: understandable language, silence,
counsel of choice, appointed counsel, c in counsels presence or after waiver,
communicate, voluntary waiver, written waiver with counsel, stop CI, initial
waiver disregarded, inadmissibility of evidence.

People vs. Marquez
Appellant is to suffer death for statutory rape (6) with homicide (in a
compound). He admitted such crime through extrajudicial confession.
TA: Decision modified to RP. MD was explained, not only ceremonial or
perfunctory.
Morales vs. Enrile
Petitioners are charged with rebellion. They seek habeas corpus, although it
is suspended.
TA: Denied, pending resolution of cases. Definition of CI or in custody
investigation.

Moreno vs. Ago Chi
Plaintiff was the counsel de officio of the defendant in an assassination case.
Money found on the respondent was seized and deposited to the clerk, and
was later paid for the services of the counsel. Case remanded to lower court.
TA: Arresting officer may take away money or property from accused which
may have been used or fruits of the crime, but this may not be used to pay
third persons, creditors as this is warrantless search and seizure.

Navallo vs. SB
Petitioner was charged with malversation of public funds of a school through
the auditors report. He contends denial of MD.
TA: CI is questioning done by law enforcement officers after taking him into
custody ordeprived of freedom of action. Audit is not CI and auditor is not a
law enforcement officer.

People vs. Nicandro
Appellant is convicted for selling marijuana, but testimonies of witnesses are
inconsistent.
TA: Acquitted due to doubt. Comprehension is the standard in following the
conveyance of rights. He must explain in terms understandable to the
accused. Accused entitled to counsel at moment of arrest. Waiver is done
knowingly and intelligently.

People vs. Olapani
Appellants were convicted of robbery with homicide (killed a taxi driver). No
witnesses were present. They admitted such crime through extrajudicial
confession.
TA: Acquitted. The confession is inadmissible as waiver was not understood,
especially when they are unlettered. This can be seen through monosyllabic
responses during information of MD.

People vs. Olvis
Appellants were charged with murder (hacking in a ricefield). Confessions
and reenactment were done without counsel.
TA: Acquitted 2, convicted 1. Both acts are inadmissible as evidence and
violative of right against self-incrimination.

People vs. Poyos
Appellant is charged with murder (grandmother). Prosecution relied on
extrajudicial confession made in from on the clerk of court.
TA: Acquitted. An illiterate farmer would not answer in an intelligent manner
in a confession. Confession was taken without proper waiver.

People vs. Rama
Appellant is charged for kidnapping children. She asserts that extrajudicial
confession was inadmissible.
TA: Acquitted. Confession is inadmissible as it was not made in writing and
presence of counsel.

People vs. Ramos
Appellant is convicted for selling and possessing marijuana during a buy-bust
operation. She asserts that extrajudicial confession was inadmissible.
TA: Acquitted of selling, as extrajudicial confession was inadmissible, wherein
ceremonial conveyance of MD was done. Guilty of possession.

People vs. Ramos
Appellant is convicted for selling marijuana during a buy-bust operation. He
asserts that extrajudicial confession was inadmissible.
TA: Acquitted. Confession not admissible since he did not understood the
waiver. No counsel assisted him during CI.

People vs. Remollo
Appellant is convicted of rape with homicide (6). He asserts that extrajudicial
confession was inadmissible.
TA: Convicted. Confession was done in presence of counsel and in writing.
Right to counsel starts during CI.

People vs. Sison
Appellant accused of subversion (NPA). Case was dismissed by judge was
confession was made sans counsel.
TA: Acquittal upheld. Waiver must be done in the presence and assistance of
counsel.

People vs. Tawat
Appellant is convicted of robbery with triple homicide (1 old woman, 2 boys).
He confessed to a private individual, who later became a witness.
TA: Convicted. MD may not be taken advantage of when confession is not
done during CI and through a peace officer.

People vs. Taylaran
Appellant was convicted for murdering his grandmother in law when she
promised to kill him with witchcraft. He confessed his guilt to a policeman
and the daughter, but later said it was just an accident.
TA: Confession was not made during CI, thus admissible. Multiple stab
wounds negate the accident defense.

People vs. Tolentino
Appellant was charged of robbery with homicide (office). Extrajudicial
confession was made.
TA: Acquitted. Presumption of regularity of acts no longer binding. Burden of
proof rests on prosecution that MD was clearly explained before confession.

People vs. Viduya
Appellant was convicted of parricide but later retracted her EJC and pointed
the driver as the killer.
TA: Fiscal cannot act as counsel for the accused while in CI, thus EJC is
inadmissible as invalid waiver of right. Acquitted due to reasonable doubt.

People vs. Zuela
Appellants were convicted with robbery with homicide. They contend the
admissibility of confession as it was not done in the presence of counsel.
TA: Convicted, although the extrajudicial confessions were inadmissible.
Confession through a mayor is valid.

Consti Requirements for CI:
1. Informed consent in clear and unequivocal terms of right to remain silent
2. Anything he says can and will be used against him
3. Right to counsel present during CI
4. Indigent = a lawyer will be appointed
5. Consents w/out lawyer then changes his mind, CI will stop until lawyer has
arrived
6. Non observance = no evidence obtained during CI can be used against him

EJC, when admissible:
1. Voluntary
2. Assistance of independent and competent counsel
3. Written
4. Express
5. Signed/Thumbmarked

11 Guidelines of MD :
1. Informed of reason for arrest, shown the WA in his dialect
2. Right to remain silent and anything he says can and will be used against
him
3. Assisted by independent/competent counsel of his choice
4. If he has none, he will be provided
5. WON, he has a lawyer, no CI except in counsels present or after valid
waiver
6. Right to comm with lawyer, immediate family, med doctor, priest,
minister chosen by him/family or conferred/visited by NGO
7. Waiver of rights must be voluntarily, knowingly, intelligently and
understood the same
8. If waived, in writing, with counsel present, otherwise void.
9. He may indicate wish not to be questioned
10. Initial waiver not a bar to subsequent invocation even after
volunteering info
11. Violation means inadmissibility of procured evidence