Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

PEOPLE v MORIAL Leonardo's statements were then reduced into writing.

A policeman informed
him that they were going to contact a lawyer to assist him during the
FACTS: investigation. Leonardo was told that his counsel would be a certain Atty.
Two of the three appellants herein were sentenced to death by the Regional Aguilar whose office was very near the police station. Leonardo consented.
Trial Court (RTC) of Southern Leyte for Robbery with Homicide. The other Having prepared Leonardo's statement, the police then told Leonardo to
was sentenced to suffer only the penalty of reclusion perpetua on account of come with them to Atty. Aguilar's office, which was about 50 meters from the
minority. The judgment of conviction is now before this Court on automatic police station. There, he saw Atty. Aguilar for the first time. The lawyer read
review. Victims were Paula Bandibas and Albert Bandibas. P11,000 was to him the document and asked him whether its contents were true. The
stolen. Upon arraignment, the three accused pleaded not guilty. The police had instructed Leonardo to answer "yes" if he was asked that
prosecution theorized that the accused committed the robbery in the early question, and Leonardo heeded the instructions.
evening of January 6, 1996 so they would have money to spend for the Leonardo denied that Atty. Aguilar examined his body for any injuries. Atty.
dance later that night. To obtain the money or to silence any witnesses, the Aguilar did ask Leonardo if he was forced or intimidated to execute the extra-
accused killed the occupants of the house, Paula Bandibas and her three- judicial confession. Leonardo, however, did not tell his lawyer about his
year old grandson Albert. In proving its theory, the prosecution offered the injuries since a police officer had warned him that he would be mauled again
testimonies of Gabriel Guilao, Benjamin Morial, SPO4 Antonio Macion and should he do so. Leonardo then signed the extra-judicial confession, after
Dr. Teodulo Salas.Outside the house, Benjamin (Paula Bandibas' common- which Atty. Aguilar affixed his. The signing over, Leonardo was brought back
law husband) disclosed to the officers his three suspects, the accused in this to the police station. Later in court, Leonardo claimed that he merely made
case. He advised them, however, to bring only Leonardo and Edwin Morial up all the statements in the document because he was afraid. After trial, the
into custody and not to include Nonelito Abion, who had many relatives in RTC rendered a decision convicting all the three accused.
Cagnituan. As a former barangay captain of 22 years, he knew that the
Abions were "most feared" in Cagnituan. Benjamin did not tell the police that ISSUE:
Gabriel Guilao had witnessed the incident. The police found Edwin and Whether or not Leonardo Morial was deprived of his right to counsel during
Leonardo Morial in the house of Nonelito Abion and invited the two to the the custodial investigation, thus, making his extra-judicial confession invalid
police station, where they were turned over to SPO4 Andres Fernandez. The
investigation conducted by SPO4 Fernandez yielded an extra-judicial HELD:
confession from accused Leonardo Morial, who was assisted by Atty. Tobias YES. The Court has stressed that an accused under custodial
Aguilar. Leonardo Morial's Interrogation: "Leonardo was then seated and his interrogation must continuously have a counsel assisting him from the
gag removed. The police told Leonardo to confess to the killings. Leonardo very start thereof. In People vs. Lucero, where the suspect's counsel left
professed that he did not witness the incident and could not tell them just when the interrogation was starting, this Court chastised both counsel
anything about it. Again, they gagged his mouth and the same policeman and the trial court for their lack of zeal in safeguarding the rights of the
who had hit him then boxed him twice, this time on his right side. Thereafter, accused.
they released their hold and advised him to confess so they would not kill SPO4 Fernandez cannot justify Atty. Aguilar's leaving by claiming that when
him. Leonardo repeated that he did not know anything about the incident. the lawyer left, he knew very well that the suspect had already admitted that
When a policeman attempted to box him again, Leonardo finally admitted he (Leonardo) and his companions committed the crime. Neither can Atty.
that Nonelito Abion and Edwin Morial were responsible for the death of Paula Aguilar rationalize his abandoning his client by saying that he left only after
Bandibas. Leonardo's interrogation lasted one and a half to two hours. the latter had admitted the "material points," referring to the three accused's
Asked in court to identify the uniformed policemen who beat him up, respective participation in the crime. For even as the person under
Leonardo said he could not recall their faces. He did not look at the custodial investigation enjoys the right to counsel from its inception,
policemen during his interrogation and did not see their nameplates. so does he enjoy such right until its termination -indeed, "in every phase
Leonardo did not ask the police for a physician to examine him nor did he tell of the investigation. An effective and vigilant counsel "necessarily and
anyone about his injuries because he did not know he was permitted to do logically requires that the lawyer be present and able to advise and assist his
so. client from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the
investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession."
People vs Labtan stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid
the pernicious practice extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions
Facts: from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation, for the commission of an
Accused-Appellant Henry Feliciano, together with accused Orlando Labtan offense. The moment there is a move or even urge of said investigators to
and Jonelto Labtan, were convicted of highway robbery and robbery with elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear
homicide. Feliciano was convicted on the basis of a sworn statement which innocent or inocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then and there
he repudiated during the trial. The prosecution’s case was mainly anchored be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be
on the three-page sworn statement executed by Feliciano, originally in made in writing and in the presence of counsel."cralaw virtua1aw library
Visayan dialect, before the Cagayan de Oro City Police Station. According to
the prosecution, prior to the propounding of questions to the accused- We find that accused-appellant Feliciano had been denied of his right to have
appellant, he was informed of his constitutional rights and he even signed the a competent and independent counsel when he was questioned in the
confession in the presence of Atty. Pepito Chavez, Attorney de Officio Cagayan de Oro City Police Station. SPO1 Alfonso Cuarez testified that he
provided to the accused. started questioning Feliciano at 8:00 a.m. of April 22, 1993 regarding his
involvement in the killing of jeepney driver Florentino Bolasito,
When the defense presented its case, only accused Henry Feliciano testified notwithstanding the fact that he had not been apprised of his right to counsel.
for his behalf. His defense consisted of an alibi and a repudiation of his
sworn statement. He Testified that he was brought to the police station, was In Navallo v. Sandiganbayan, 15 we said that a person is deemed under
mauled for two hours, and was forced to sign a document. He was also custodial investigation where the police investigation is no longer a general
brought to the office of Atty. Chavez and saw the latter sign the documents. inquiry into an unsolved crime but has began to focus on a particular suspect
He did not know what was happening.Atty. Chavez did not even talk to him who had been taken into custody by the police who carry out a process of
before signing the document. Then he was brought back to Jail. He appealed interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements.anrobles law
to the higher court alleging that the court a quo erred un admitting in library : red
evidence the tainted extra-judicial confession he executed in the absence of
an effective and vigilant counsel. 2.The right to counsel is a fundamental right and contemplates not a mere
ISSUE: presence of the lawyer beside the accused.

1. Whether or not the sworn-statement executed by accused Feliciano Atty. Chavez did not provide the kind of counselling required by the
in the absence of a competent counsel of his choice, is admissible in Constitution. He did not explain to accused-appellant the consequences of
his action — that the sworn statement can be used against him and that it is
evidence.
possible that he could be found guilty and sent to jail.
2. Did Atty. Chavez provide the accused the kind of counseling required
by the Constitution?
"Ideally, therefore, a lawyer engaged for an individual facing custodial
HELD: investigation (if the latter could not afford one) ‘should be engaged by the
accused (himself), or by the latter’s relative or person authorized by him to
The appeal is meritorious.
engage an attorney or by the court, upon proper petition of the accused or
Under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, the rights of persons person authorized by the accused to file such petition. Lawyers engaged by
under custodial investigation are provided. the police, whatever testimonials are given as proof of their probity and
supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in many areas, the
In People vs Gamboa 13, the Court stated that: relationship between lawyers and law enforcement authorities can be
" [T]he right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e. when symbiotic.’"
the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or
confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused. At such point or
People vs Januario he'll have it later that night after they have drinks at Toto's
house.
- Vicente Pons story:
o At about 5am, the group hailed a jeep. Here, Januario
o March 1988: Cid went to the house of prosecution witness
described how Canape, Sarita and Sarinos tied up the
Vicente Pons, Cid's cousin. He asked Pons if he wanted to
conductor and the driver of the jeep and took control of the
buy a jeep. Pons said he had no money but he could look for
vehicle. The jeep stopped after a while, and brought the
a buyer who can pay 50,000.
conductor and driver down a sugar plantation. Januario
o So Pons offered to look for a buyer provided that Cid would
described how he heard growls, but did not witness what
entrust the jeep to him.
happened. He also saw the bloodied hand Sarita and
o He offered it to Myrna Temporas who agreed to buy it for
Sarinos.
65,000, which later became 48,500 only.
o Upon reaching Libmanan, Januario said they went to Cid
- Myrna Temporas story:
with whom Januario had earlier conferred regarding the
o According to her, Pons told her that the jeep belonged to
sale of the jeep. He got 1,000 cash and rice and eggs worh
her niece, Doris Wolf.
600.
o Pons, upon Doris Wolf's instruction, borrowed from Myrna
- Januario signed this statement and swore berfore NBI Executive
48,500 and used the jeep as collateral.
Director Salvador Ranin. Also signed by Atty. Carlos Saunar as
o Pons failed to pay back the 48,500, and also failed to
counsel.
produce a deed of sale covering the jeep. Myrna filed a
complaint. She just found out during the complaint that the
driver and the conductor of the jeep had been killed by - Confession of Canape:
kidnappers. o Sarita and Sarinos told him to look for a buyer of a jeep. He
looked for a buyer with Januario. They saw Cid as an
interested buyer.
- Upon NBI's investigation, they found that the carnapping of the jeep
o They told Sarita and Sarinos about it. They drank, then at
and the killing of the driver and the conductor were done by
5am, hailed a jeep, wrote it and was asked by Sarita and
Januario, Canape, Sarita and Sarinos. The jeep was disposed of
Sarinos to take out a knife and point at the driver and
through Cid.
conductor of the jeep.
o They stopped at a certain point. Januario, Sarita and Sarinos
- From an oral investigation of Januario and Canape, NBI found out brought the driver and the conductor down the jeep at a
that the driver and the conductor were killed inside a sugar sugar plantation, with Sarita later saying that everything
plantation. A lawyer who was just around, Atty. Carlos Saunar, was was already fixed "Ayos na".
asked to assist the two during the investigation. o After this, they went to Cid and gave the jeep to him for
25,000.
o He also said that Cid and Pons knew that the jeep was just
- Confession of Januario: going to be stolen. He also admitted that he himself knew
o Januario said that 2 weeks before September, he was in the that when they were looking for a buyer, the jeep they will
house of Canape to procure chicken and kalawit for his be selling will also be just stolen.
business. He also went there because his new friends, Sarita - Canape signed, subscribed and swore to this statement.
and Samera, with Canape, wanted him to look for a buyer of
a jeep. He asked for a photo of the jeep but he was told that
- 12 September 1989: Prosecution offered evidence, which the court 2. Were the extra judicial confessions of Januario and Canape
admitted. admissible as evidence?
- Defense manifested its intention to file a demurrer to evidence. Held Rationale:
- 21 November 1989: Since defense has not presented Cid yet, the
court ordered the cancellation of his bail bond and gave his surety -Rule 119 of the Rules of Court shows the order of trial.
30 days within which to show cause why judgement against the The order is followed, but strict observance of the rules
bond should not be rendered. depends upon the circumstances of the case, at the
- 22 December 1989: Court issued an order stating that the demurrer 1. Yes. discretion of the trial judge. Therefore, the court may
to evidence may not be allowed anymore for failure to appear at allow the prosecutor to still present involuntarily
the scheduled hearings. omitted evidence. Saunar's testimony was considered
- 26 December 1989: Defense mailed a demurrer to evidence or as a rebuttal witness with respect to Cid, so it was
motion to dismiss on insufficiency of evidence. considered.
- 10 January 1990: Trial Court dismissed the motion, since the - Atty. Saunar was not the choice of Januario as his
demurrer failed to contain a compelling reason to recall the custodial investigation counsel.
previous order. - Even if he can be considered as a competent counsel,
- 6 February 1990: The court issued an order considering the cases he is not independent because at that time, he was
terminated against Januario and Canape, but granted a reservation applying for a position in the NBI, so his loyalty would
to present evidence as regards Cid. not be to the accused but to NBI.
- 9 March 1990: Defense presented Cid as witness. He said that a - Section 12(1) of Article II of the Constitution states that
certain Raul Repe, Toto Sarita and Digo Sarreal approached him admission of facts related to a crime must be obtained
about the sale of a jeep. He referred them to Vicente Pons who he with assistance of counsel, otherwise it would be
thought would buy the jeep. inadmissible. An admission, under Section 26 of Rule
- 27 March 1990: The court denied defense counsel’s motion to 130 is "an act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a
cancel the hearing that day. Since Atty. Saunar was present, the trial relevant fact". This is different from a confession, which
2. No.
court ordered that his testimony be heard that day. Here, Saunar is defined in Section 33 as a "declaration of an accused
said that Atty. Vela, an NBI agent, approached him. Vela, along with acknowledging guilt of he offense.
Atty. Toribio told him that Januario, Canape and Sid verbally - Januario and Canape made verbal admissions of
confessed to participation in a crime, and they were about the complicity in the crime. But such verbal admissions
execute their sworn statements, so they needed his assistance. must be made with assistance of counsel. They were
Saunar agreed and explained to the three the consequences of their not made with assistance of counsel when they made
confession. He told them their constitutional rights, the Miranda it in Naga City.
rights, specifically. Prosecution reminded the court that Saunar - People vs Alicando: There is a "libertarian exclusionary
can’t be presented as witness, so they consider him only as rule known as the fruit of the poisonous tree, where
“additional evidence for the prosecution and/or rebuttal” once the primary source (the ‘tree’) is shown to have
testimony. been unlawfully attained, any secondary or derivative
- 11 May 1990: Defense manifested that it was closing its case. evidence (the ‘fruit’) derived from it is also
Issue: inadmissible.
Judgement: Judgement: Januario and Canape are acquitted.
1. Was the admission of the testimony of Atty. Carlos Saunar proper?
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs EDNA MALNGAN y MAYO
FACTS: When arraigned, accused-appellant with assistance of counsel de oficio,
pleaded “Not Guilty” to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial ensued. However,
On or about January 2, 2001, in the City of Manila,the said accused, with she was held guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Due to the death penalty
intent to cause damage, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously imposed by the RTC, the case was directly elevated to this Court for
and deliberately set fire upon the two-storey residential house of ROBERTO automatic review. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the
SEPARA and family mostly made of wooden materials, by lighting crumpled decision of the RTC.
newspaper with the use of disposable lighter inside said house knowing the
same to be an inhabited house and situated in a thickly populated place and ISSUE:
as a consequence thereof a conflagration ensued and the said building,
together with some seven (7) adjoining residential houses, were razed by W/N the court erred in allowing and giving credence to the hearsay evidence
fire; that by reason and on the occasion of the said fire resulted to the death and uncounselled admissions allegedly given by the accused.
of Roberto Separa, Sr. and Virginia Separa together with their four (4)
children whom sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their HELD:
death immediately thereafter.
We have held that the provision of Art. Section 12 (1) and (3) applies to the
Brgy. Chairman Bernardo and his tanods apprehended Edna and they stage of custodial investigation – when the investigation is no longer a
immediately brought her to the Barangay Hall for investigation. At the general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular
Barangay Hall, Mercedita Mendoza, neighbor of Roberto Separa, Sr. and person as a suspect. Said constitutional guarantee has also been extended
whose house was also burned, identified the woman as accused-appellant to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has
EDNA who was the housemaid of Roberto Separa, Sr. Upon inspection, a merely been “invited” for questioning.
disposable lighter was found inside accused-appellant EDNA’s bag. To be admissible in evidence against an accused, the extrajudicial
Thereafter, accused-appellant EDNA confessed to Brgy. Chairman Bernardo confessions made must satisfy the following requirements: (1)it must
in the presence of multitudes of angry residents outside the Barangay Hall be voluntary;(2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and
that she set her employer’s house on fire because she had not been paid her independent counsel;(3) it must be express; and(4) it must be in
salary for about a year and that she wanted to go home to her province but writing.
her employer told her to just ride a broomstick in going home.
The barangay tanods, including the Barangay Chairman, in this particular
Accused-appellant EDNA was then turned over to arson investigators instance, may be deemed as law enforcement officers for purpose of
headed by S[F]O4 Danilo Talusan, who brought her to the San Lazaro Fire applying by Article III, Section 12. When accused-appellant was brought to
Station in Sta. Cruz, Manila where she was further investigated and then the barangay hall in, she was already a suspect, actually the only one, in the
detained. When Mercedita Mendoza went to the San Lazaro Fire Station to fire that destroyed several houses as well as killed the whole family of
give her sworn statement, she had the opportunity to ask accused-appellant Separa. She was, therefore, already under custodial investigation and the
EDNA at the latter’s detention cell why she did the burning of her employer’s rights guaranteed by Article III, Section 12(1), of the Constitution should have
house and accused-appellant EDNA replied that she set the house on fire already been observed or applied to her. Accused-appellant’s confession to
because when she asked permission to go home to her province and Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo was made in response to the
narrated how she did the burning of her employer’s house.When interviewed “interrogation” made by the latter – admittedly conducted without first
by Carmelita Valdez, a reporter of ABS-CBN Network, accused-appellant informing accused-appellant of her rights under the Constitution or done in
EDNA while under detention was heard by SFO4 Danilo Talusan as having the presence of counsel. For this reason, the confession of accused-
admitted the crime and even narrated the manner how she accomplished it. appellant, given to Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo, as well as the
SFO4 Danilo Talusan was able to hear the same confession, this time at his lighter found by the latter in her bag are inadmissible in evidence against her
home, while watching the television program “True Crime” hosted by Gus as such were obtained in violation of her constitutional rights.
Abelgas also of ABS-CBN Network.
However, the inadmissibility of accused-appellant’s confession to Barangay
Chairman Remigio Bernardo and the lighter as evidence do not automatically
lead to her acquittal. It should well be recalled that the constitutional
safeguards during custodial investigations do not apply to those not elicited
through questioning by the police or their agents but given in an ordinary
manner whereby the accused verbally admits to having committed the
offense as what happened in the case at bar when accused-appellant
admitted to Mercedita Mendoza, one of the neighbors of Roberto Separa,
Sr., to having started the fire in the Separas’ house. The testimony of
Mercedita Mendoza recounting said admission is, unfortunately for accused-
appellant, admissible in evidence against her and is not covered by the
aforesaid constitutional guarantee. Article III of the Constitution, or the Bill of
Rights, solely governs the relationship between the individual on one hand
and the State (and its agents) on the other; it does not concern itself with the
relation between a private individual and another private individual – as both
accused-appellant and prosecution witness Mercedita Mendoza undoubtedly
are.[44] Here, there is no evidence on record to show that said witness was
acting under police authority, so appropriately, accused-appellant’s
uncounselled extrajudicial confession to said witness was properly admitted
by the RTC.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, is hereby


AFFIRMED insofar as the conviction of accused-appellant EDNA MALNGAN
Y MAYO is concerned. The sentence to be imposed and the amount of
damages to be awarded, however, are MODIFIED. So ordered.
YAP vs. CA holding the accused entitled to bail, effectively deny the same by
Right to Bail, Section 13 (Excessive if equal to civil liability) imposing a prohibitory sum or exacting unreasonable conditions.
Section 9, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
FACTS Procedure advises courts to consider the following factors in the
Petitioner was convicted of estafa for misappropriating amounts setting of amount of bail:
equivalent to P5,500,000.00. He filed a notice of appeal, and moved to be a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail
allowed provisional liberty under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the b) Nature and circumstances of the offense
proceedings. The motion was denied by the RTC. c) Penalty for the offense charged
Petitioner filed with the CA a Motion to Fix Bail for the Provisional d) Character and reputation of the accused
Liberty of Accused Appellant Pending Appeal, invoking the last paragraph of e) Age and health of the accused
Section 5, Rule 114 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. The Solicitor f) Weight of the evidence against the accused
General opined that the petitioner may be allowed to post bail in the amount g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial
of P5.5 million and be required to secure a certification/guaranty from the h) Forfeiture of other bail
Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice
he will remain to be so until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers when arrested
residence, it must be with prior notice to the court and private complainant. j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail
The CA upheld the Solicitor General’s recommendation. A motion
for reconsideration was filed, seeking the reduction of the amount of bail 2) No.
fixed by CA, but was denied. The condition imposed is simply consistent with the nature
and function of a bail bond, which is to ensure that petitioner will
ISSUES make himself available at all times whenever the Court requires his
1) W/N the CA committed GADLEJ in fixing the bail in the amount of presence. Besides, petitioner is not prevented from changing abode,
P5.5 million based on the petitioner’s civil liability he is merely required to inform the court in case he does so.
2) W/N the CA unduly restricted petitioner’s constitutional liberty of
abode and travel in imposing the other conditions for the grant of
bail.

HELD
1) Yes.
The Rules of Court never intended for the civil liability of
the accused to be a guideline or basis for determining the amount of
bail. The amount should be high enough to assure the presence of the
accused when required but no higher than is reasonably calculated to
fulfil this purpose. To bail at an amount equivalent to the civil
liability of which petitioner is charged is to permit the impression
that the amount paid as bail is an exaction of the civil liability that
accused is charged of. Bail is not intended as a punishment nor as a
satisfaction of civil liability which should necessarily await the
judgment of the appellate court.
Imposing bail in an excessive amount could render
meaningless the right to bail. The Court will not hesitate to exercise
its supervisory powers over lower courts should the latter, after
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
ANTONIO LAUGA Y PINA ALIAS TERIO, Accused-Appellant.
HELD: Negative.
Principle: The extrajudicial confession of appellant, which was taken Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups,
without a counsel, inadmissible in evidence. as in the case of the "bantay bayan," are recognized by the local
FACTS: government unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of
peace and order at the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the
Appellant Lauga was charged of qualified rape by his daughter. legality of the actions taken by Moises Boy Banting, and the specific
Testimonies revealed that the victim was left alone at home while his scope of duties and responsibilities delegated to a "bantay bayan,"
father was having drinking spree at the neighbor’s place. Her mother particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial investigation, any
decided to leave because appellant has the habit of mauling her mother inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function and objective
every time he gets drunk. Her only brother also went out with some insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights
neighbors. provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution,
At around 10pm, appellant woke up the victim, removed his otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned.
pants and slid inside the blanket covering the victim and removed her Even if the extrajudicial confessions were not admitted as
pants and underwear. Appellant had warned the victim not to shout for evidence, it does not warrant the acquittal of the accused. The
help. He proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her daughter by appellant’s conviction is upheld because of the strong evidence
threatening her with his fist and a knife. Soon after, the victim’s showing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
brother arrived and saw her crying. Appellant claimed he scolded the
victim for staying out late. The two decided to leave the house.
While on their way to their maternal grandmother’s house,
victim recounted to her brother what happened to her. They later told
the incident to their grandmother and uncle who sought the assistance
of Moises Boy Banting. Banting found appellant in his house wearing
only his underwear. He was invited to the police station to which he
obliged. Appellant admitted to Banting that he indeed raped her
daughter because he was unable to control himself.
The trial court convicted the accused for qualified rape. Upon
appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the ruling of the trial court.
Hence this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant’s extrajudicial confession without


counsel admissible in evidence?