Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

People vs Lugod

FACTS:

On or about September 16, 1997, accused Clemente John Lugod by means force
and intimidation and with lewd designs had carnal knowledge with Nairube Ramos, an 8
year old girl against her will. To hide the crime, he dumped the body of the girl in a
coconut plantation and is where the latter died. The accused plead not guilty during
arraignment and so trial ensued.

During the trial, several witnesses were presented one of which is SPO2 Quirino
Gallardo who arrested the accused after a report from the victim's mother that her
daughter was missing. He apprehended the accused on the basis of the pair of slippers
and the black T-shirt that he was wearing which another witness told him that such was
worn by the accused worn on or about the day of the rape of the victim. SPO2 Gallardo
then brought the accused to the police station. At first he denied that he did anything to
the victim but later on he told Gallardo what happened. He likewise assisted in locating
the body by pointing to it using his lips when accompanied by the police to the scene.
Although he admitted to having raped and killed Nairube, the accused refused to make a
statement regarding the same.

Another witness in the trial was Floro Esguerra, the Vice Mayor of Cavinti who
testified that in the course of his conversation with the accused, the accused confessed to
the commission of the offense.

The trial court convicted the accused for the special complex crime of Rape with
Homicide which is punishable by death hence this automatic review of the Supreme
Court.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the admission of the accused to SPO2 Gallardo is admissible in evidence

HELD:

No, the admission of the accused to SPO2 Gallardo is inadmissible considering


that it was made in violation of the rights of the accused.

At the time of his apprehension, accused-appellant was already placed under


arrest and was suspected of having something to do with the disappearance of the victim
which would put him under custodial investigation. Records reveal that accused-appellant
was not informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel, and that if he cannot afford
to have counsel of his choice, he would be provided with one. Also, there is no evidence
to indicate that he intended to waive these rights and even if he did waive these rights, in
order to be valid, the waiver must be made in writing and with the assistance of counsel,
none of which were present in the present case.
Given this, the accused-appellants act of confessing to SPO2 Gallardo that he
raped and killed Nairube without the assistance of counsel cannot be used against him as
this is a violation of the rights of the accused under the Bill of Rights. Given that such
admission to SPO2 Gallardo was given without assistance of counsel, it is considered as
fruit of the poisonous tree and is not admissible against him.