[31] PANGANDAMAN V.
CASAR (d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit
G.R. No. 71782. April 14, 1988, NARVASA, J.:
SUMMARY
A shooting incident occurred in Lanao del Sur. A warrant of arrest against 14 people
and 50 John Does was issued by the Judge. Said warrant is being questioned for
failure to follow the rules laid down in Sec 3, Rule 112 and the impossibility of
personal finding probable cause against 64 people in a span of 1 day by respondent
Judge. The Court said that following the procedure is not necessary before a warrant
may issue. Only a finding of probable cause is necessary. Further, the Court found no
evidence which discredits the judge’s affirmations that he personally examined the
witnesses and found probable cause to issue the warrant.
PROVISIONS (RULE 112)
Sec. 3. Procedure.- The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following
manner: (a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be
accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other
supporting documents to establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of
copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The affidavits
shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official
authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary
public, each of whom must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he
is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer shall
either dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a
subpoena to the respondent attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its supporting
affidavits and documents. The respondent shall have the right to examine the
evidence submitted by the complainant which he may not have been furnished and to
copy them at his expense. If the evidence is voluminous, the complainant may be
required to specify those which he intends to present against the respondent, and
these shall be made available for examination or copying by the respondent at his
expense. Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall be made
available for examination, copying, or photographing at the expense of the requesting
party.
A warrant is issued against fifty (50) "John Does" not one of whom the witnesses to the
(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and
supporting affidavits and documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit
and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense.
The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified as provided in
paragraph (a) of this section, with copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant.
The respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-
affidavit.
counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the investigating office shall resolve
the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant.
(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are facts and issues to be
clarified from a party or a witness. The parties can be present at the hearing but
without the right to examine or cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the
investigating officer questions which may be asked to the party or witness concerned.
The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from submission of the counter-
affidavits and other documents or from the expiration of the period for their
submission. It shall be terminated within five (5) days.
(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall determine
whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial.
SECTION 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. —
(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. — If the municipal trial judge conducting the
preliminary investigation is satisfied after an examination in writing and under oath of
the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers,
that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent
under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice, he shall issue a
warrant of arrest.
DOCTRINES
● Sec 3 Rule 112, Rules on CrimPro – procedure observed by judge of an inferior
court in conduction a preliminary investigation of any crime cognizable by the
RTC. It must be followed before a complaint or information is filed in the RTC but
is not required before a warrant of arrest may issue. It consists of 2 phases:
1. ex-parte inquiry into the sufficiency of the complaint and the affidavits and
other documents offered in support thereof.
2. Second phase gives the respondent opportunity to present evidence
concludes with the Judge rendering his resolution (for dismissal or trail) to
the provincial fiscal for appropriate action.
● [RELEVANT DOCTRINE]
complaint could or would identify, it is of the nature of a general warrant, one of a
class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once anathematized as
"totally subversive of the liberty of the subject."
FACTS
- A shooting incident occurred in Pantao, Masiu, Lanao del Sur, which left at least
five persons dead and two others wounded. What in fact transpired is still
unclear.
- Saturday, August 10, 1985- a criminal complaint for multiple murder was filed
before respondent Judge by P.C. Sgt. Jose L. Laru-an
o On that same day, the respondent Judge "examined personally all
(three) witnesses under oath thru.. (his) closed and direct supervision."
o Thereafter the Judge "approved the complaint and issued the
corresponding warrant of arrest" against the fourteen (14) petitioners,
named by the witnesses, and fifty (50) "John Does."
- An "ex-parte" motion for reconsideration was filed by Atty. Batuampar seeking
recall of the warrant of arrest and subsequent holding of a "thorough
investigation" on the ground that the Judge's initial investigation had been "hasty
and manifestly haphazard" and "no searching questions" have been propounded.
o Argued that the Judge failed to conduct the investigation in accordance
with the procedure in Sec 3, Rule 112 of ROC which denied petitioners
due process
o Argued that it would hardly have been possible for respondent judge to
determine the existence of probable cause against 64 persons and
issue the warrant of arrest in the same day
o Further asserted that the preliminary investigation was conducted in
disregard of the Fiscal who had already taken cognizance of the case
12 days earlier
o Argued that the warrant against 50 John does violated the Constitution
(requiring warrants to particularly describe persons to be seized)
ISSUES W/ HOLDING AND RATIO
1. W/N respondent Judge had the power to issue the warrant without
completing the procedure in Sec 3 Rule 112 (is completion of said
procedure a condition sine qua non for the issuance of a warrant of arrest)
– Yes, he may issue a warrant. (no, it is not a condition sine qua non)
- What the Rule 20 provides is that no complaint or information for an offense
cognizable by the RTC may be filed without completing the procedure. But
nowhere is it provided that the procedure must be completed before a warrant of
arrest may issue.
- Section 6 Rule 112 authorizes the municipal trial court to order arrest even before
the 2nd phase of the investigation if it is satisfied that a probable cause exists and
there is a necessity to place the accused under immediate custody.
o Former rules even stipulated under Rule 6 “preliminary examination” to
distinguish it from the preliminary investigation proper.1
- On the impossibility of determining probable cause against 64 persons:
o Nothing in the record before this Court discredits the judge’s affirmations
that he had personally examined under oath the three witnesses to the
1
SECTION 6. Warrant of arrest, when issued. — If the judge be satisfied from the preliminary examination conducted
by him or by the investigating officer that the offense complained of has been committed and that there is reasonable
ground to believe that the accused has committed it, he must issue a warrant or order for his arrest.
complained which have the benefit of the legal presumption that official
duty has been regularly performed.
o The three witnesses gave mutually corroborative accounts of the
incident under separate questioning and identified by name each of the
14 petitioners as members of the ambush group. The respondent Judge
can hardly be faulted for finding enough cause to hold the petitioners
named by said witnesses
o The Court refuses to substitute its judgment for respondent judge’s in
the matter of what questions are proper during the preliminary
examination.
▪ Searching questions – “such questions as have tendency to
show the commission of a crime and the perpetuator thereof.
What would be searching questions would depend on what is
sought to be inquired into, such as: the nature of the offense,
the date, time, and place of its commission, the possible
motives for its commission . . . The points that are the subject
of inquiry may differ from case to case. The questions,
therefore must to a great degree depend upon the Judge
making the investigation.” (Luna v Plaza)
2. W/N the warrant as regards the 50 John Does is valid – NO
- It is of the nature of a general warrant
- Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should
particularly describe the person or persons to be seized, the warrant must, as
regards its unidentified subjects, be voided.
3. W/N prior cognizance of the Provincial Fiscal legally inhibited respondent
Judge from conducting an investigation – NO
- If it was regularly brought before him and no formal complaint was filed before
the Fiscal, said judge may conduct his own inquiry.
- Nothing in the rules states or implies that judge cannot conduct own
investigation.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the warrant complained of is upheld and declared valid insofar as it
orders the arrest of the petitioners. Said warrant is voided to the extent that it is
issued against fifty (50) "John Does." The respondent Judge is directed to forward to
the Provincial Fiscal of Lanao del Sur the record of the preliminary investigation of the
complaint in Criminal Case No. 1728 of his court for further appropriate action.
Without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | Arrest
[32] PEOPLE v. PASUDAG
G.R. No. 128822 | May 4, 2001 | Pardo, J.
SUMMARY: Accused-appellant Alberto Pasudag was found guilty of illegal drug
cultivation of marijuana. He appealed the conviction, contending that the marijuana
specimen is inadmissible as evidence because they were obtained without warrant.
Likewise, the confiscation report is inadmissible as an admission because there was
no intervention of counsel. SC agreed with Pasudag, and held that the prosecution
failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
PROVISIONS:
Section 2.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.
Section 3.
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Section 12.
(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) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as
well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families.
DOCTRINE: Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into
custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under
investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions of the suspect’s
participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission.
FACTS:
● September 26, 1995: SPO2 Pepito Calip of the PNP Sison, Pangasinan,
went to Brgy. Artacho to conduct anti-jueteng operations.
● About five meters away from where he was urinating, he saw a garden of
about 70 square meters, There were marijuana plants in between corn and
camote.
○ Through inquiry, he learned that the house with the garden was
owned by herein accused Alberto Pasudag.
● SPO2 Calip reported to the Chief of Police, who dispatched a team of four
officers to conduct an investigation.
○ They went straight to Pasudag’s house and asked him to bring
them to his backyard garden.
○ Upon seeing the marijuana plants, they called for a photographer
who took pictures of Pasudag standing beside the marijuana.
○ The officers later uprooted seven marijuana plants and brought
them together with Pasudag to the police station.
● At the police station. Pasudag admitted that he owned the marijuana plants.
● One of the officers prepared a confiscation, and brought the tallest plant to
the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, storing the others inside a
cabinet at the station.
○ Major Cid, a forensic chemist at Lab, received the specimen on
October 11, 1995. She testified that she took some leaves from the
plant because the leaves had the most concentration of
tetrahydrocannabinol.
○ As per her Chemistry Report No. D-087-95, the examination was
positive for marijuana.
● March 18, 1997: Trial court found the accused guilty of illegal drug cultivation
of marijuana and, on account of his educational attainment (Grade IV),
sentenced him with the minimum penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a
fine of Php 500,000.
● Hence, this appeal.
Issues/Holding/Ratio:
[1] Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that the marijauna plant
submitted for laboratory examination was one of the marijuana plants
confiscated from his garden [YES]
● The marijuana plants are inadmissible as evidence. As a general rule, the
procurement of a search warrant is required before a law enforcer may
 validly search or seize the person, house, papers or effects of any constitutional right to a presumption of innocence must be upheld. The
individual.2 Any evidence in violation of this is inadmissible.3 prosecution failed to establish Pasudag’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
● People v. Valdez: Search and seizure conducted without the requisite
judicial warrant is illegal and viod ab initio.
● In this case, it was clearly established that the police conducted a search of
the accused’s backyard without a warrant. They had sufficient time to obtain
a search warrant, but failed to do so. There was no showing of urgency or
necessity for warrantless search.
○ The plants were three months old and there was no sufficient
reason to believe that they will be uprooted on the same day.

[2] RELEVANT ISSUE: Whether or not the confiscation report was an

extrajudicial admission which required the intervention of counsel [YES]
● In the first place, the arrest of the accused-appellant was tainted with
constitutional infirmity because he was not informed of his constitutional
rights under Article III, Section 12, paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution.
Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Section 12, any confession or admission
obtained in violation of such provision is inadmissible as evidence against
the accused.
● The Solicitor General contended that accused-appellant was NOT under
custodial investigation when he signed the confiscation report. The Supreme
Court disagreed.
● Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody
and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under
investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions of the
suspect’s participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission.
○ Here, the accused was obviously a suspect from the moment the
police went to his house and ordered the uprooting of the marijuana
plants is his garden. He was also interrogated by the Chief of Police
when he arrived at the police station.
● Hence, even if the confession or admission were “gospel truth,” if it was
made without the assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver of such
assistance, the confession is inadmissible in evidence.

[3] Whether or not accused was correctly convicted on the basis of inference
that he planted, cultivated and cultured the seven plants, owned the same, or
that he permitted other to cultivate them [NO]
● In light of the inadmissibility of both the marijuana specimen and the
confiscation report as evidence against the accused-appellant, the

2
Article III, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution.
3
Article III, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution
[33] People v Zuela
G.R. No. 112177 | January 28, 2000| Pardo, J.
PETITIONERS: People of the Philippines (Plaintiff-appellee)
RESPONDENTS: Tito Zuela y Morandarte, Maximo Velarde y de Los Reyes, and
Nelson Garcia y Temporas (accused-appellants)
TOPIC: Custodial Investigation | Definition
SUMMARY
The accused Zuela, Velarde, Garcia were convicted for the crime of robbery with
homicide. The primary issue is W/N the extrajudicial confessions executed by the
accused-appellants, which was pivotal to their conviction, were in accordance with the
1973 constitution. The Court held that the confessions were inadmissible because
there was no warrant arrest for Velarde and that his counsel was not present during
the custodial investigation and in the execution of his confession. Also, Zuela and
Garcia’s sworn statements were also inadmissible because the same were not
executed with the assistance of counsel.
Nonetheless, the inadmissibility of the extrajudicial confessions does not invalidate
the prosecution’s case. Declaration to a private person is still admissible as evidence
(Rule 130, Sec. 26, RoC). Hence, the testimony of Romualda Algarin regarding
Velarde’s admission to her was properly accorded with evidentiary value by the trial
court. The admission to Romualda is binding to Velarde as well as the other two co-
accused. The testimony, along with other circumstances established by the
prosecution, point to the accused-appellants culpability. The Court upheld the
conviction.
PROVISION
1973 Constitution, Article IV, Section 20. No person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself. Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of
such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means, which vitiates
the free will, shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this
section shall be inadmissible in evidence
Rule 130, Sec. 26, RoC
Admission of a party - The act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact
may be given in evidence against him.
DOCTRINE
The right to counsel attaches the moment an investigating officer starts to ask
questions to elicit information on the crime from the suspected offender. It is at
this point that the law requires the assistance of counsel to avoid the pernicious
practice of extorting forced or coerced admissions or confessions from the person
undergoing interrogation.
● However, declarations made to private persons may still be admissible as
evidence (Rule 130, Sec. 26, RoC)
Difference between confession and admission - A confession is an
acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the
crime charged, while an admission is a statement by the accused, direct or implied, of
facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to
prove his guilt. In other words, an admission is something less than a confession, and
is but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is insufficient to
authorize a conviction and which tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt
● A confession is binding only to the accused and does not bind the co-
accused
● An admission can be binding to the co-accused
FACTS
● July 29, 1985: Asst. Provincial Fiscal Ocampo filed with the RTC an information
charging the accused with “robbery with triple homicide”
o In the evening of April, 1985, the accused, employing violence and
intimidation, shot and stabbed Hegino Hernandez, Sr. Maria S. Abendao,
and John-John Abendao, causing their instantaneous death. They took
cash, a gold ring, and a wrist watch totaling P23k.
● Maria Abendao owned a store, operated a passenger jeepney, and engaged in
the buy and sell of palay.
● Accused Nelson Garcia was her store helper. Tito Zuela helped her sister
Romualda in her store during palay season. Maximo Velarde was known to
Romulada as they met in a bday party. Accused were friends.
● April 27, 1985L Maria made three deliveries of palay on board her jeepney driven
by her driver Hegino to Gerardo Benitez’ rice mill.
● Between 6:30 and 7:00, Romulada saw the three accused board her jeepney.
They held on the railing. There were other passengers.
● Gerardo saw Maximo inside the jeepney during the second and third delivery of
palay.
● The following morning, the bodies of Hegino, Maria, and John-John (her son)
were found in rigor mortis condition.
o They all had stab wounds. Hegino and Maria had bullet wounds.
Prosecution (w/ testimony of Romulada, based on the extrajudicial admission by
Velarde when she visited him at the municipal jail)
● The three conceived the plan to hold-up Maria while drinking in front of
Romualda’s store because Maximo needed money for his fare to Manila.
● They boarded the jeep when it left for Libmanan. They alighted to attend a
wedding. Maximo boarded it on its way back while the other two would wait along
the road to board it and hold-up Maria.
o Maximo poked a gun and shot the driver. He also shot Maria. John-John
was slashed in the neck after telling Tito that he would tell his father
they killed his mother.
● They took the money and divided it.
● No warrant of arrest was issued, but policemen arrested Maximo two months
later. He was investigated and asked to give a written statement.
● The other two were taken into police custody without a warrant. They underwent
custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel; no lawyer could be
found in Cabusao.
● They signed their individual statements before Judge Bagalacsa on different
dates. She followed the same procedure and line of questioning using the local
dialect in asserting their voluntariness.
Defenses: (1) denial; (2) they were tortured to make a confession. Tito and Nelson
claimed they were not assisted by counsel when their confessions were taken.
Maximo said he did not leave Magallanes anytime in 1985.
● Accdng to Maximo: He was fetched by five people led by Lt. Idian. He was shown
a picture of the cadaver of his brother. He boarded their red care and travelled to
Naga City. When the driver stopped the vehicle to urinate, he was hit on the head
and passed out. Upon awakening, he was already handcuffed. Lt. Idian was
pointing a gun at him, making him choose between death or signing their
prepared statement because his brother wronged them. He only signed two days
later after Lt. Idian kicked him in the stomach and poked a gun at him.
o Days later he signed the statement again before Judge Bagalacsa.
● Nelson Garcia denied knowledge of the crime; Lt. Idian tried to convince him to
confess to the killing but because he refused he was mauled. He was mauled
again later by Pat. Cario. To avoid further injury he signed the prepared
statement. He was not informed of its contents nor assisted by counsel.
● Tito also denied knowledge. He was threatened by Pat. Cabrera to sign the
prepared statement or die.
● RTC found them guilty of robbery with homicide. Hence, the appeal.
ISSUES:
W/N the extrajudicial confessions are admissible as evidence - NO
W/N accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt? - YES
JUDGMENT: Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION TC’s decision.
HELD: Although their sworn statements are inadmissible, Romulada’s
testimony and circumstantial evidence are enough to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
● The right to counsel attaches the moment an investigating officer starts to ask
questions to elicit information on the crime from the suspected offender. It is at
this point that the law requires the assistance of counsel to avoid the
pernicious practice of extorting forced or coerced admissions or
confessions from the person undergoing interrogation. In other words, "the
moment there is a move or even urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or
confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous
at the time, from said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by counsel,
unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the
presence of counsel."
● Maximo’s extrajudicial statement is inadmissible in evidence.
o No warrant of arrest for Maximo
o Atty. Ocampo was summoned to assist him in the execution of his
written confession, but he was not present during the duration that he
was subjected to custodial investigation as could be inferred from Pat.
Cario’s testimony.
o No evidence that Maximo executed a waiver of his right to counsel.
● Tito and Nelsons’ sworn statements were also inadmissible in evidence as
they were executed without the assistance of counsel.
● Nevertheless, the infirmity of accused-appellants sworn statements did not leave
a void in the prosecution’s case. Accused-appellant Maximo repeated the
contents of his sworn statement to Romualda Algarin who, in turn, related these
in court. Such declaration to a private person is admissible in evidence
against accused-appellant Maximo pursuant to Rule 130, Section 26 of the
Rules of Court stating that the "act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him."
o People v. Maqueda: “the declaration of an accused expressly
acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against
him and any person, otherwise competent to testify as a witness, who
heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of what
he heard if he heard and understood it.”
o People v. Andan: "when the accused talked with the mayor as confidant
and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession did
not violate his constitutional rights. Constitutional procedures on
custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not
elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary
manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime."
● Defense failed to attribute any ill-motive on the part of Romualda for
testifying on Maximo’s admission and therefore the presumption that in so
testifying, she was impelled by no other reason than the truth, stands.
o Relationship per se is not proof of prejudice. (Romualda is the neighbor
and sister of the victim)
o Not necessary that the witness should be able to fix accurately the date
of the conversation in which the admission was made. What is important
is that the witness is able to state the substance of the conversation or
declaration.
● Her testimony is also binding on Tito and Nelson.
 o Rule that extra-judicial confession is binding only on confessant, not co- WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the decision of the trial
accused, does not apply because what is involved here is an admission court. The Court renders judgment finding accused-appellants Tito Zuela y
not confession. Morandarte, Maximo Velarde y de los Reyes, and Nelson Garcia y Temporas guilty
o Distinction accdng to Wharton: "A confession is an acknowledgment beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide, defined and penalized under
in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences each of them to reclusion
crime charged, while an admission is a statement by the accused, perpetua with all its accessory penalties and to pay civil indemnity of one hundred
direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in thousand (P100,000.00) pesos to the heirs of Maria Abendao and John Abendao and
connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt. In other fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos to the heirs of Hegino Hernandez, Jr.
words, an admission is something less than a confession, and is but an In addition, the Court sentences each of the accused-appellants solidarily to pay the
acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is additional amounts of forty three thousand (P43,000.00) pesos as reimbursement of
insufficient to authorize a conviction and which tends only to establish damages to the heirs of Maria Abendao, and fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos as
the ultimate fact of guilt.” exemplary damages to the heirs of each of the three (3) victims.
● Romualda’s testimony on the substance of accused-appellant Maximo’s
admission standing alone, may not be the basis for conviction of the
appellants. However, such testimony, taken with circumstances duly
established by the prosecution, point unerringly to accused-appellants
culpability.
o Ex. They all lived in the same area where everybody knew everybody;
Tito and Nelson helped in the stores of the sisters a week before the
incident; Romualda saw them board the jeep; Gerardo saw Maximo in
the jeep; accused never attended victims’ wake; Maximo fled to Manila,
etc.
o Conviction for circumstantial evidence is sufficient basis for conviction
as long as: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from
which the inferences are derived are proved, and (3) the combination of
all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
● Their diverse courses of action do not negate their guilt.
● Trial court correctly considered robbery with homicide and not “robbery with triple
homicide” as stated in the information.
o The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) is used in its generic sense,
embracing not only the act which results in death but also all other acts
producing anything short of death.48 Neither is the nature of the offense
altered by the number of killings in connection with the robbery. 49 The
multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of the robbery is only
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
● Under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, robbery with homicide is
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. By the presence of two aggravating
circumstances, namely, treachery and multiplicity of slain victims, the proper
penalty should be death in view of Article 63 (1) of the same Code.51 However,
considering that when this case happened, the imposition of the death penalty
was proscribed, the proper imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua. The
heinousness of the crime they committed notwithstanding, accused-appellants
may not be deprived of such favorable factor in their case.
● Hence the ruling of the Court:
[34] PEOPLE vs. Abe VALDEZ
341 SCRA 25 | September 25, 2000 | Quisumbing, J.
Criminal Procedure – ARREST; Custodial Investigation; Definition
SUMMARY: The police received a tip from an informant that Valdez was growing
marijuana in Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya. The police, the following day, went to the
place pinpointed by the informant. The police found Valdez alone in his hut and then
proceeded look around the area and found the Marijuana plants. They questioned
Valdez to which he allegedly admitted that he owned the marijuana. He was told to
pose in front of the plant and was then arrested. The Regional Trial Court found
Valdez guilty for violating Dangerous Drugs Act. However, the Supreme Court
reversed the decision and acquitted Valdez upon finding that the arrest was
constitutionally infirm because of an invalid search and seizure, and acquiring a
confession without counsel.
DOCTRINE:
Definition of Custodial Investigation: a 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.
THE CASE is an Automatic Review of the decision of the RTC of Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya which found VALDEZ guilty of violating Sec. 9 of Dangerous Drugs Act. and
was sentenced to death by lethal injection.
FACTS:
- An informant told the police about the presence of marijuana plantation and
its location allegedly owned by Valdez. The following day, the police sent a
team to “verify” if the information was true.
o Police went to the place where Valdez was allegedly cultivating
marijuana plants. They saw Valdez and asked him who owned the
marijuana plants. Valdez allegedly admitted that he was the owner.
They then told Valdez to pose beside the marijuana plants and took
photos. Valdez was thereafter arrested.
- Information filed for violating Sec. 9 of Dangerous Drugs Act alleging that
Valdez was caught in flagrante delicto cultivating marijuana plants.
- The RTC found Valdez guilty of cultivating marijuana plants and was
sentenced to death by lethal injection.
- Automatic appeal to the Supreme Court.
RULING: RTC decision reversed. Valdez acquitted.
ISSUE/HELD:
[1] Whether the search and seizure of the marijuana plant was valid and may be used
as admissible evidence? NO
[2] Whether Valdez was sufficiently proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt? NO
RATIO:
[1] There was no warrant issued by a judge after personal determination of the
existence of probable cause, in violation of Art III Sec 2. of the Constitution. Based on
the facts, the police had at least one day to secure a warrant. There was sufficient
information provided by the informant to convince the judge that there was probable
cause yet they did not. Instead they proceeded search and apprehend Valdez.
The OSG contends that a warrant was not needed because of the plain view doctrine
which allows warrantless searches and seizures. However, for the doctrine to apply, 4
elements must be present: a.) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless
arrest b.) evidence was inadvertently discovered c.) evidence must be immediately
apparent d.) plain view justified mere seizure without further search.
None of the elements of the plain view doctrine were present. Since the marijuana
was located first before the arrest, there was no valid warrantless arrest which
preceded the search the search of appellant’s premises. The fact that the police had
to “look around” and search for the marijuana means that the evidence was not
inadvertently discovered, apparent, and done without further search. Thus, the
warrantless search and seizure falls short of the elements of the plain view doctrine.
Hence, the marijuana plants, being inadmissible evidence, cannot be used as
evidence against Valdez.
[2] The trial court relied on the testimony of the police officers that Valdez admitted
ownership of the marijuana however, Valdez argues that his admission was violates
his right to counsel during the police investigation. On the other hand, the OSG
believes that Valdez was not yet under custodial investigation when he admitted to
the police, hence his right to counsel had not yet attached.
An investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry, but starts to focus on a
particular person as a suspect, i.e. when the police investigator starts interrogating or
exacting a confession from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense.
The moment the police try to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain
information from a suspect, he should at that point be assisted by counsel, unless he
waives that right in writing and in the presence of counsel.
While the police were supposedly meant to “verify” the information, the police chief
issued instructions to arrest Valdez as a suspected marijuana cultivator. At the time
the police talked to Valdez at his farm, he was already under investigation as a
suspect. Thus, the questioning by the police was no longer a general inquiry.

Custodial Investigation is defined as the 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.

At the time when the police questioned him, he was already under custodial
investigation and had a right to counsel even if he was not yet arrested. Two armed
policemen questioned Valdez while a barangay peace officer and 3 armed officers
served as backup. All were sent to arrest him. Thus, it can be inferred that Valdez
was already deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way, even before the
actual arrest. In fact, even before he was arrested, the police made him pose
incriminatingly in front of the marijuana plants.
[35] PEOPLE v. Rodriguez
G.R. No.129211 | 2 October 2000 | Quisumbing, J.
SUMMARY:
Appellant Artellero and Accused Rodriguez, who worked as construction workers
for a bank, were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide for killing the
bank security guard. Both of them denied this, but the trial court found them guilty of
murder. Both appealed, but Rodriguez withdrew his appeal due to financial reasons.
The Supreme Court then acquitted both Artellero and Rodriguez after finding that: 1.
The confession was inadmissible because it was taken in violation of Article 3
Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution and 2. The evidence presented had no
probative value since it was not taken for the purposes of comparison.
DOCTRINE:
Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation
is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a
particular person as a suspect.
The four fundamental requisites for the admissibility of a confession are:
1. The confession must be voluntary
2. The confession must be made in the presence of independent and
competent counsel
3. The confession must be express
4. The confession must be in writing
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
Article 3, Section 12. 1987 Constitution. [Rights of an accused under custodial
investigation]
(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) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar
practices, and their families.
FACTS:
● October 11, 1991 — a messenger found the lifeless body of Matias, the bank
security guard. The body was hogtied, with 32 stab wounds. Three .38 cal.
Pistols and five gauge shotguns were also missing from the guard
rostrum.
● Five police officers arrived later that day for the follow-up investigation.
They learned from another security guard that there was an on-going
construction on the upper floors and that accused and appellant had
access to the bank after hours.
● The police officers saw Rodriguez packing, and maong pants on Artellero’s
bed, which had reddish stains. The reddish stains were also found on
Rodriguez’ shirt. Rodriguez said this was because of a wound on his neck.
Police officers found no wound.
● The police officers arrested both Rodriguez and Artellero and brought them
to the police station. They also took the maong pants and sent it to be
examined by the NBI’s Chemistry Section.
● October 15, 1991 - Rodriguez executed a sworn statement confessing
that he and appellant, with Rading Mendoza and two other men murdered
Matias.
● October 18, 1991 - Rodriguez and Artellero were charged with the crime of
Robbery with Homicide.
● November 22, 1991 - Arraignment. They pleaded not guilty.
● After trial and presentation of evidence, the trial court found them guilty of
murder, instead of robbery with homicide.
ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO: (on the topic of Custodial Investigation)
[1] W/N the extrajudicial confession of Rodriguez is admissible against him — NO.
● The second requisite for the admissibility of a confession is lacking. They
were not provided with competent and independent counsel.
● The accused were detained for 4 days, but the lawyer (Atty. Lao from the
PAO) was only called on the fourth day, when the confession was going
to be put into writing. According to the Article 3 Section 12 of the 1987
Constitution (see provision above) and jurisprudence, an accused under
custodial investigation must continuously have a counsel assisting him
from the very start. [People v. Dela Cruz]
● In this case, Rodriguez and Artellero were in the hands of police for four
days without counsel. Furthermore, the record does not show that they
were informed of their Miranda rights.
● According to Article 3, Section 12(3), the violation of the Constitution shown
above would then render the confession totally inadmissible.
● [note: there was the matter of the maong pants with blood stains. That is
inadmissible too, because the blood type of the appellant and the victim
were not taken for comparison with the blood stains on the pants.
Without the two pieces of evidence, the Court cannot find Rodriguez and
Artellero guilty beyond reasonable doubt.]
RULING:
The decision of the trial court convicting Artellero and Rodriguez is REVERSED.
Artellero and Rodriguez are ACQUITTED.
36 PEOPLE v. DEL ROSARIO
G.R. No. 127755 | 14 April 1999 | Belosillo, J.
THE CASE: Automatic review of RTC of Cabanatuan City decision convicting
accused Del Rosario of special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide
TOPIC
PART ONE: ARREST → Custodial Investigation → Source, Definition, Scope, and
Procedure → Definition
SUMMARY
Two armed men stole a woman’s bag and got inside Del Rosario’s tricycle which
immediately sped away. Del Rosario and his tricycle were identified and reported to
the police. Del Rosario was found guilty and sentenced to death. He contends that his
constitutional rights as he was being arrested were violated. Del Rosario is acquitted
because when he was “invited” for questioning, he was already under custodial
investigation without being made aware thereof.
PROVISION
RA 7438, sec. 2 (f), par. 2. As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include
the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection
with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of
the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.
DOCTRINE
Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect
taken into custody to carry out the interrogation. It encompasses any question
initiated by law enforcers after a person has been taken into custody or deprived of
his freedom in any significant way.
● This concept has been broadened by RA 7438 to include the practice of
issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an
offense he is suspected to have committed.
ANTECEDENT FACTS (How did the case get to the Supreme Court?)
● Out of all those accused, only Joselito del Rosario was arrested and tried
o Virgilio Santos alias Boy Santos, and John Doe alias Dodong
remained at large
o Ernesto Marquez alias Jun was killed in a police encounter
● He was charged and found guilty as a co-principal in the crime of Robbery
with Homicide and sentenced to death, as well as civil liability to the heirs of
the victim
● Upon finding the name of owner of tricycle, policemen invited accused Del
Rosario for an interview
● Del Rosario volunteered to name his passengers. On the way to the police
station, accused informed them of the bag and lunch kit’s location and the
place where the hold- uppers may be found and they reported to these
findings to their officers.
● After lunch, police went to the place where the hold-uppers were allegedly
staying and a shoot-out transpired
● While all of these were happening, accused Del Rosario was at the back of
the school, after which they went back to the police station. Also, all the
while, accused was handcuffed by the police because allegedly, they already
gathered enough evidence against him and they were afraid that he might
attempt to escape. 

● The investigator took the statement of accused Del Rosario. He was
detained as ordered by the Fiscal. He also executed a waiver of his
detention and his Sinumpaang Salaysay was done with the assistance of
counsel. 

● The RTC ruled that Del Rosario’s supposed fear was merely speculative,
fanciful, and remote, hence cannot be considered uncontrollable
● Accused Del Rosario also contends that his rights were violated during
custodial investigation [relevant to the topic]
o Violation of his right to remain silent, right to have competent and
independent counsel, and right to be informed of these rights
o He was supposedly invited for interview
● The case is now at the Supreme Court for automatic review, since he was
imposed death penalty
FACTS
● Facts of the case were narrated from an eyewitness account of a tricycle
driver Paul Alonzo.
● At 6:30 pm, Alonzo, driving his tricycle, saw in front of him a tricycle driven
by Del Rosario parked about 1m away.
● Alonzo then saw 2 men and a woman grappling for possession of a bag.
● After taking hold of the bag one of the two men armed with gun chased a
man who was trying to help the woman, while the other snatcher kicked the
woman and was shot on the head.
● The bag taken by the man was brought to the tricycle of accused Del
Rosario where someone inside received the bag.
● The armed man then sat behind the driver while his companion entered the
sidecar.
● When the tricycle sped away, Alonzo gave chase and was able to get the
plate number of the tricycle and recognized the driver, after which he went to
the nearest police station headquarters and reported the incident.
● Defense of Del Rosario
o He was merely hired by the accused to drive for them for a price of
P120.
 o He was under the pretense that they went to the drugstore only for
the accused to buy cigarettes. RULING
o When he saw the robbery and killing that took place, he tried to Decision of RTC of Cabanatuan City is reversed and set aside. Del Rosario is
leave and seek help but Boy Santos who stayed inside the tricycle acquitted.
prevented him from leaving and threatened to shoot him.
o They had threatened him not to tell the police, or else they will kill
him and his family.
● Court a quo found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to death
● Now, Del Rosario contends that lower court erred in:
o Not finding presence of threat and irresistible force.
o Not considering his defense that he wasn’t part of the conspiracy.
o Not considering the violations of his constitutional rights as an
accused.
o Not considering there was no lawful warrantless arrest.

ISSUE (relevant one)

W/N there was a violation of his constitutional rights – YES

HELD/RATIO
● Upon finding the name of the owner, he was invited for an interview.
● Del Rosario was handcuffed by the police because allegedly they had
already gathered enough evidence against him and they were afraid he
might attempt to escape.
● Custodial investigation
o Stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry
into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular
suspect taken into custody to carry out the interrogation.
o Encompasses any question initiated by law enforcers after a person
has been taken into custody or deprived of his freedom in any
significant way.
o This concept has been broadened by RA 7438 to include the
practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in
connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed.
● Del Rosario was deprived of his rights during custodial investigation
o From the time he was “invited” for questioning, he was already
under effective custodial investigation, but he was not apprised nor
made aware thereof by the investigating officers. 

o The police already knew the name of the tricycle driver and the
latter was already a suspect in the robbing and senseless slaying of
the victim. 

o Since the prosecution failed to establish the del Rosario has waived
his right to remain silent, his verbal admissions on his participation
in the crime even before his actual arrest were inadmissible against
him, as the same transgressed the safeguards provided by law and
the Bill of Rights. 

[37] Babst vs. National Intelligence Board
GR L-62992
28 September 1984
J. Plana
Topic: Custodial Investigation
PROVISION:
● Art III, Sec 12, 1987 Consti
(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) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as
well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families.
SUMMARY: The petition is premised upon the alleged illegality and
unconstitutionality of the issuance by respondent NIB to petitioners of letters of
invitation, their subsequent interrogation, and the filing of the aforementioned libel suit.
Under the circumstances of the case, the petition cannot be granted. The assailed
proceedings have come to an end. The acts sought to be prohibited (i.e., the issuance
of letters of invitation and subsequent interrogations) have therefore been abated,
thereby rendering the petition moot and academic as regards the aforesaid matters.
DOCTRINE: It is not idle to note that ordinarily, an invitation to attend a hearing and
answer some questions, which the person invited may heed or refuse at his pleasure,
is not illegal or constitutionally objectionable. Under certain circumstances, however,
such an invitation can easily assume a different appearance. Thus, where the
invitation comes from a powerful group composed predominantly of ranking military
officers issued at a time when the country has just emerged from martial rule and
when the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus has not entirely
been lifted, and the designated interrogation site is a military camp, the same can
easily be taken, not as a strictly voluntary invitation which it purports to be, but as an
authoritative command which one can only defy at his peril, especially where,
as in the instant case, the invitation carries the ominous warning that "failure to
appear . . . shall be considered as a waiver . . . and this Committee will be
constrained to proceed in accordance with law." Fortunately, the NIB director general
and chairman saw the wisdom of terminating the proceedings and the unwelcome
interrogation.
FACTS:
● Arlene Babst, Odette Alcantara, Ceres P. Doyo, Jo-Ann Q. Maglipon, Domini
Torrevillas-Suarez, Lorna Kalaw-Tirol, Cielo Buenaventura, Sylvia Mayuga,
Sheila S. Coronel, et al. are columnists, feature article writers and reporters
of various local publications.
● At different dates since July 1980, some of them have allegedly been
summoned by military authorities who have subjected them to sustained
interrogation on various aspects of their works, feelings, sentiments, beliefs,
associations and even their private lives.
● Aside from the interrogations, a criminal complaint for libel was filed by Brig.
Gen. Artemio Tidier, Jr. on 9 February 1983 with the Office of the City Fiscal,
Manila, against Domini Torrevillas-Suarez, editor of the Panorama, and Ma.
Ceres Doyo based on an article written by Doyo and published in the 28
March 1982 issue of the Panorama, on which the author had been
interrogated by Brig. Gen. Wilfredo Estrada (Ret.), Col. Renato Ecarma, NBI
Asst. Director Ponciano Fernando, Col. Balbino Diego, Col. Galileo Kintanar,
Col. Eustaquio Peralta, et. al.
● The complaint included a staggering P10 million claim for damages. (An
information for libel has since been filed with the Regional Trial Court of the
National Capital Region against Suarez and Doyo.)
● On 3 March 1983, Babst, et. al. filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary
injunction, which was superseded by the amended and supplemental petition
for prohibition with preliminary injunction, seeking to prohibit the respondents
(a) from issuing subpoenas or letters of invitation to Babst, et. al. and
interrogating them, and (b) from filing libel suits on matters that have been
the subject of inquiry by the National Intelligence Board (NIB).
ISSUE:
1. Whether the issuance by the NIB of letters of invitation to Babst, et.al., their
subsequent interrogation, and the filing of libel suits against Suarez and
Dayo, are illegal and unconstitutional as they are violative of the
constitutional guarantee on free expression since they have the effect of
imposing restrictive guidelines and norms on mass media? PETITION IS
MOOT.
HELD:
● Prohibition will not issue in respect of the libel charges now pending in court
against Suarez and Doyo and similar suits that might be filed.
● The writ of prohibition is directed against a tribunal, board or person acting
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion vis-a-vis
certain proceedings pending before it.
● The libel cases adverted to are not pending before the NIB or any other
respondent.
● Further, the issue of validity of the libel, charges by reason of their alleged
collision with freedom of expression, is a matter that should be raised in the
proper forum, i.e., before the court where the libel cases are pending or
where they may be filed.
● The same rule applies to the issue of admissibility as evidence of matters
that have been elicited in the course of an inquiry or interrogation conducted
by the NIB, which Babst, et. al. claim to have been illegally obtained.
● Finally, the right to seek redress when libeled is a personal and individual
privilege of the aggrieved party, and no one among the officials has the
authority to restrain any of his subordinates who has been libeled from
vindicating his right by instituting a libel suit. Brig. Gen. Tadiar has filed the
libel case against Suarez and Doyo in his personal capacity. Moreover, he is
not even a member of the NIB. And the NIB does not appear to have
anything to do with Gen. Tadiar's private right to complain of libel.
● The assailed proceedings have come to an end. The acts sought to be
prohibited (i.e., the issuance of letters of invitation petition and subsequent
interrogations) have therefore been abated, thereby rendering the petition
moot and academic as regards the aforesaid matters.
● Be that as it may, it is not Idle to note that ordinarily, an invitation to
attend a hearing and answer some questions, which the person invited
may heed or refuse at his pleasure, is not illegal or constitutionally
objectionable. Under certain circumstances, however, such an
invitation can easily assume a different appearance.
[38] PEOPLE V. MULETA
G.R. NO. 130189 | JUNE 25, 1999 | PANGANIBAN, J.
SUMMARY: This is an appeal on the decision of RTC finding Domingo Muleta guilty
of the complex crime of rape with homicide and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua..
The Court granted the appeal and acquitted Muleta for lack of sufficient evidence. The
extrajudicial confession made was deemed inadmissible because the rights of the
accused during custodial investigation were violated.
DOCTRINES:
 To be acceptable, extrajudicial confessions must conform constitutional
requirements. It must not violate any of the rights of persons under custodial
investigation
 Rights of suspects during custodial investigation:
1. To remain silent
2. To have an independent and competent counsel preferable of their own
choice
3. To be provided with such counsel, if unable to secure one
4. To be assisted by one in case of waiver, which should be in writing, of the
foregoing
5. To be informed of all such rights and of the fact that anything he says can
and will be used against him.
o An effective communication between the investigating officer and
the suspected individual, with the purpose of making the latter
understand these rights
o Requires the suspect to be be ‘informed’
 Where the remaining pieces of evidence are insufficient to determine guilt
with moral certainty, the appellant is entitled to an acquittal.
 A conviction must rest on the strength of the admissible evidence of the
prosecution, not on the weakness or insufficiency of the defense
PROVISIONS:
SEC 12 ARTICLE III - (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.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 hereof shall
be inadmissible in evidence against him.
RA 7438 - includes as an integral part of custodial investigation the practice of issuing
"invitations" to persons being investigated in connection with an offense they are
suspected to have committed
FACTS:
 Domingo Muleta y Rocero, the uncle of the victim, was accused of having
carnal knowledge with Charito Delgado, without her consent, using
force and intimidation, while she is unconscious. He also took
advantage of his superior strength and stabbed her in the neck and back,
causing the instantaneous death of the victim.
o Charito Delgago is a 19 year-old native of Oriental Mindoro who
went to Manila to work as a saleslady at Ali Mall in Cubao.
o She moved to Valenzuela but went back to Tondo to pick up the
remaining baggage.
o On April 30, 1993, her lifeless body was found naken in Mojon,
Malolos, Bulacan, tied to a post using a pair of pants, and both of
her hands were tied with a bra. She had 5 stab wounds (3 in the
neck and 2 at her back)
PROSECUTION’S VERSION
 Appellant was requested by NBI Agent Tolentino to go to him to NBI Manila
for investigation. Appellant readily obliged.
 During his custodial investigation on Sept. 19,1993, appellant was assisted
by counsel, Atty. Daquis.
o He admitted raping and killing Charito.
o Another prosecution witness Danilo Delgado, also testified that
during the wake of Charito, appellant became hysterical, crying,
shaking his head, and muttering: “Patawarin mo ako Charito, ikaw
kasi lumaban pa, nakakahiya, mabuti pang mamatay na”
DEFENSE’S VERSION
 Accused testified that he did not commit the crime.
 He was unscrupulously picked up by NBI and forced to him to admit.
o Tortured, boxed and kicked, brought to a secluded place,
blindfolded, told to lie down on his back, feet were tied, and water
was poured on his notes, forced to sign a document which he did
not read, not provided with lawyer
RTC
 Circumstantial evidence in this case was enough to establish the guilt of the
appellant
o Familiar with place where crime was committed, did not go home
on eve of April 29, muttered words, admission
 Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of complex crime of rape with homicide.
  Penalty of reclusion perpetua with fine of 50K death indemnity, 44K actual
damages, 20K exemplary damages, and 20K moral damages.
ISSUES:
1. W/N the extrajudicial admission of the appellant is valid and admissible
2. W/N the prosecution’s evidence to prove appellant’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt is sufficient
3. W/N the alibi is a defense
(1) there is more than one circumstance;
(2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
(3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
 Prosecution failed to prove his that he went home early on
April 29. Affidavit of co-workers are hearsay because they
were not presented in court.
 Muttered words could have meant that the appellant was
blaming himself for being unable to protect the victim.

3. Prosecution must convict the accused based on the strength of its own case,
RATIO: not on the weakness of the defense
1. Extrajudicial confession is inadmissible  Presumption of innocent prevails
 To be acceptable, extrajudicial confessions must conform constitutional
requirements. It must not violate any of the rights of persons under RULING:
custodial investigation WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision is hereby
REVERSED and VACATED. Appellant Domingo R. Muleta is hereby ACQUITTED for
 Rights violated: insufficiency of evidence. The director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby directed
1. To have an independent and competent counsel preferable of their own to cause the release of appellant forthwith, unless the latter is being lawfully held for
choice another cause; and to inform the Court of his release, or the reasons for his continued
 The sworn statement of appellant was prepared prior to the confinement, within ten days from notice. No costs.
arrival of his NBI-procured counsel.
 Sworn statement was executed and completed on
September 19, 1993, while Atty. Daquiz arrived only the
following day, September 20, 1993
2. To be assisted by one in case of waiver, which should be in writing, of the
foregoing
 Waiver not valid because accused was not assisted by a
counsel
 Even if with counsel, Atty. Daquis was not able to perform
his duty which is to assist the appellant in making
confessions (and not merely his waiver)
3. To be informed of all such rights and of the fact that anything he says can
and will be used against him.

 The supposed "invitation" by NBI Agent Ely Tolentino was in

reality a custodial investigation targeting the accused for the
purpose of procuring a confession

2. The remaining circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is

solely insufficient to prove guilt
 RULE: in the absence of direct proof, conviction may be
based on circumstantial evidence, but to warrant such
conviction, the following requisites must concur:
39 PEOPLE v. TAN
GR No. 117321 | February 11, 1998 | Romero, J.
SUMMARY
Appelant Tan was charged with highway robbery with murder for the stealing of the
tricycle, and the murdering of its owner, Freddie Saavedra. Appellant was invited by
police officers in connection with the instance case and two other robbery cases.
During a conversation with Lt. Santos, appellant allegedly confessed that he, and his
co-accused, were guilty of the crime charged. Lt. Carlos admitted that upon inviting
the appellant, he had no warrant of arrest; he informed the appellant that he was a
suspect of the instant case and two robbery cases, and that he, believing that he and
appellant were just having a conversation, did not inform appellant of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel, nor did he
reduce the supposed confession in writing. The Court said that the appellant was
already under custodial investigation from the moment the appellant was
singled out as suspect, and so, his alleged confession is inadmissible as
evidence since his constitutionally guaranteed rights to be informed of his
rights and to counsel were violated.
DOCTRINES
Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement
authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
action in any significant manner.
The rules on custodial investigation begin to operate as soon as the investigation
ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus a particular
suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of
interrogations that tends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins
to operate.
FACTS
Charge: Highway robbery with murder against appellant Herson Tan, along with Lito
Amido, for stealing a tricycle, valued at P30k, and murdering its owner Freddie
Saavedra on the occasion of said robbery
December 5, 1988
- On the evening, the victim told his wife that he will be driving both accused to
Barangay Maligaya. It was the last time that Freddie was seen alive.
- The lifeless body of Freddie was discovered on a diversion road at Barangay
Malinao, Lucena City the morning after.
 He had fourteen stab wounds in different parts of his body.
Appellant’s alleged confession
- Relying on the information that an abandoned sidecar of a tricycle was
sighted at Barangay Malinao, Lucena City, the PNP led by Lt. Carlos Santos
proceeded to the scene of the crime and recovered a blue sidecar which
they brought back with them to their headquarters.
- Subsequently, police officers invited appellant in connection with the
instant case and with respect to two other robbery cases reported in
Lucena City.
- During their conversation, appellant allegedly explicitly narrated that he
and co-accused Amido were responsible for the loss of the motorcycle
and the consequent death of Saavedra.
Cross-examination of Lt. Carlos
- When he invited appellant to their headquarters, he had no warrant for his
arrest.
- He informed the appelant that he was a suspect, not only in the instant case,
but also in two other robbery cases.
- In the belief that they were merely conversing inside the police station, he
admitted that he did not inform appellant of his constitutional rights to
remain silent and to the assistance of counsel; nor did he reduce the
supposed confession to writing.
Appellant’s defense
- he had no participation in the offense charged and contended that his only
involvement in the matter was the referral of accused Amido to Teves
- He said that he merely accompanied Amido in selling what he thought was
Amido’s motorcycle to Aguilar and Teves.
Amido’s defense
- Alibi: he was at another Barangay on the day in question, some seven
kilometers from the town, busy assisting in the renovation of his mother's
house.
- He narrated that the victim was his friend and, therefore, he could not have
participated in the gruesome death of the latter.
TC: Tan guilty; Amido acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence
ISSUE
W/n a confession of an accused, given before a police investigator upon invitation and
without the benefit of counsel, be admissible in evidence against him. NO
RATIO
Appealed decision is set aside and appellant acquitted on the ground that his
constitutional rights were violated.
 - It is well-settled that the Constitution 4 abhors an uncounseled - The suspect was already under custodial investigation when he
confession or admission and whatever information is derived allegedly confessed without being informed of his constitutional
therefrom shall be regarded as inadmissible in evidence rights, without counsel, and without the required writing.
against the confessant.
- RA 74385 reinforced the constitutional mandate protecting the rights Applied to the case
of persons under custodial investigation The evidence for the prosecution shows that when appellant was invited for
- Under the Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence, a questioning at the police headquarters, he allegedly admitted his participation in the
confession to be admissible must satisfy the following requirements: crime. This will not suffice to convict him, however, of said crime. The constitutional
(1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of rights of appellant, particularly the right to remain silent and to counsel, are
competent and independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) impregnable from the moment he is investigated in connection with an offense he is
it must be in writing. suspected to have committed, even if the same be initiated by mere invitation.
 While the Constitution sanctions the waiver of the right to
counsel, it must, however, be "voluntary, knowing and What remains of the evidence for the prosecution is inadequate to warrant a
intelligent, and must be made in the presence and with the conviction. Considering the circumstances attendant in the conduct of appellant's
assistance of counsel." investigation which fell short of compliance with constitutional safeguards, we are
 People v. Javar: any statement obtained in violation of the constrained to acquit the appellant.
constitution, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole
or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence. Even if the
confession contains a grain of truth, if it was made without
the assistance of counsel, it becomes inadmissible in
evidence, regardless of the absence of coercion or even if
it had been voluntarily given.
 The records of this case do not indicate that appellant
was assisted by counsel when he made such waiver

ON CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
- Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law
enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner.
- The rules on custodial investigation begin to operate as soon
as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime and begins to focus a particular suspect, the
suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process
of interrogations that tends itself to eliciting incriminating statements
that the rule begins to operate.

4 Article III, Sec. 12. (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.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible against him.
5 As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a

person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without
prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.
40 PEOPLE vs. BARIQUIT
G.R. No. 122733 | 2 October 2000 | Per Curiam
TOPIC: Custodial Investigation
SUMMARY:
Pedro, Emegdio, and Cristituto threatened and forced Baselino and Rogelio to
participate in the commission of the crime of robbery planned by the three of them.
On the occasion of robbery, the victims were killed. The TC discharged Rogelio due
to his being a state witness, and convicted the four of the crime. The SC upheld the
decision, but modified as regards Baselino, who was also acquitted of the crime.
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
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. x x x
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
Sec. 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Crim Pro. Discharge of accused to be state
witness.
When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense,
upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or
more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be
witnesses for the state when after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and
the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the
discharge, the court is satisfied that:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is
requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the
offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material
points;
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty;
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral
turpitude.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial.
If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn
statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.
FACTS:
1. The trial court convicted accussed-appellants Pedro Bariquit, Emegdio
Lascuna, Cristituto Bariquit and Baselino Repe6 of the special complex crime
of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced them to death
a. TC appreciated the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority
on Repe’s favor, lowering his penalty to imprisonment
2. The RTC, in handing down its judgment, relied on the facts culled from the
testimony of state witness Rogelio Lascuna (who was dropped as party-
accused for this purpose) and other prosecution witnesses namely, SPO3
Tapao, PO1 Abella, PO1 Selloria, PO1 Faciolan
a. State witness Rogelio Lascuna, who was 14yo at that time, testified
that one evening, Cristituto arrived looking for Pedro, Emegdio and
Rogelio in order to execute a crime. Baselino on the other hand
was threatened that he will be killed if he does not participate. And
so they went to the house of Spouses Simon and Corazon
Hermidas.
b. At 2am, after the three persons who were drinking inside the house
left, Pedro pretended to buy cigarettes and kulafu from Simon but
thereafter attacked the latter and lunged a knife on his neck.
Emegdio followed suit and hacked Simon once on the neck with a
bolo.
c. Pedro then stabbed Corazon two times which caused the latter’s
death, but Corazon managed to wound Pedro in his palm
d. At this time, Cristituto, armed w/ a bolo, stayed outside holding
Baselino. After the killing, Rogelio scampered toward his house
3. As to the element of Robbery, accused Baselino testified that the other
accused- appellants stole the spouses’ wooden trunk which contained
money, necklace, and blanket.
a. After Pedro, Cristituto and Emegdio retrieved the wooden trunk,
they brought it home where they partitioned the loot
b. Baselino managed to escape. Around 5am, Pedro and Emegdio
went to Baselino’s house to leave the money and necklace as
Baselino’s share, and threatened the latter in case he squeals
The prosecution also utilized the testimony of the police officers who responded to
and investigated the robbery-killing:
1. SPO3 Tapao -- Upon arrival at the crime scene, they saw the dead bodies,
and interviewed the relatives of the victims. Based on the information,
Emegdio and Baselino were jointly arrested, as well as Pedro, in a hot
pursuit. Emegdio denied killing the spouses and pointed to Pedro and
Cristituto as the killers. At the police headquarters, Emegdio also admitted
that Rogelio was one of their companions.
6
Pedro and Cristituto are brothers. Emegdio and Rogelio are also brothers, and at
the same time nephews of Pedro and Cristituto.
 2. SPO1 Selloria -- recovered a knife from Baselino and that the latter admitted
that said knife was the weapon Baselino brought during the incident. He
recovered P800 from Emegdio and the latter admitted that the cash was
supposed to be his “share”
a. That upon the arrest of Baselino and Emegdio, the police
immediately commenced investigation of the two accused even
while they were still walking along the highway, on their way to
the police station.
b. That it was SPO4 Perez who conducted further questioning of the
accused in the investigation room of the Police Station but that he
was not sure whether a lawyer was present at the time the
investigation was conducted.
In defense, the accused-appellants, except for Repe who maintained non-
participation, raised alibi and denial as excuse
1. Emegdio was sleeping in his parent’s house together w/ his siblings; travel
time to Hermida residence is 20mins
2. Cristituto was cooking rice
3. Pedro was sleeping; it would take an hour by foot to reach Hermida
residence from his house; the wound on his palm was due to a trisikad
accident
4. Baselino was only coerced to join for fear of his life
ISSUES/HOLDING/RATIO:
1. [MAIN] WoN the testimonies of the police officers as well as the things they
recovered from the accused are admissible in evidence -- NO, but prosecution still
clearly proved the guilt of the accused through other testimonies and evidence
The mantle of protection under Sec. 12, Art. III of the 1987 Consti covers the period
from the time a person is taken into custody for investigations of his possible
participation in the commission of a crime, or from the time he is singled out as a
suspect in the commission of the crime, although not yet in custody.
● Courts are not allowed to distinguish between preliminary questioning and
custodial investigation proper when applying exclusionary rule 7.
● Any admission or information given by a person while in custody—which
may appear harmless or innocuous at the time without the competent
assistance of an independent counsel—should be struck down as
inadmissible.
● An 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, i.e.,
7
According to this rule, once the primary source (the ‘tree’) is shown to have been
unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the ‘fruit’) derived from it is
also inadmissible.
when the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession
from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense.
The extra-judicial admission of the accused-appellants, as well as the testimonies of
the police officers pertaining thereto, are inadmissible
● The police authorities, upon the arrest of Emegdio and Baselino,
immediately asked questions and conducted custodial investigation of said
accused-appellants regarding their participation in the commission of the
crime even while they were still walking along the highway on their way
to the police station.
● Records reveal that no counsel was present to assist Emegdio and
Baselino during the interrogation both along the highway and at the
police station nor was accused-appellants informed of their rights
under the Constitution.
○ The records are bereft of any finding that the police labored to
properly apprise accused-appellants of their rights
● 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 RA 7438.
○ Under RA 7438, the requisites of a “custodial investigation”
are applicable even to a person not formally arrested but
“merely invited for questioning”
● Applying the exclusionary rule, the money and necklace recovered from the
accused-appellants during their uncounselled admissions are also
inadmissible, for being tainted as “fruits of the poisonous tree”
OTHER ISSUES:
2. WoN conspiracy existed -- YES
The testimonies of Lascuna and Repe established the presence of conspiracy
● The meeting at the upper hill area, the hatching of the planned robbery, the
stabbing, hacking and killing of the Hermida spouses, the threats directed
against Baselino Repe, the asportation of the wooden trunk all evinced
conspiracy
3. WoN the defense of alibi is meritorious -- NO
To prosper, alibi must strictly meet the requirements of time and evidence that he was
so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the
locus crimini. Alibi is unavailing in light of the positive identification by credible
witnesses who narrated the details of the killing and the robbery
● The short distances and negligible time to reach Hermida residence negate
the defense of alibi
● Rogelio is a credible witness: human experience and common knowledge
taught us that no brother would betray his own flesh but in this case, Rogelio
positively identified his brother
 4. WoN the accused-appellants are guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide ○ Once the discharge is ordered, any future development showing
-- YES that any, or all, of the five conditions have not been actually fulfilled,
While homicide preceded the taking, the killing of the spouses was nonetheless may not affect the legal consequences of the discharge
perpetrated for the aim of removing an opposition to the robbery. Accordingly, the ● At this juncture, the testimony of Repe and the findings of Dr. Ubas (who
death arose by reason or on occasion of the robbery. conducted and prepared the autopsy report) corroborated Rogelio’s
● However, the TC erred in appreciating treachery and by a band as testimony
aggravating circumstances since the special complex crime is classified as
crime against property and not against persons. Under Art. 14, RPC,
treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons.
● But fraud, dwelling and evident premeditation were present
○ As to fraud, accused-appellants managed to enter the house of the
victims-spouses by employing insidious words and machinations,
specifically by feigning to buy Kulafu and cigarettes from Simon
○ dwelling is deemed aggravating in the instant case where the crime
was perpetrated in the house where the Hermida Spouses lived,
and without any provocation from the victims
○ As to evident premeditation, the lapse of two hours—from 12:00 AM
to 2:00 AM—suffice to satisfy the third requisite and allow accused-
appellants to meditate and reflect upon the consequences of their
criminal acts. Moreover, it can be presumed where conspiracy is
directly established.

5. WoN Repe is guilty -- NO

Prosecution was remiss in establishing Repe’s overt acts clearly showing his intention
and participation in the criminal design. As a rule, overt acts may consist in active
participation, in moral assistance or by exerting moral ascendancy.
● In this case, Repe did not actively participate, nor did he extend any moral
assistance, nor did he exercise moral ascendancy over the other accused-
appellants
● Conspiracy cannot be appreciated against Repe since it has been
established that threats and physical force were employed against him,
leaving him no genuine opportunity to escape

6. WoN the discharge of Rogelio as state witness was proper -- YES

Accused-appellants argued that Rogelio’s testimony was not corroborated 8 in its
material points, in violation of Sec. 9, Rule 119 of the Rules on CrimPro, w/c
enumerates the requisites of proper discharge
● The rule is that the discharge of a defendant, in order that he may be called
to testify against his codefendants, is within the sound discretion of the court.
If the discharge is improper, such impropriety will not render inadmissible his
testimony nor detract from his competency as a witness

8
Corroborative evidence refers to additional evidence of a different kind and
character tending to prove the same point
[41] MIRANDA V ARIZONA
384 US 436 | 1966 | Warren, C.J.
SUMMARY: This is a consolidation of 4 cases, where in each case, the defendant
was questioned without being informed of their rights as provided for in the Fifth
Amendment.
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
● Fifth Amendment: ”No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand
jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when
in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
DOCTRINE: The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, stemming from 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, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective
to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.
FACTS:
● This case is a consolidation of 4 cases, all of which concerns the
admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
○ In each case, the defendant was questioned by police officers,
detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut
off from the outside world.
○ They all thus share salient features -- incommunicado interrogation
of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-
incriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights.
● Miranda v. Arizona
○ Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and although the officers did not
notify Mr. Miranda of his rights, he signed a confession.
○ Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station
where he was questioned by police officers in connection with
kidnapping and rape. He was also identified by the complaining
witness.
○ After 2 hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written
confession from Miranda.
■ At the top of the statement was a typed paragraph stating
that the confession was made voluntarily, without threats
or promises of immunity and "with full knowledge of my
legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be
used against me."
○ The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite
the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police
officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to
have an attorney present during the interrogation.
○ The jury found Miranda guilty.
○ On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that
Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not
specifically request counsel
● Vignera v. New York
○ Vignera was arrested for robbery.
○ He orally admitted to the robbery to detective in the 66th Detective
Squad. He was then arrested.
○ At 3PM, the police transported him to the 70th Precinct in Brooklyn,
"for detention." At 11 p.m., Vignera was questioned by an assistant
district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter, who
transcribed the questions and Vignera's answers.This verbatim
account of these proceedings contains no statement of any
warnings given by the assistant district attorney.
○ During trial, the detective from the 66th was asked whether Vignera
was warned of his right to counsel before being interrogated. The
prosecution objected to the question, and the trial judge sustained
the objection.
■ There was no evidence that he was notified of his 5 th
Amendment Constitutional rights
○ He was found guilty of robbery. The conviction was affirmed without
opinion by the CA.
● Westover v. US
○ Westover, was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect
in two Kansas City robberies. An FBI report also stated that he is
wanted on a felony charge in California. The local authorities took
him to a police station and placed him in a line-up on the local
charges.
 ○ Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest,
where he denied the charges. The next morning, he was
interrogated again by the Kansas police, and in the afternoon, by
FBI agents. After two or two and one-half hours, Westover signed
separate confessions to each of these two robberies which had
been prepared by one of the agents during the interrogation.
○ At trial, one agent testified that Westover was informed of his rights.
Westover was tried by a jury and was convicted of the robberies.
● California v. Stewart
○ Stewart was arrested along with members of his family for a series
of purse snatches.
○ He was taken to the University Station of the Los Angeles Police
Department, where he was placed in a cell. During the next five
days, police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions.
■ Except during the first interrogation session, when he was
confronted with an accusing witness, Stewart was isolated
with his interrogators.
○ During the ninth interrogation session, Stewart admitted that he had
robbed the deceased.
○ None of the records indicated that Stewart was ever advised of his
rights. Stewart was charged with kidnapping to commit robbery,
rape, and murder. At his trial, transcripts of the first interrogation
and the confession at the last interrogation were introduced in
evidence. The jury found Stewart guilty.
○ Supreme Court of California reversed. It held that Stewart should
have been advised of his right to remain silent and of his right to
counsel, and that it would not presume in the face of a silent record
that the police advised Stewart of his rights.
ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO:
[1] Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial
police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial — NO
● The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory,
stemming from 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, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural
safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-
incrimination.
○ Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has:
■ a right to remain silent,
■ that any statement he does make may be used as
evidence against him, and
■ that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either
retained or appointed.
○ The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the
waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.
○ If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the
process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking,
there can be no questioning.
○ Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that
he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question
him.
■ 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.
● The privilege against self-incrimination guarantees to the individual the "right
to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his
own will," during a period of custodial interrogation as well as in the courts or
during the course of other official investigations.
● In these cases, none of the officers undertake to afford appropriate
safeguards at the outset of the interrogation to insure that the statements
were truly the product of free choice.
● Thus, Court rules in each case as follows:
○ Miranda v. Arizona is REVERSED. 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, nor was his right not to
be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any
other manner. Without these warnings, the statements were
inadmissible. His signing of the statement does not constitute an
intelligent waiver.
○ Vignera v. New York is REVERSED. Vignera was not warned of
any of his rights before the questioning by the detective and by the
assistant district attorney. No other steps were taken to protect
these rights. Thus, his statements are inadmissible.
○ Westover v. US is REVERSED. The Court cannot find 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.
○ California v. Stewart is AFFIRMED. In dealing with custodial
interrogation, the Court will not presume that a defendant has been
 effectively apprised of his rights and that his privilege against self- ● Such an interpretation harms the criminal process by destroying the
incrimination has been adequately safeguarded on a record that credibility of confessions
does not show that any warnings have been given or that any
effective alternative has been employed. Nor can a knowing and
intelligent waiver of these rights be assumed on a silent record.
● The Court clarified that this holding is not an innovation in our jurisprudence,
but is an application of principles long recognized and applied in other
settings. This is a reaffirmation of the Escobedo decision, which is an
explication of basic rights that are enshrined in our Constitution -- that "No
person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself," and that "the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of
Counsel" -- rights which were put in jeopardy in that case through official
overbearing.

RULING: The judgments of the Supreme Court of Arizona, of the New York Court of
Appeals, and of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, are reversed. The judgment
of the Supreme Court of California is affirmed.

DISSENT: Clark, J.

● The majority’s opinion created an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the

Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute
their duties
● The state should have the burden to prove that the suspect was aware of his
rights during the interrogation, but that statements resulting from
interrogation should not be automatically excluded if the suspect was not
explicitly informed of his rights

DISSENT: Harlan, J.

● The judicial precedent and legislative history surrounding the Fifth

Amendment does not support the view that the Fifth Amendment prohibits all
pressure on the suspect
● There was no legal precedent to support the requirement to specifically
inform suspects of their rights

DISSENT: White, J.

● The Fifth Amendment only protects defendants from giving self-incriminating

testimony if explicitly compelled to do so
● Custodial interrogation was not inherently coercive and did not require such
a broad interpretation of the protections of the Fifth Amendment
[42] PEOPLE v OBRERO
G.R No. 122142 | May 17, 2000 | Mendoza, J.
Summary: Obrero was found guilty of robbery with homicide. He assailed the validity
of the extrajudicial confession extracted from him. The Court acquitted Obrero since
he was not given the Miranda warnings effectively and did not have independent
counsel.
General Doctrine: (duty of police during custodial investigation; procedure)
 (in bold under ratio)
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
 Art III, Sec. 12, Consti
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
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
FACTS: (in bold: relevant to topic)
 Pat. Ines’ testimony:
o Jimmy Obrero was a delivery boy who delivered dressed chickens to
Emma Cabrera’s home. After a killing was reported, Ines discovered
that Emma informed Obrero’s employer that her house was robbed and
her 2 maids killed.
o A sworn statement by Helen Moral, a househelp of Cabrera, stated that
she and Carlos Emerson found the bodies of the victims on the floor.
o Another sworn statement by Anita De los Reyes stated that she saw
Obrero and his fellow employee Ronnie Liwanag with their hands
covered with blood, coming out of the building (where Cabrera lived).
o When Obrero was apprehended, he was positively identified by Anita
De los Reyes as one of those she saw.
o On the same day, Obrero gave a confession in writing and in the
presence of counsel, Atty. Bienvenido De los Reyes, admitting
participation in the killing. Obrero refused to sign the booking and
information sheet.
o Obrero’s extrajudicial confession presented as evidence stated
that Liwanag proposed to rob Emma so that they could go to La
Union to visit his family. Obrero signed the confession in the
presence of Atty. De los Reyes.
 Atty. De los Reyes’ testimony
o He was a PC Captain of the WPD Headquarters and was asked to
assist Obrero in executing an extrajudicial statement. He apprised
Obrero of his consti rights, but Obrero still said he was willing to
give a statement, in which he confessed to committing the crime of
robbery with homicide.
 Dr. Cenido’s testimony
o The 2 maids suffered 16 and 12 stab wounds respectively, which may
have been inflicted by one or more assailants with the same weapon.
 Obrero’s testimony
o He denied participation in the commission of the crime and claimed that
he was arrested without a warrant.
o After being informed of the charges, he was beaten up and detained for
a week and made to execute an extrajudicial confession. He had not
known or seen Atty. De los Reyes before and he did not understand the
contents of the confession which he signed, since he does not know
how to read.
 Obrero was found guilty of robbery with homicide for robbing Antonio Cabrera of
P4,000.00 and stabbing his 2 maids to death.
 Present petition: Obrero assails the validity of the extrajud confession, claiming
that Atty. De los Reyes was not the counsel of his choice, so he refused to sign
the booking and info sheet. He signed the confession 5 times as a sign that it
was involuntarily executed.
ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO
1. W/N the extrajudicial confession is admissible - NO
 2 kinds of involuntary/coerced confessions
o product of 3rd degree methods (torture, force, violence, etc.)
o given without the benefit of Miranda warnings
 There was no proof of the force and violence claimed by Obrero to have been
used against him and he did not seek medical treatment or physical examination.
If he were coerced to confess, he could have also been forced to sign the
booking and info sheet.
o What he signed 5 times was not the same confession, but different parts
of it, and it contained details only the perpetrator of the crime could have
given (consistent with medico-legal findings)
 However, the confession is inadmissible because he was not given the
Miranda warnings effectively.
 An uncounseled statement is presumed to be psychologically coerced. It is
required that the suspect be given the following warnings:
o Informed of right to remain silent
o Warned that anything he says can and will be used against him
 o Told that he has a right to counsel, and if indigent, a lawyer will be
appointed
 CASE: Only a perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights was given, without effort
to find out from him W/N he wanted to have counsel and if so, W/N he had his
own counsel or wanted the police to appoint one for him.
o This is inadequate to transmit meaningful info to the suspect. Care
should have been scrupulously observed, especially since Obrero
finished only until the 4th grade of elementary school.
 Art. III, Sec. 12 (1) required the counsel to be competent and independent.
o CASE: Atty. De los Reyes cannot be considered “independent” because
he was PC Captain and station commander of the WPD (part of the
police force) at the time he assisted Obrero.
o People v Bandula: the independent counsel required cannot be a
special counsel, public/private prosecutor, municipal attorney, or
counsel of the police whose interest is admittedly adverse to the
accused.
 There was no evidence of the robbery except the confession, which is
inadmissible.

Ruling: RTC decision REVERSED. Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED on the ground

of reasonable doubt.
[43] PEOPLE v. DUERO
G.R No. L-52016, 13 May 1981, Aquino, J.
Summary of THE CASE and the FACTS relevant to the case:
Severino Duero was accused of committing robbery and homicide against his
grandmother, Fausta Vda. De Duero. The accused’s own oral confession, as well as
the prosecution’s numerous witnesses and other circumstantial evidence proved
Duero’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. HOWEVER, the accused repudiated his
alleged oral confession on the witness stand, and he also alleged that he was
maltreated by the police. The issue at hand now is whether or not Duero’s oral
confession to the police is admissible in evidence.
The Supreme Court held that the accused’s oral confession to the crime was
inadmissible in evidence. Section 20, Art. IV of the 1973 Constitution states that
“…any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right.” The same
provision also provides that: “Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall
be inadmissible in evidence.”
The police have a duty to a person under custodial investigation to inform them of
their rights to remain silent and to counsel. Since there was no showing that the
accused was informed of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel, Duero’s oral
confession to the police became inadmissible in evidence. Without the oral confession,
the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence became insufficient to convict Duero. As a
result, Duero was acquitted of the crime of robbery with homicide.
General Doctrine or what it says about the topic:
The constitution, in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, adopts the doctrine
laid down in the US case of Miranda v. Arizona:
 Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right
to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as
evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an
attorney.”
 The defendant may waive these rights, provided the waiver is made
voluntarily knowingly and intelligently.”
In the Miranda case, the Federal Supreme Court made it clear that what is
prohibited is the “…incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-
dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statements w/o full
warnings of constitutional rights.”
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
Const (1973), Article IV, Sec. 20.
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and
to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or
any other means which vitiiates the free will shall be used against him. Any
confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Const., Sec. 12, Art. III (the current equivalent of the 1973 provision)
Section 12. (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) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as
well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families.
Full FACTS:9
 This case is an automatic review of the decision of the CFI of Iloilo
convicting Severino Duero of robbery with homicide.
 Fausta Condino Vda. de Duero, an octogenarian housekeeper living alone,
was feloniously killed in her house.
o A piece of wire, which was used to strangle her was tied
around her neck. A scythe was sticking in her neck.
o No eyewitness testified as to the commission of the offense. The
principal evidence of the prosecution is the testimony of Lieutenant
Tomas C. Lujan, the chief of police of Cabatuan.
 Testimonial Evidence:
o Lujan declared that Severino voluntarily confessed to him that
he (Severino) committed the robbery with homicide but
Severino refused to sign a confession.
o Lujan was not the only police officer who heard Severino Duero's
confession. Patrolman Rolando N. Alag, a member of the arresting
team that picked up Duero, stated that Duero admitted that he took
part in the robbery with homicide, that his companions were
Macaya and a certain Junior and that it was he (Severino) who
induced the commission of the crime.
9
Taken from Consti 2 Digest of People v. Duero
 o Severino Duero admitted sole responsibility for it and confessed
that he took three thousand pesos after hitting Fausta Duero on the
head with a mallet strangling her with a piece of wire and hacking
her with a scythe.
o LIkewise, Tormon said that Severino met Fausta at a store (the day
before the crime was committed). Fausta was willing to lend
Severino one hundred fifty pesos.
o Buenaventura Hudieras, two days after the commission of the crime
he was drinking liquor (biti-biti) with Severino Duero. On that
occasion, Severino told Hudieras that Fausta Duero was killed.
o The sworn statements of Alag, Tormon and Hudieras and others
were the basis of the criminal complaint for robbery with homicide
filed by Lieutenant Lujan against Severino Duero.
o To reinforce and render credible Lujan's testimony on Duero's oral
confession of guilt, Tranquilino Duero, a second cousin of the
accused, testified that Severino allegedly revealed to Tranquilino
that he (Severino) would rob his owao or grandmother, Fausta
Duero. Tranquilino said to Severino: "Are you an Idiot?"
 The circumstantial evidence summarized above shows that the prosecution
had a strong case against Severino Duero in spite of the absence of the
testimony of an eyewitness. During the trial, no objection was interposed by
the defense to the evidence on Duero's oral confession.
 Indeed, the trial court on the basis of such evidence found Severino guilty of
robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt. He did not appeal from the
trial court's decision.
 Severino Duero's counsel de oficio in this Court contends that the trial court
erred in admitting the oral testimony on Severino Duero's oral confession, in
giving credence to the testimonies of Lujan, and others.
ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO (That is relevant to the topic under the
syllabus)10
[1] W/N the oral confession of Severino Duero is admissible - NO, his statement
is inadmissible in evidence
 IMPORTANT POINT: There is no proof that Duero was informed of his rights,
nor was there any proof that he voluntarily waived these rights.
o “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, his confession is inadmissible in evidence.”
 Severino repudiated his alleged oral confession and even claimed that
he was maltreated by the police.
RULING: Severino Duero is ACQUITTED.
10
Also taken from Consti 2 Digest of People v. Duero
o As alibi, Severino testified that he was in his house when the crime
was perpetrated. His wife, neighbor and friends, confirmed his alibi.
 The Solicitor General agrees with the counsel de oficio's contention that
Severino's oral confession is inadmissible in evidence by reason of
Article IV, Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution which provides:
 “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be
informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation,
or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used
against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section
shall be inadmissible in evidence."
 All the foregoing provisions are new except the first
sentence on the right against self-incrimination (nemo
tenetur seipsum accusare)
 The new provisions in Article IV, Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution
were adopted from the ruling in Miranda vs. Arizona w/c specifies the ff.
procedural safeguards for in-custody interrogation of accused persons:
 "Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has
a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may
be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the
presence of an attorney.”
 "The defendant may waive these rights, provided the waiver is
made voluntarily knowingly and intelligently.”
 In the Miranda case, the Federal Supreme Court made it clear that what is
prohibited is the "incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a
police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating
statements w/o full warnings of constitutional rights."
 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. It does not affect volunteered statements of guilt
by persons not in police custody.
 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:
 "Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to
him throughout the interrogation.”
 After discarding Duero's oral confession, circumstantial evidence
against him is not adequate for his conviction. His acquittal follows as a
matter of course.
[44] PEOPLE v ORDONO
June 29, 2000 | Per Curiam
Topic: Duty of Police during custodial investigation; procedure
SUMMARY
The accused were appraised of their rights, but due to a lack of lawyers, the custodial
investigation was done in the presence of the parish priest instead. Their confessions
were written and signed.
DOCTRINES
1. Under the Constitution and the rules laid down pursuant to law and
jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible in evidence must satisfy four (4)
fundamental requirements: (a) the confession must be voluntary; (b) the
confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent
counsel; (c) the confession must be express; and, (d) the confession must
be in writing.
2. Among all the fundamental requirements for admissibility of extrajudicial
confessions, none is accorded the greatest respect than an accused’s
right to counsel to adequately protect him in his ignorance and shield him
from the otherwise condemning nature of a custodial investigation.
3. Republic Act 7438 9AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON
ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS
WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND
INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF); In providing that during the taking of an
extrajudicial confession the accused’s parents, older brothers and sisters, his
spouse, the municipal mayor, municipal judge, district school supervisor, or
priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by the accused may be present,
Republic Act 7438 does not propose that they appear in the alternative
or as a substitute for counsel without any condition or clause.
FACTS
1. Accused (Pacito Ordono and Apolonio Medina) were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of rape with homicide
2. When the body of the victim was found, unidentified sources pointed to
Ordono and Medina as the criminals
- Because of this, police invited the two to the police station of
questioning but due to the lack of evidence linking them to the
crime, they were allowed to go home
3. On Aug. 10, 1994, the accused returned to the police station one after the
other and they admitted the commission of the crime
a. Bc of this admission, the police conducted an investigation and put
their confession in writing-- WITH NO LAWYER PRESENT (reason
of police: difficulty of accessing a lawyer because it was a remote
town in La Union)
b. Before taking the confessions, however, the 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. Upon their
acquiescence and assurance that they understood their rights and
did not require the services of counsel, the investigation was
conducted with the Parish Priest, the mayor, chief of police and
other police officers
4. Soon, news of their detention soon spread and a radio station visited them
a. They were interviewed, and their confessions was tape-recorded
5. A couple of days later, the police brought the two (2) accused to the office of
the PAO lawyer in Balaoan, La Union, for assistance and counseling.
a. In a closed-door session, PAO lawyer Oscar B. Corpuz apprised
each of the accused of his constitutional rights and, even though
their confessions were already written in their dialect, explained to
them each of the questions and answers taken during the
investigation.
6. Both of the accused, subsequently pleaded not guilty
a. They testified that the police abused them, to get confessions out of
them (boxed, kicked, hit, held at gunpoint)
7. Lower court found them both guilty and imposed on them death penalties
8. The accused are now before us assailing their conviction on the ground that
constitutional infirmities attended the execution of their extrajudicial
confessions, i.e., mainly the lack of counsel to assist them during custodial
investigation thereby making their confessions inadmissible in evidence.
ISSUES: WN the confessions are admissible as evidence- NO?
RATIO
1. 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.
a. At this point, their right to counsel automatically attached to
them
b. Even though the town was remote and hence, a lawyer was hard to
find, this does not excuse the police from the consequence of
not affording the accused, counsel
c. Furthermore, a lot of witnesses (as enumerated in Facts 3b) does
not cure the defect
2. RA 7438 does not do away with the constitutional guarantee of a right
to counsel, instead it underscores its importance by requiring that a
substitution of counsel with the above-mentioned persons be made with
caution and with the essential safeguards:
 a. Counsel of the accused must be absent
b. Valid waiver must be executed
- In this case, there was no valid waiver since, for it to be effective,
it must be done in (1) writing and (2) in presence of counsel- and
neither was done
3. As testified to, the police informed the accused of their rights to remain silent
and to counsel in a dialect understood by them, but despite the accused’s
apparent showing of comprehension, it is doubtful if they were able to grasp
the significance of the information being conveyed.
a. To be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel
contemplates “the transmission of meaningful information
rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an
abstract constitutional principle.”
4. As to the taped radio interview: 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. 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.
a. 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, not by the police or any other investigating
officer.
b. When the accused talked to the radio announcer, they did not talk
to him as a law enforcement officer, as in fact he was not, hence
their uncounselled confession to him did not violate their
constitutional rights.
5. As to the assertion of the accused that they were tortured and subjected to
inhuman treatment: we find such allegations’ baseless. The accused were
given several opportunities to decry the maltreatment they allegedly suffered
in the hands of the police but at no time did they complain about it.

DISPOSITIVE: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt.

[45] PEOPLE v. OBRERO (SUPRA)
[46] HARRIS v. NEW YORK
401 US 222 | February 24, 1971 | CJ. Burger
SUMMARY: Harris was charged with selling heroin to an undercover officer on two
occasions. He claimed he sold the officer two bags of baking powder. Upon cross
examination, contradicting statements were made by the petitioner, but this was
before he received his Miranda warnings. The Court decided that Harris’ credibility
was appropriately impeached by use of his conflicting statements.
DOCTRINE: The shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license to
use perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior
inconsistent utterances.
PROVISION:
Sec. 12, Art. III, Const. (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) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as
well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families.
FACTS:
● The State of New York charged harris for selling heroin to an undercover
police offer twice.
● Harris took the stand in his own defense. He admitted knowing the
undercover police officer but denied a sale on the first instance.
● He admitted making a sale of contents of a glassine bag on the second
instance, but claimed it was baking powder and part of a scheme to
defraud the purchaser.
● On cross-examination, he was asked about statements made to the
police immediately after arrest, before receiving his Miranda warnings.
Said statements were in contradiction with his direct testimony.
● At the request of petitioner's counsel the written statement from which the
prosecutor had read questions and answers in his impeaching process was
placed in the record for possible use on appeal; but it was not shown to the
jury.
ISSUE & HOLDING:
Whether the use of Harris’ post-arrestment statement violated his Miranda
rights - NO
● The Miranda decision did not mandate that evidence inadmissible
against an accused in the prosecution’s case must be barred for all
purposes from the trial. The Court reasoned that the shield provided by
Miranda could not be “perverted into a license to use perjury by way of
a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent
utterances.”
● Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to
refuse to do so. But that privilege cannot be construed to include the
right to commit perjury.
● Having voluntarily taken the stand, petitioner was under an obligation to
speak truthfully and accurately, and the prosecution here did no more than
utilize the traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process.
● The speculative possibility that police misconduct could be encouraged was
outweighed by the value of admitting the statement into the impeachment
process.
J. Black, Dissent.
If, for example, an accused confessed fully to a homicide and led the police to the
body of the victim under circumstances making his confession inadmissible, the
petitioner would have us allow that accused to take the stand and blandly deny every
fact disclosed to the police or discovered as a "fruit" of his confession, free from
confrontation with his prior statements and acts. The voluntariness of the confession
would, on this thesis, be totally irrelevant. We reject such an extravagant extension of
the Constitution
[47] NEW YORK v. QUARLES
467 U.S. 649 | June 12, 1984 | Rehnquist, J.
TOPIC: ARREST, Custodial Investigation, Rights Involved and Consequences of
Violation, Consequences of Violation
SUMMARY: Black man raped woman. He ran into the supermarket when police
made pursuit. Eventually apprehended but his holster was empty when frisked. Police
officer asked about the whereabouts of the gun, and Quarles said “the gun is over
there”. Only then did the officer give the respondent his Miranda warnings. Court held
it was a valid public safety exception.
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
 United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment
DOCTRINE: There is a public safety exception to the requirement that Miranda
warnings be given before a suspect’s answers can be admitted into evidence.
FACTS:
 Quarles was charged with criminal possession of a weapon obtained by the
police before he was read his Miranda warnings.
 September 11, 1980: Officers Kraft and Scarring were on road patrol when a
woman approached them alleging that she was raped by a black man.
 After identifying his outfit, she alleged that he went inside a supermarket.
The police and woman went to the store.
 Kraft immediately spotted Quarles who turned and ran towards the rear of
the store. Kraft pursued Quarles.
 For a few seconds, Kraft lost sight of Quarles, but when he immediately saw
him, he ordered Quarles to stop and place his hands over his head.
 Quarles was frisked by Kraft before other officers arrived. His holster was
empty. When Kraft asked, Quarles nodded to the direction where he kept it
and said “the gun is over there.” The gun was retrieved inside some empty
cartons.
 After retrieving the gun, Kraft formally placed Quarles under arrest and read
him his Miranda warnings from a printed card.
 The lower and appellate court declared the gun and statement of its location
inadmissible and refused to recognize an exigency exception.
ISSUES:
W/N the gun is admissible as an exception to Miranda.
 W/N Kraft was justified in failing to make available the Miranda warning
before asking the gun’s location.
HOLDING/RATIONALE: YES. The Court held that there should be a limited
exception to Miranda in the interest of public safety.
 Purpose of Miranda warnings: not themselves rights but instead measures to
insure the right against compulsory self-incrimination is protected.
o It is to reduce the likelihood that suspects would fall victim to
constitutionally impermissible practices of police interrogation.
 There was no claim that Quarles’s statement was compelled by the police.
 Concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal
language of the rules enunciated in Miranda.
 There is a public safety exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings
be given before a suspect’s answers may be admitted into evidence.
o Spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is
necessarily the order of the day.
o So long as the actual whereabouts were unknown, it obviously
posed more than danger to public safety: an accomplice might
make use of it or a customer or employee might later come across
it.
 The doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda need not be applied in all its rigor if it
is reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety.
o Had the Miranda warnings deterred Quarles from responding, the
cost would have been more than a mere failure to convict Quarles.
o Kraft’s questioning was not simply to make his case, but to insure
that no further danger to the public would result from the
concealment of the gun in a public area.
 The need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public
safety outweighs the need for the rule protecting the 5th Amendment’s
privilege against self-incrimination.
 This is a narrow exception to the Miranda rule. It is important to recognize a
workable rule to guide police officers who only have a limited time and
expertise to reflect and balance social and individual interests involved.
 Although admittedly this caveat may cloud the Miranda rule, police officers
have the ability to distinguish when this exception should apply.
 Police officers can and will distinguish almost instinctively between questions
necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public and
questions designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect.
 Kraft only asked the necessary question the location of the gun before
apprising Quarles of his Miranda warnings. His motivation in asking where
the gun was is not at issue in this case.
RULING:
The CA erred in excluding the statement “the gun is over there” and the gun.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
DISSENT (J. Marshall):
This statement violated the Fifth Amendment protection versus coerced self-
incrimination because it was possible for the officers in this situation to advise the
respondent of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel.
48 People vs Duero
GR No. L-52016 | May 13, 1981 | J. Aquino
SUMMARY: This is a case convicting Severino Duero of robbery with homicide,
sentencing him to death for robbing and killing Fausta Duero. Fausta Duero, an
octogenarian who was living alone, was found in her house dead with a wire
wrapped around her neck and a scythe protruding from her jugular. She was
also losing money and jewelry. Supposedly, Severino Duero admitted to the crime
of robbery with homicide to the chief of police of Cabanatuan, Tomas Lujan. These
claims were further corroborated by numerous residents of the area who claim that
the motive of the killing and robbery was that Fausta Duero did not allow Severino
Duero to borrow P50, that the confession was made while Severino was in police
custody, and that Severino was supposedly near the house of Fausta Duero on the
night of the killing and robbery. Severino Duero’s defense was two-fold. The first one
was that he was in his house at the night of the shooting, and that he was not
informed of his constitutional rights to a lawyer and to remain silent. Moreover,
he also claims the he was maltreated to be able to elicit a confession from him.
DOCTRINE: The new provisions in Article IV, Section 20 of the 1973
Constitution were adopted from the ruling in Miranda vs. Arizona w/c specifies
the ff. procedural safeguards for in-custody interrogation of accused persons:
● "Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right
to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as
evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an
attorney.”
● "The defendant may waive these rights, provided the waiver is made
voluntarily knowingly and intelligently.”
In the Miranda case, the Federal Supreme Court made it clear that what is prohibited
is the "incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated
atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statements w/o full warnings of
constitutional rights."
PROVISION:
● Article IV, Sec. 20, 1973 Constitution
● “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any
person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of
such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any
confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible
in evidence.”
FACTS:
● This case is an automatic review of the decision of the CFI of Iloilo
convicting Severino Duero of robbery with homicide.
● Fausta Condino Vda. de Duero, an octogenarian housekeeper living alone,
was feloniously killed in her house.
o A piece of wire, which was used to strangle her was tied
around her neck. A scythe was sticking in her neck.
o No eyewitness testified as to the commission of the offense. The
principal evidence of the prosecution is the testimony of Lieutenant
Tomas C. Lujan, the chief of police of Cabatuan.
● Testimonial Evidence:
o Lujan declared that Severino voluntarily confessed to him that
he (Severino) committed the robbery with homicide but
Severino refused to sign a confession.
o Lujan was not the only police officer who heard Severino Duero's
confession. Patrolman Rolando N. Alag, a member of the arresting
team that picked up Duero, stated that Duero admitted that he took
part in the robbery with homicide, that his companions were
Macaya and a certain Junior and that it was he (Severino) who
induced the commission of the crime.
o Severino Duero admitted sole responsibility for it and confessed
that he took three thousand pesos after hitting Fausta Duero on the
head with a mallet strangling her with a piece of wire and hacking
her with a scythe.
o LIkewise, Tormon said that Severino met Fausta at a store (the day
before the crime was committed). Fausta was willing to lend
Severino one hundred fifty pesos.
o Buenaventura Hudieras, two days after the commission of the crime
he was drinking liquor (biti-biti) with Severino Duero. On that
occasion, Severino told Hudieras that Fausta Duero was killed.
o The sworn statements of Alag, Tormon and Hudieras and others
were the basis of the criminal complaint for robbery with homicide
filed by Lieutenant Lujan against Severino Duero.
o To reinforce and render credible Lujan's testimony on Duero's oral
confession of guilt, Tranquilino Duero, a second cousin of the
accused, testified that Severino allegedly revealed to Tranquilino
that he (Severino) would rob his owao or grandmother, Fausta
Duero. Tranquilino said to Severino: "Are you an Idiot?"
● The circumstantial evidence summarized above shows that the prosecution
had a strong case against Severino Duero in spite of the absence of the
testimony of an eyewitness. During the trial, no objection was interposed by
the defense to the evidence on Duero's oral confession.
● Indeed, the trial court on the basis of such evidence found Severino guilty of
robbery with homicide beyond reasonable doubt. He did not appeal from the
trial court's decision.
 ● Severino Duero's counsel de oficio in this Court contends that the trial court
erred in admitting the oral testimony on Severino Duero's oral confession, in
giving credence to the testimonies of Lujan, and others.
ISSUE w/ HOLDING:
[1] W/N the oral confession of Severino Duero is admissible - NO, his statement
is inadmissible in evidence
● Severino repudiated his alleged oral confession and even claimed that
he was maltreated by the police.
● As alibi, Severino testified that he was in his house when the crime
was perpetrated. His wife, neighbor and friends, confirmed his alibi.
● The Solicitor General agrees with the counsel de oficio's contention that
Severino's oral confession is inadmissible in evidence by reason of
Article IV, Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution which provides:
● “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be
informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation,
or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used
against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section
shall be inadmissible in evidence."
▪ All the foregoing provisions are new except the first
sentence on the right against self-incrimination (nemo
tenetur seipsum accusare)
● The new provisions in Article IV, Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution
were adopted from the ruling in Miranda vs. Arizona w/c specifies the ff.
procedural safeguards for in-custody interrogation of accused persons:
● "Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has
a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may
be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the
presence of an attorney.”
● "The defendant may waive these rights, provided the waiver is
made voluntarily knowingly and intelligently.”
● In the Miranda case, the Federal Supreme Court made it clear that what is
prohibited is the "incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a
police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating
statements w/o full warnings of constitutional rights."
● 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. It does not affect volunteered statements of guilt
by persons not in police custody.
● 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:
● "Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to
him throughout the interrogation.”
● 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, his confession is
inadmissible in evidence.
● After discarding Duero's oral confession, circumstantial evidence
against him is not adequate for his conviction. His acquittal follows as a
matter of course.
RULING: Severino Duero is ACQUITTED.
NOTES: On Miranda vs Arizona
● As restated by Chief Justice Warren in the Miranda case, the following
procedure should be adhered to:
● At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to
interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and
unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent.
● For those unaware of the privilege the warning is needed
simply to make them aware of it – the threshold
requirement for an intelligent decision as to its exercise.
● More important, such a warning is an absolute pre-
requisite in overcome the inherent pressures of the
interrogation atmosphere.
● Further, the warning will show the individual that his
interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege
should he choose to exercise it.
● The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by
the explanation that anything said can and will be used against
the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make
him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of
forgoing it.
● An individual need not make a pre-interrogation request for a
lawyer. While such request affirmatively secures his right to
have one, his failure to ask for a lawyer does not constitute a
waiver. No effective waiver of the right to counsel during
interrogation can be recognized unless specifically made after
the warnings we here delineate have been given. The accused
who does not know his rights and therefore does not make a
request may be the person who most. needs counsel.
● If an individual indicates that he wishes the assistance of counsel
before any interrogation occurs, the authorities cannot rationally
 ignore or deny his request on the basis that the individual does not
have or cannot afford a retained attorney.
● In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his
rights under this system then, it is necessary to warn him not
only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also
that if lie is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent
him.
● Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear.
If the individual indicates in any manner, at anytime prior to or
during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation
must cease.. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he
indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must
respect his decision to remain silent.
● If the interrogation continues without the presence of an
attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the
government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and
intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and
his right to retained or appointed counsel.
● An express statement that the individual is willing to make a
statement and does not want an attorney followed closely by a
statement could constitute a waiver.
● The warnings required and the waiver necessary in accordance
with our opinion today are, in the absence of a fully effective
equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made
by a defendant.
[49] PEOPLE v. FIGUEROA
G.R. No. 97143; October 2, 1995; Vitug, J.
TOPIC
SUMMARY
The was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition. While serving
the warrant of arrest, the officers noticed, strewn around, aluminum foil packages of
different sizes in the sala. The accused questioned the admissibility in evidence of the
firearm and rounds of ammunition which, he claims, were discovered and taken
during a warrantless search.
DOCTRINE
Evidences are not unlawfully obtained when the search and seizure was done
admittedly on the occasion of a lawful arrest.
RELEVANT PROVISION(S)
FACTS
● Antonio Figueroa was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm and
Ammunition.
● On 10 November 1989, at around seven o'clock in the morning, Captain
Rosario and his men arrived at the residence of Arturo Figueroa to serve a
warrant for his arrest issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati for the
crime of Illegal Possession of Ammunitions.
● While serving the warrant of arrest, the officers noticed, strewn around,
aluminum foil packages of different sizes in the sala. Suspecting thus the
presence of "shabu" in the premises, the arresting officers requested
appellant, as well as his brother and sister, to acquiesce to a search of the
house.
o The search yielded a .45 caliber pistol, a magazine, seven live
ammunitions, and a match box containing an aluminum foil
package with "shabu."
o Figueroa denied ownership of the items. When arraigned, the
accused entered a plea of "Not Guilty".
● The accused questioned the admissibility in evidence of the firearm and
rounds of ammunition which, he claims, were discovered and taken during a
warrantless search.
● On 30 October 1990, the trial court rendered a decision finding the accused
Arturo Figueroa guilty.
● An appeal is interposed by Arturo Figueroa, challenging the admissibility
against him of evidence seized following a warrantless search.
ISSUE(S)/HELD
WoN the evidence is admissible as evidence. – YES
● The .45 caliber pistol, magazine and rounds of ammunition were not
unlawfully obtained. The search and seizure was done admittedly on the
occasion of a lawful arrest.
● A significant exception from the necessity for a search warrant is when the
search and seizure is effected as an incident to a lawful arrest and so, in
People v. Musa, this Court elaborated; thus —
The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect's lawful arrest, may
extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surrounding
under his immediate control. Objects in the "plain view" of an officer who has the right
to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as
evidence.
● Appellant particularly calls attention to the assertion of prosecution witness
Sgt. Atas, to the effect that appellant was with a companion inside a room
when arrested and that the seized firearm was found under the cushion of
the bed, against the statement of Capt. Rosario, another prosecution witness,
that appellant was alone when arrested and that the gun was found under
appellant's bed.
o We do not consider these discrepancies to be so major as to
warrant a complete rejection of their questioned testimony.
● It is not unnatural for witnesses of the same incident to somehow perceive
differently and to thereby vary in their respective accounts of the event. The
contradiction of witnesses on minor details is nothing unusual and should be
expected. We see no cogent reason for not according due respect to the
findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses.
● Finally, it is claimed that appellant was just "framed-up." The conduct of the
appellant following his arrest would belie this allegation.
o Appellant himself admitted that he failed to complain about this
matter when he was apprehended. Neither did he report the so-
called "planting of the gun" to the police authorities nor did he bring
it up before the Metropolitan Trial Judge when he appeared for
preliminary investigation.
RULING
No plausible reason was given by appellant that would have prompted police
authorities to falsely impute a serious crime against him. Absent a strong showing to
the contrary, the Court must accept the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs
against accused-appellant.
[50] GUMAMBON v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
G.R. No. L-30026 | January 30, 1971 | Fernando, J.
Petitioners: Mario Gumabon, Blas Bagolbagol, Gaudencio Agapito, Epifanio Padua
and Paterno Palmares
Respondent: The Director of the Bureau of Prisons
SUMMARY
Petitioners had been serving their sentence of reclusion perpetua for the complex
crime of rebellion with multiple murder and other crimes when the People v.
Hernandez ruling was promulgated. The Court granted their petition for the writ of
habeas corpus.
DOCTRINE
The writ of habeas imposes on judges the grave responsibility of ascertaining whether
there is any legal justification for a deprivation of physical freedom. Unless there be
such a showing, the confinement must thereby cease. If there be a valid sentence it
cannot, even for a moment, be extended beyond the period provided for by law. Any
deviation from the legal norms call for the termination of the imprisonment.
HOWEVER, if "the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an
officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of
a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process,
render the judgment, or make the order," the writ does not lie.
The only ground on which this court, or any court, without some special statute
authorizing it, will give relief on habeas corpus to a prisoner under conviction and
sentence of another court is the want of jurisdiction in such court over the person or
the cause, or some other matter rendering its proceedings void.
HOWEVER, once a deprivation of a constitutional right is shown to exist, the court
that rendered the judgment is deemed ousted of jurisdiction and habeas corpus is the
appropriate remedy to assail the legality of the detention.
PROVISIONS
Art. 22, RPC
Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as
this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the
publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is
serving the same.chanrobles virtual law library
FACTS
- Petitioner Gumabon, after pleading guilty, was sentenced on May 5, 1953 to
suffer reclusion perpetua for the complex crime of rebellion with multiple
murder, robbery, arson and kidnapping. Petitioners Agapito, Palmares and
Padua, likewise pleaded guilty to the complex crime of rebellion with multiple
murder and other offenses, and were similarly made to suffer the same penalty in
decisions rendered, Bagolbagol, stood trial also for the complex crime of rebellion
with multiple murder and other offenses and on January 12, 1954 penalized
with reclusion perpetua. Each of the petitioners has been since then imprisoned by
virtue of the above convictions. Each of them has served more than 13 years.
- Subsequently, in People v. Hernandez, the Court ruled that the information
against the accused in that case for rebellion complexed with murder, arson
and robbery was not warranted under Article 134 of the RPC, there being no
such complex offense.
 People vs. Lava, the Court reaffirmed the ruling in the Hernandez case
rejecting the plea of the Solicitor General for the abandonment of such
doctrine.
 It is the contention of each of the petitioners that he has served more than
the maximum penalty that could have been imposed upon him. He is thus
entitled to freedom, his continued detention being illegal.
- The fear that Pomeroy v. Director of Prisons, where the court denied a petition for
habeas corpus, stands as an obstacle to their release on a habeas corpus
proceeding prompted petitioners to ask that it be appraised anew and, if necessary,
discarded. The Court can resolve the present petition without doing so.
 Petitioners failed to invoke the contentions now pressed vigorously by
their counsel, Attorney Jose W. Diokno, as to the existence of a denial of a
constitutional right that would suffice to raise a serious jurisdictional
question and the retroactive effect to be given a judicial decision favorable
to one already sentenced to a final judgment under Art. 22 of the RPC.
ISSUE
W/N the writ of habeas corpus is available to the petitioners. YES
- The writ imposes on judges the grave responsibility of ascertaining whether
there is any legal justification for a deprivation of physical freedom. Unless
there be such a showing, the confinement must thereby cease. If there be a
valid sentence it cannot, even for a moment, be extended beyond the period
provided for by law. Any deviation from the legal norms call for the
termination of the imprisonment.
 In Villavicencio v. Lukban, then respondent Mayor of Manila without legal
justification, ordered the transportation of more than 150 inmates of
houses of ill-repute to Davao. After referring to the writ of habeas corpus
as having been devised and existing "as a speedy and effectual remedy to
relieve persons from unlawful restraint" the opinion of Justice Malcolm
continued: "The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas
corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as
distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if
 such restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of
action is sufficient."
- Where, however, the detention complained of finds its origin in what has
been judicially ordained, the range of inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding
is considerably narrowed.
 If "the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an
officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment
or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to
issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order," the writ does
not lie.
 Justice Bradley in Ex parte Siebold: "The only ground on which this court,
or any court, without some special statute authorizing it, will give relief on
habeas corpus to a prisoner under conviction and sentence of another
court is the want of jurisdiction in such court over the person or the cause,
or some other matter rendering its proceedings void."
 HOWEVER, once a deprivation of a constitutional right is shown to
exist, the court that rendered the judgment is deemed ousted of
jurisdiction and habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to assail
the legality of the detention.
- Petitioners assert they were denied of equal protection. “petitioners were convicted
by CFI for the very same rebellion for which Hernandez, Geronimo, and others
were convicted… For the same crime, committed under the same law, how can we,
in conscience, allow petitioners to suffer life imprisonment, while others can suffer
only prision mayor?"
 The continued incarceration after the 12-year period when such is the
maximum length of imprisonment in accordance with our controlling
doctrine, when others similarly convicted have been freed, is fraught with
implications at war with equal protection.
- Petitioners likewise would rely on Article 22 of the RPC which requires that penal
judgment be given a retroactive effect. As was previously noted, the Civil Code
provides that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the Constitution, as well as
legislation, form part of our legal system. Enough for present purposes that both the
Civil Code and the Revised Penal Code allow, if they do not call for, a retroactive
application.
- If the Hernandez ruling were to be given a retroactive effect, petitioners had
served the full term for which they could have been legally committed, is
habeas corpus the appropriate remedy? YES
 Cruz v. Director of Prisons: "The courts uniformly hold that where a
sentence imposes punishment in excess of the power of the court to
impose, such sentence is void as to the excess, and some of the courts
hold that the sentence is void in toto; but the weight of authority sustains
the proposition that such a sentence is void only as to the excess
imposed in case the parts are separable, the rule being that the
petitioner is not entitled to his discharge on a writ of habeas
corpus unless he has served out so much of the sentence as was
valid."
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition for habeas corpus is granted, and it is ordered that
petitioners be forthwith set at liberty.
SEPARATE OPINION
TEEHANKEE, J., concurring and dissenting:
- I concede the validity of the ruling in Pomeroy vs. Director of Prisons that "(W)ith
reference to persons in custody pursuant to a final judgment, the rule is that the writ
of habeas corpus can issue only for want of jurisdiction of the sentencing court, and
cannot function as a writ of error."
- Petitioners have therefore properly invoked in their favor the provisions of Article 22
of the RPC in relation to the provisions of Article 8 of the Civil Code that "(J)udicial
decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of
the legal system of the Philippines."
- The actual case of petitioners is that at the time of their conviction, it was
believed — erroneously — that the crime committed by them was punishable by life
imprisonment, but the Court has subsequently judicially determined it not be so and
that the maximum imposable penalty is prision mayor or 12 years. Petitioners-
convicts are entitled to the benefit of this later judicial declaration, just as if a
statutory amendment had been enacted—not because the sentencing court had no
jurisdiction or is now ousted of jurisdiction. The writ prayed for should issue, since
as held in Directo vs. Director of Prisons, "the only means of giving retroactive
effect to a penal provision favorable to the accused where the trial judge has lost
jurisdiction over the case, is the writ of habeas corpus."
- The question of jurisdiction of the sentencing court therefore is moot, for it is
universally recognized that relief by habeas corpus may be properly sought in
cases of imposition of excessive penalty, such that the part of the sentence beyond
or in excess of the power of the court to impose is held void, the applicant having
already served out the entire part of the sentence within the court's power.
- Regardless, therefore, of whether the trial courts that sentenced petitioners to life
sentences had jurisdiction or not to impose such penalty, or were right or wrong in
imposing such penalty, the only relevant question now is whether petitioners
have served the maximum — and lesser — sentence of prision mayor that
this Court has by firm judicial doctrine since 1956 determined to be the
penalty that the Revised Penal Code fixes for the crime of rebellion. Since
they have actually served much more than the maximum imposable penalty, the
excess of the sentence imposed upon them over the imposable maximum of twelve
years of prision mayor cannot but be declared illegal and they should now be set
free.
[51] PEOPLE V. CAGUIOA
GR No. L-38975 | January 17, 1980
Fernando, C.J.:
SUMMARY: The Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed an information for murder against
Paquito Yupo y Gonzales. Accused Paquito Yupo was arrested and tried for murder.
He pleaded “not guilty.” Then, on the hearing on June 3, 1974, the prosecution
presented Corporal Conrado Roca as witness, before whom a written statement of
the accused and his alleged waiver of his rights to remain silent and to be assisted by
a counsel of his own choice was taken. Prosecution started asking him on the part of
the incriminating answers in the statement of the accused. The defense counsel
objected based on the ground of such statements being inadmissible in evidence, as
the statement was taken by the police without any counsel assisting the accused in
the investigation.
DOCTRINE: The right to counsel may be waived only as long as such waiver is made
intelligently and voluntarily, with full understanding of its consequence.
Prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming
from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of
procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.
FACTS:
 The Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed on September 14, 1973, in the Court of
First Instance of Bulacan, an information for murder against Paquito Yupo y
Gonzales, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 146-V-73, with the case,
after the raffle, being assigned to Branch VIII, presided by respondent Judge
 Accused Paquito Yupo was arrested and tried for murder. He pleaded “not guilty.”
 The trial of the case then proceeded, the prosecution having presented six
witnesses, including the father of the deceased, Miguel Tribol, and his common-
law wife, Lydia Begnotia who allegedly received the ante mortem statement of
the victim, Rodolfo Tribol
 Then, on the hearing on June 3, 1974, the prosecution presented Corporal
Conrado Roca of Meycauayan Police Department as witness, before whom a
written statement of the accused and his alleged waiver of his rights to remain
silent and to be assisted by a counsel of his own choice was taken.
 After the witness had identified the statement of the accused and the waiver, the
prosecution started asking him on the part of the incriminating answers in the
statement of the accused.
 The defense counsel objected based on the ground of such statements being
inadmissible in evidence, as the statement was taken by the police without any
counsel assisting the accused in the investigation.
ISSUE AND RATIO:
W/N the waiver presented was admissible as evidence. NO
FIRST, the right to counsel may be waived only as long as such waiver is made
intelligently and voluntarily, with full understanding of its consequence.
 However, it was not shown that the waiver was given voluntarily and freely.
An even more disturbing factor is that the accused, a 19-year old native of
Samar, was interrogated extensively in Tagalog instead of the language he
was most comfortable which was Waray.
 There was a perfunctory opening statement asked by a certain Corporal
Conrado B. Roca of the Police Force of Meycauayan, worded
thus: "Ipinaaalam ko sa iyo na ikaw ay sinisiyasat tungkol sa isang paglabag
sa batas na iyong ginawa, bago ko ipagpatuloy ang pagtatanong sa iyo, ikaw
ay may karapatan na huwag magsalita kung ayaw mo at may karapatan ka
rin na magkaroon ng abogado na iyong gusto at dapat mo ring mabatid na
anuman ang sabihin mo dito ay maaaring gamitin ng ayon o laban sa iyo,
magsasalaysay ka pa rin ba?"
 Maybe to impress the Court, the above opening statements by the police in
the waiver were in Tagalog followed by a monosyllabic answer “Opo.”
However, there was no signature by the accused. There were only illegible
letters, perhaps indicating that they were his initials.
 This only shows that the accused was not literate enough to fully understand
the legal implication and effects of the waiver.
SECOND, the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege
against self-incrimination.
 Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a
right to remain silent, that any statement he does not make may be
used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the
presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The
defendant may waive effectuation of those rights, provided the
waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however,
he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he
wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no
questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any
manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not
question him. 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.
 An observation and closer look at his signature reveals that the
accused is an illiterate and unschooled person. The strokes of his
signature are irregular, halting, and show a difficult and laborious
effort to write the letters of his name. ... In his signature on file with
this Honorable Court, the same observations can be made. ...
 Admittedly, the accused is a Visayan and still a neophyte in the
national penitentiary who does not understand well Tagalog. ... We
cannot expect the accused to have fully understood the legal
signification of these qualifying circumstances, which allegations
had been the subject of various interpretations of our courts.

DECISION: Petition DISMISSED

[52] People v. Galit
G.R. No. 51770 | March 20, 1985 | Concepcion, Jr., J.
Summary: Being suspected for murder, the accused was detained, interrogated, and
tortured for more than 5 days. After which, he signed the confession prepared by
police officers and posed for reenactment pictures.
Doctrine: Confession is inadmissible. Correct procedure for peace officers to follow
when making an arrest and conducting custodial investigation, as iterated in Morales
v. Ponce Enrile, was not followed:
“At the time the person is arrested, arresting officer must inform him of the reason for
the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. Inform him of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might
make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to
communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient
means — by telephone if possible — or by letter or messenger. It shall be the
responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. 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, or appointed by the court upon
petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel
may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of
counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down,
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in
evidence."
Facts:
● On August 23, 1977, Mrs. Natividad Fernando was found dead in her bedroom
as a result of 7 wounds inflicted in her body.
● More than 2 weeks thereafter, the police authorities of Montalban picked up
defendant-appellant, Francisco Galit on suspicion of the murder on the occasion
of a robbery.
● When the case was referred to the NBI, NBI Agent Flores conducted a
preliminary interview of the suspect who allegedly gave evasive answers to his
questions. The following day, Francisco Galit allegedly voluntarily executed a
“Salaysay”, admitting his participation in the commission of the crime and
implicating two other persons as his companions.
● In reality, Galit had been detained and interrogated almost continuously for 5
days, but to no avail as he consistently maintained his innocence. The
investigating officers began to maul him and to torture him physically. In defeat,
Galit admitted what the investigating officers wanted him to admit to the crime
and he signed the confession they prepared.
● Galit was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide, and was sentenced to
death. Hence, the automatic review.
Issues/Ratio:
(1) Whether or not the confession of accused Galit, a monosyllabic answer to a
long question, suffices as a voluntary admission that may be used against
him and was admissible as evidence – NO.
The only evidence against Galit is his alleged confession. 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. 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.
● Galit is from Samar and there is no showing that he understands Tagalog.
Moreover, at the time of his arrest, Galit was not permitted to communicate with his
lawyer, a relative, or a friend. In fact, 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.
His statement does not even contain any waiver of right to counsel and yet during the
investigation he was not assisted by one. At the supposed reenactment, again Galit
was not assisted by counsel of his choice. These constitute gross violations of his
rights.
The correct procedure for peace officers to follow when making an arrest and
conducting custodial investigation was iterated by the Court in the case of Morales v.
Ponce Enrile:
“At the time the person is arrested, arresting officer must inform him of the reason for
the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. Inform him of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might
make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to
communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient
means — by telephone if possible — or by letter or messenger. It shall be the
responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. 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, or appointed by the court upon
petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel
may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of
counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down,
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in
evidence."
Ruling: The judgement appealed from is set aside and Francisco Galit is acquitted.
53 PEOPLE V CONTINENTE
G.R No. 100801-02 | August 25, 2000 | De Leon, Jr., J.
SUMMARY:
U.S. Col. James N. Rowe, who was onboard his car being driven by Joaquin Vinuya
was ambushed by gunmen. Donato Continente and Juanito Itaas were charged for
said crime and both admitted being involved in the ambush. However, they later
stated that they signed their admissions because of fear. Itaas claims that he signed
the waiver his constitutional rights without the presence of counsel while Continente
signed such waiver without counsel explaining it to him. The Court held that the
waivers were valid, and that substantial evidence proved that they were assisted and
consulted by counsel before signing any waivers and sworn statements. The Court
also held that Continente was only an accomplice to the crime of murder and
attempted murder while Itaas was a principal in said crimes.
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
Article III, Section 12(1) 1987 Constitution: 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.
DOCTRINE:
The rights to remain silent and to counsel may be waived by the accused provided
that the constitutional requirements are complied with. It must appear clear that the
accused was initially accorded his right to be informed of his right to remain silent and
to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. In
addition, the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel. If the waiver
complies with the constitutional requirements, then the extrajudicial confession will be
tested for voluntariness, i.e., if it was given freely — without coercion, intimidation,
inducement, or false promises; and credibility, i.e., if it was consistent with the normal
experience of mankind.
FACTS:
● April 21, 1989: At 7 am, the car of U.S. Col James Rowe, Deputy
Commander, Joint US Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG), was ambushed
at the corner of Tomas Morato Street and Timog Avenue, QC.
o Rowe was onboard his gray Mitsubishi Galant driven by Joaquin
Vinuya when gunmen, were onboard a Toyota Corolla (which was
later recovered at San Francisco de Monte, QC) suddenly fired at
his car thereby killing Col. Rowe and seriously wounding Vinuya.
o The car by the gunmen was followed by a Mitsubishi Lancer
● They were initially brought to the V. Luna Hospital before being transferred
to Clark Air Base Hospital, Pampanga. (Rowe dead on arrival)
o Doctors Divers and Santiago testified that Rowe sustained a
gunshot wound on the left side of his head, abrasions on other
parts; Vinuya had 3 superficial injuries on the scalp, left shoulder
and back of the left hand.
● Upon further investigation of the case, the CIS agents established the
involvement of appellant Donato Continente, UP Collegian employee, in the
ambush of Col. Rowe.
o Thereafter, the CIS agents accosted Continente inside the U.P.
Campus and took him to Camp Crame for questioning.
o During the interrogation conducted by CIS Investigator Virgilio
Pablico and in the presence of Atty. Bonifacio Manansala,
Continente admitted to his participation in the ambush of Col. Rowe
as a member of the surveillance unit under the Political
Assassination Team of the CPP-NPA.
o Among the document confiscated was a letter addressed to “Sa
Kinauukulan.” At the dorsal right hand side of the letter appear
“STR PATRC” (Sa Tagumpay ng Rebolusion; Political
Assassination Team, Regional Command)
● Another confidential information established the participation of appellant
Juanito Itaas in the said ambush.
o He was a known member of the Sparrow Unit of the NPA and was
arrested in Davao City and brought to Manila
o During the investigation, Itaas disclosed that he was an active
member of the Sparrow Unit of the NPA based in Davao and
confessed, in the presence of Atty. Filemon Corpuz, who apprised
and explained to him his constitutional rights, that he was the one
who fired at the car of Col. Rowe
● Witness Meriam Zulueta, while going to JUSMAG for her practicum, saw
persons on board a maroon car firing at a gray car. She recognized the
driver of the Mitsubishi (who catcalled her) and Itaas, when he was
presented for identification as the person directly behind the driver of the
maroon car (body half exposed while firing). She also recognized Continente,
whom she had encountered on at least 3 occasions at a carinderia (mistook
for a tricycle driver) outside the JUSMAG compound.
● For their part, appellants deny the truth of the contents of their sworn
statements:
o Itaas: (1) he was tortured, blindfolded, and a masking tape was
placed on his mouth; (2) he affixed his signatures on the sworn
statements in the presence of the CIS officers and that Atty. Corpus
was not present during that occasion; (3) CIS officers threatened
him to admit to the contents of the two sworn statements
o Continente: (1)he was alone with the Investigator during the
investigation; (2)signed the sworn statement in the presence of the
Investigator and swore to the truth thereof before the administering
fiscal for fear that something might happen to him while he was
 alone; (3)signed the last page of his sworn statement first before
signing the waiver of his constitutional rights upon arrival of Atty.
Manansala whose services was engaged by the CIS; (4)had no
opportunity to talk with Atty Manansala who left after her signed,
merely as a witness, the first page of his sworn statement, which is
the waiver of his constitutional rights.
● Prosec. Witness Sgt. Reynaldo dela Cruz testified that he issued the receipt
of the confiscated documents of Continente and the it was SOP to put a
blindfold on a suspected NPA member to prevent him to view the entrance
and exit of the compound.
● Pablico: the CIS’ lawyers, Manansala and Corpuz were present, conferred
with he appellants before they gave their statements and were accompanied
when they brought for inquest, that the investigator typed only the
statements that they had given in response to the questions,
● RTC convicted both appellants guilty of the crime of murder and frustrated
murder.
ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO:
1. W/N the waivers of the constitutional rights during the custodial
investigation by the appellants were valid — YES
● The rights to remain silent and to counsel may be waived by the accused
provided that the constitutional requirements are complied with.
● It must appear clear that the accused was initially accorded his right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice.
● If the waiver complies with the constitutional requirements, then the
extrajudicial confession will be tested for voluntariness
o If it was given freely - without coercion, intimidation, inducement, or
false promises and credibility; if it was consistent with the normal
experience of mankind.
● The right of a person under investigation “to be informed” implies a
correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain and
contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding of
what is conveyed.
● The advice or “Paliwanag” found at the beginning of extrajudicial confessions
that merely enumerate to the accused his custodial rights does not meet the
standard provided by law.
o Do not evince a clear and sufficient effort to inform and explain to
the appellant his consti. rights.
● Appellants: they were not properly informed of their custodial rights under
the constitution as to enable them to make a valid waiver.
● SC: However, portions ("Paliwanag") of the written statements contain an
explanation as to the nature of the investigation
o an advice that the appellants may choose not to give any statement
to the investigator and a warning that any statement obtained from
the appellants may be used in favor or against them in court
o advice that the appellants may engage the services of a lawyer of
their own choice. If they cannot afford the services of a lawyer, they
will be provided with one
o both appellants manifested to CIS Investigator Virgilio Pablico their
intentions to give their statements even in the absence of counsel.
● Pablico requested for the legal services of Atty. Manansala to act as counsel
for Continente and Atty. Corpuz for Itaas. Significantly, Pablico disclosed that
appellant Continente conferred with Manansala in his presence for about half
an hour before the investigation started.
● Nevertheless, Continente maintained his decision to give a statement even
in the absence of counsel. As proof thereof, the appellant signed the
"Pagpapatunay" that contains an express waiver of his constitutional rights in
the presence of Atty. Manansala
● With respect to appellant Itaas, Atty. Corpuz testified that his legal services
were requested on two (2) occasions to act as counsel for Itaas
o he conferred with the appellant before the investigations and
explained to him his consti. rights and the consequences of waiving
such. After which, Itaas decided to sign the "Pagpapatunay", which
are entirely written in Tagalog
● Continente and Itaas likewise impugn their respective written statements.
They allege that the statements appearing therein were supplied by the CIS
investigator.
● Pablico, denied this, saying that during his investigations of the appellants,
he simultaneously typewrote his questions to the, including their answers in
Tagalog, thus leaving no room for him to fabricate an answer.
o After which, he allowed the appellants to read their respective
confessions, a fact that was admitted by Continente. Thereafter, the
appellants voluntarily affixed their signatures on every page.
● Continente appeared before QC City Prosecutor Galicano and affirmed
under oath the truth of his statements by affixing his signature on the left
hand portion of every page.
o Itaas, accompanied by Atty. Corpuz, affirmed under oath the truth
of his statements in his written confessions by affixing his signature
on every page thereof before the administering officer
● Continente claims that he was under pressure to read entirely his written
confession
o This is belied by his own admission that he was treated fairly during
the investigation
o No basis to support the claim of Itaas that he was tortured
o did not present evidence of compulsion or duress or violence on
their persons; did not institute any criminal or administrative action
against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment; no marks of
 violence on their bodies; and did not have themselves examined by
a reputable physician to buttress their claim
● Written confessions of appellants are replete with details which could be
supplied only by someone in the know so to speak. They reflect spontaneity
and coherence which psychologically cannot be associated with a mind to
which violence and torture have been applied.
o Itaas: he was an active member of the New People's Army (NPA)
and performed different functions in Davao; that he was one of the
two other members of the NPA who were sent to Manila, etc
o Continente: he had been a member of several revolutionary groups
before
o becoming a full fledged member of the Communist Party of the
Philippines under the Political Assassination Team (PAT) headed
by a certain Kit; that the objective of their team was primarily to
conduct surveillance on foreigners and diplomats
● Continente and Itaas may not validly repudiate the counsels who rendered
them legal assistance
o A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the
accused where he never raised any objection against the former's
appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused
thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the
swearing officer
● While it is admitted that Atty. Corpuz served in the military as prosecutor,
such fact is not sufficient to adjudge the said lawyer as biased against the
Itaas in the absence of any concrete evidence to that effect. The defense
also failed to adduce substantial evidence to support a finding that Atty.
Corpuz was short of being a vigilant and effective counsel for the said
appellant.
2. W/N the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Meriam Zulueta was
credible – YES
● The trial court accorded full faith and credence to her said testimony. The
defense failed to adduce any evidence to establish any improper motive. It is
well-settled rule that the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses by the trial
court is received with the highest respect because such court has the direct
opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand
3. W/N appellants conspired in the commission of the crimes – NO
● Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To prove conspiracy, the
prosecution must establish the following three (3) requisites: (1) that two or more
persons come to an agreement; (2) that the agreement concerned the
commission of a crime; and (3) that the execution of the felony was decided upon.
o “Conspirators, however, know the criminal intention because they
themselves have decided upon such course of action. Accomplices
come to know about it after the principals have reached the decision,
and only then do they agree to cooperate in its execution.” (People v de
Vera)
● Continente is liable only as an accomplice for his participation was made only
after the decision to ambush was already a fait accompli. Continente was merely
assigned to the vicinity of the JUSMAG Compound before the shooting incident
to gather certain data, specically the number of people and volume of vehicles in
the area, the measurement of the streets and reported his finding to Ka Freddie.
He was also not present at the crime scene.
● The shooting was attended by treachery (being armed with powerful firearms,
waited for the car of Col. Rowe and without any warning, appellant Itaas and his
companions suddenly red at the said car). Hence, the crime committed for the
killing of Col. James Rowe during the said ambush is murder.
● The SC notes that the wounds sustained by Vinuya, the driver, are not fatal
wounds but merely superficial wounds. The records disclose that Joaquin Vinuya
managed to drive the car of Col. Rowe toward the JUSMAG Compound, 200
meters away from the site of the ambush. He was treated for his wounds for only
four (4) days. Hence, the crime committed as against him is only attempted
murder.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, in
Criminal Cases Nos. Q-89-4843 and Q-89-4844 is hereby MODIFIED, as follows:
In Criminal Case No. Q-89-4843, appellants Juanito Itaas and Donato Continente are
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, as principal and as
accomplice, respectively. Appellant Itaas, as principal, is hereby sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. Appellant Continente as accomplice, is hereby
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum,
to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Both
appellants Itaas and Continente are ORDERED to pay jointly and severally the
amount of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim, Col. James Rowe, by way of civil
indemnity.
In Criminal Case No. Q-89-4844, appellants Juanito Itaas and Donato Continente are
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted murder, as
principal and as accomplice, respectively. Appellant Itaas, as principal, is hereby
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum,
to nine (9) years and six (6) months of prision mayor, as maximum. Appellant
Continente, as accomplice, is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six (6)
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision
correccional, as maximum.
[54] People v. Bacor
PLAINTIFF-APPELEE: People of the Philippines
ACCUSED-APPELLANT: Victor Bacor
SUMMARY:
Bacor surrendered to the police and admitted that he murdered certain Dionisio
Albores. In making his confession, he was availed the services of a PAO lawyer who
informed him of his rights to remain silent and not to answer questions that may
incriminate him. RTC and CA found him guilty for murder. In this review by the SC, it
affirmed CA’s decision and held that Bacor validly waived his right to remain silent
and therefore his confession is admissible in evidence as it satisfies all the
requirements of a valid extra-judicial confession. The Court also emphasized that
there is no need for a separate and express written waiver of Bacor’s constitutional
rights because he only executed an extrajudicial confession and was not arrested
(see doctrine)
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
1987 Philippine Constitution
“Section 12. (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. x x x
x x x x x x.” (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
DOCTRINE:
For an extrajudicial confession to be admissible in evidence, it must satisfy the
following requirements: (1) the confession must be voluntary; (2) it must be made
with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel preferably of the
confessant’s choice; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing.
XXXX
There is no need for a separate and express written waiver of his constitutional
rights because he was not arrested. By voluntarily executing his extrajudicial
confession, which he did in the presence of and with the assistance of counsel and
after having been informed of his constitutional rights, accused-appellant effectively
waived his right to remain silent.
FACTS:
1) March 17, 1991: In Barangay Senor, Municipality of Sinacaban, Misamis
Occidental, certain Dionisio Albores sustained multiple gunshot wounds while inside
his house. He was then rushed to the hospital where he evetually died.
2) June 6, 1991: Bacor approached Jesus Bernido, Chief of Intelligence Section of
Sinacaban Police Station and told the latter that he was the one responsible for the
killing of Dionisio Albores.
- In view thereof, Bernido asked appellant what prompted him to surrender
and appellant told him that it was due to his guilty conscience. Consequently, Bernido,
accompanied by SPO3 Maharlika Ydulzura, Chief Investigator of the Sinacaban
Police Station, and two (2) other police escorts brought appellant to the Public
Attorney’s Office (PAO) in Oroquieta City.
3) At the PAO premises, SPO3 Ydulzura informed PAO Atty. Meriam Anggot that
appellant wanted to make a confession of a crime he had committed.
- In her presence, appellant was asked by the policemen if he had a lawyer and
appellant replied that he had none. Bacor was also asked if he wanted to avail of
the services of the PAO and he answered in the affirmative
4) As the policemen left Atty. Anggot and appellant alone inside her office upon her
request, she then inquired if appellant was not intimidated, coerced or forced and
whether appellant was promised any reward.
- She also informed appellant that he had the right to remain silent and not to
answer questions which may incriminate him and that any statement he will make
may be used against him in the future. After being informed of such facts,
appellant still declared that he was going to confess because he had committed
a crime.
5) During the taking of appellant’s confession, in the presence and with the assistance
of PAO Atty. Anggot, SPO3 Ydulzura likewise reminded appellant that he had the
right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination and to secure the
services of a lawyer of his own choice to assist him in the taking of his confession
- Despite such reminder, appellant still agreed and accepted the appointment of
PAO Atty. Meriam Anggot as his lawyer to assist him during the taking of his
affidavit of confession.
6) In his affidavit off confession, Bacor declared therein that he shot Dionisio Albores
because the latter threatened to kill him and because he knew that Dionisio was an
exconvict who had killed somebody with treachery in the past. Subsequently, Bacor
signed his name on the affidavit.
7) Bacor then subscribed and swore to the veracity of his affidavit before Atty. Nora
Montejo-Lumasag, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Oroquieta City (TSN,
Oct. 22, 1991, pp. 24-26).
- Before signing the affidavit, Atty. Lumasag read to appellant the contents thereof
and informed him of his constitutional rights to remain silent, against self-
incrimination and to counsel of his own choice.
- Subsequently, appellant was asked if the statements in the affidavit are true and
correct and he declared that the statements therein are true and correct and that
he was willing to sign the affidavit on his own free will
8) RTC then found him guilty of murder and sentencing him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal, as maximum.
9) On appeal, the decision was affirmed with modification of the penalty. The Court of
Appeals sentenced accused-appellant to reclusion perpetua.
10) In accordance with Rule 124, §13, par. 2 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the
CA certified the case to this Court for review
ISSUE AND HELD:
1) Whether or not Bacor validly waived his right to remain silent and therefore
his confession is admissible in evidence against him? – YES
 For an extrajudicial confession to be admissible in evidence, it must satisfy
the following requirements: (1) the confession must be voluntary; (2) it
must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel
preferably of the confessant’s choice; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must
be in writing.
o 1) VOLUNTARY:
- Bacor does not deny that he surrendered to the police
on June 6, 1991, almost three months after the fatal
shooting of Dionesio Albores, and confessed to the crime
because he “could no longer bear a guilty conscience.
- In his testimony before the trial court, he admitted that
the signature on pages 1, 2, and 3 of his sworn
confession was his without any claim that he was forced,
coerced, or threatened to make the confession
o 2) ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL:
- When Bacor was asked, he said he wanted to have the
assistance of counsel. Atty. Anggot of PAO was
appointed counsel de oficio to assist him and the latter
expressly accepted her before giving his confession
 PAO lawyer can be considered an independent
counsel within the contemplation of the
Constitution considering that he is not a special
counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of
the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest
is admittedly adverse to that of the accused-
appellant
 Judging from Atty. Anggot’s testimony before the
trial court, there is no reason not to consider her
a competent and independent counsel.
o She testified that before the taking of
accused-appellant’s confession, she
requested SPO3 Ydulzura and the other
policemen to step out of the room so
that she could privately confer with the
accusedappellant, free from pressure or
intimidation
- Not only was the confession signed by accused-appellant
with the assistance of counsel, it was also sworn to by him
before the branch clerk of court who, before administering
the oath to accused-appellant, read the affidavit of
confession to him and informed him of his rights and the
consequences of his confession
o 3) EXPRESS and 4) IN WRITING: not discussed in the ratio but
evident from the facts of the case
 A confession is presumed to be voluntarily and validly made unless the
contrary is proven and that the burden of proof is upon the party who
claims the contrary.
o In this case, this presumption has not been overcome. Not
only is Bacor’s confession replete with details that only he could
have supplied, but the circumstances surrounding its execution also
belie his claim that he did not validly waive his right to remain silent
- The Court refuted Bacor’s claim that he gave the
confession without being warned of his constitutional rights
because record shows that he was advised of his rights,
particularly the right to remain silent, not only once
but thrice: 1) by Atty. Anggot; 2) by SPO3 Ydulzura; 3) by
Atty.Lumasag. They also asked him whether he was
willing to give a statement and he said he was.
- The Court also rejected his alibi that he was at his
parents’ house at the time of the killing of Dionesio Albores
because his father, Cesar Bacor, admitted, however, that
their house is just one (1) kilometer from the house of the
victim where the crime took place.
 Even if we consider accused-appellant’s defense
of alibi a retraction of his confession, the same is
of no moment. because retractions of
confessions are generally considered
unreliable and are looked upon with disfavor
 Contrary to accused-appellant’s contention, the Court also held that
there is no need for a separate and express written waiver of his
constitutional rights because he was not arrested.
o He presented himself to the authorities to confess to the crime
because, he said, he was being bothered by his conscience.
o By voluntarily executing his extrajudicial confession, which he
did in the presence of and with the assistance of counsel and
after having been informed of his constitutional rights,
accused-appellant effectively waived his right to remain silent.
2) Whether or not CA correctly sentenced Bacor to reclusion perpetua – YES
When the crime of murder was committed on March 17, 1991, the same was
punishable under Art. 248 of the Penal Code by reclusion temporal, in its maximum
period, to death. Each of the three (3) distinct penalties covered thereby forms a
period and the penalty to be imposed is determined after reasonably offsetting the
attending mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
- In the instant case, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender of
the accused-appellant is offset by the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling considering that the latter circumstance is not absorbed by the
qualifying circumstance of treachery

RULING: CA decision is AFFIRMED.

[55] People v. Quidato, Jr. ● Quidato, Jr. denied the allegations. He claimed to be the one threatened by
G.R. No. 117401 | October 1, 1998 | Romero, J. the brothers to go to his father’s house. During the commotion, he
scampered and went home. He did not call for help.
Summary: Quidato, Jr. and the Malita brothers were found guilty of killing Quidato, Sr. ● Quidato, Jr. was found guilty of parricide.
The brothers confessed to the commission of the crime, while Quidato, Jr. denied the
allegations against him, claiming that he was threatened by the brothers and was able Issues/Held/Ratio:
to escape during the commotion. However, the testimony of the brothers - an W/N accused is guilty of the crime of parricide - NO.
uncounseled extrajudicial confession without a valid waiver of the right to counsel -
was inadmissible as evidence. ● The prosecution relied heavily on the statement of the Malita brothers but
they were not presented on the witness stand to testify on their extrajudicial
Doctrine: The settled rule is that an uncounseled extrajudicial confession without a confessions, which gives the affidavits the character of hearsay.
valid waiver of the right to counsel — that is, in writing and in the presence of counsel ○ The voluntary admissions of an accused made extrajudicially are
— is inadmissible in evidence not admissible in evidence against his co-accused when the latter
had not been given an opportunity to hear him testify and cross-
Provisions: Art. III, Sec. 12 (1), 1987 Constitution: Any person under investigation examine him.
for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to ● The settled rule is that an uncounseled extrajudicial confession without
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own a valid waiver of the right to counsel — that is, in writing and in the
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with presence of counsel — is inadmissible in evidence.
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. ○ Here, the Malita brothers gave their statements to Patrolman Mara
in the absence of counsel, although they signed the same in the
Facts: presence of counsel the next day.
● Accused-appellant Bernardo Quidato, Jr. was found guilty of parricide, in ● Gina Quidato’s testimony must also be disregarded as accused has timely
conspiracy with Reynaldo Malita and Eddie Malita who were also charged in objected thereto under the marital disqualification rule. It can only be used
a separate information, for killing his father, Quidato, Sr. against the Malita brothers.
● Gina Quidato (wife of Leo Quidato, brother of Quidato, Jr.) overheard ● Given the inadmissibility in evidence of Gina Quidato's testimony, as well as
Quidato, Jr. and the Malita brothers, while drinking tuba, planning to go after of Reynaldo and Eddie's extrajudicial confessions, nothing remains on
Quidato, Sr.’s house to get money from the latter. record with which to justify a judgment unfavorable to accused-appellant.
● The Malita brothers confessed their participation in the crime, executing
affidavits how Bernardo was killed. They claim that while drinking beer, Ruling: Bernardo Quidato, Jr. is acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Quidalto, Jr. proposed that they rob and kill his father. They went to the
father’s house and brought a bolo which Reynaldo used to hack the father
on the nape and neck. They then ransacked Bernardo’s aparador looking for
money but found none.
● The body of Bernardo was discovered by Quidalto, Jr’s son the next day.
● The three were arrested by the police.
● The Malita brothers were interrogated by Patrolman Lucrecio Mara at the
Kaputian Police Station. When Mara apprised them of their constitutional
rights, including their right to counsel, they signified their intent to confess
even in the absence of counsel. Mara took down the testimony of the two but
refrained from requiring the latter to sign their affidavits. Instead, he escorted
the Malita brothers to Davao City and presented them, along with their
unsigned affidavits, to a CLAO (now PAO) lawyer, Jonathan Jocom.
● Atty. Jocom explained the contents of the affidavits, in Visayan, to the Malita
brothers, who affirmed the veracity and voluntary execution of the same.
Only then did Reynaldo and Eddie affix their signatures on the affidavits.
[56] PEOPLE v OBRERO
G.R. No. 122142 | May 17, 2000
Mendoza, J.
SUMMARY: The accused-appellant, Jimmy Obrero, is charged with the crime of
Robbery with Homicide. He was apprehended and brought to the police station where
he was provided with a lawyer who is a station commander of another police station
and was interrogated. Accused-appellant then assailed the validity of this extra-
judicial confession, and claims that Atty. De los Reyes, who assisted him in executing
his confession, was not the counsel of his own choice. The Court ruled in favor of
Obrero, rendering his confession inadmissible in evidence for lack of Miranda
warnings to the accused-appellant.
DOCTRINE: **see bold-maroon parts**
FACTS:
- Accused-appelant’s (Jimmy Obrero) extrajudicial confession was presented
in evidence for a Robbery with Homicide case against him.
- Jimmy Obrero was a delivery boy employed by Angie Cabosas whose
business was selling chickens to customers. Jimmy was asked to deliver
chickens to Emma Cabrera, a regular customer.
- In Jimmy’s extrajudicial confession, he stated that:
- The day before the robbery, his fellow employee, Ronnie Liwanag,
proposed that they rob Emma in order to be able to go to La Union
to visit his family.
- On the day of the robbery, they learned that only two helpers were
then at the residence of Emma Cabrera, thus they decided to pull
the heist.
- Ronnie covered the mouth of one Nena Berjuega to prevent her
from shouting but, as she tried to run away, Ronnie stabbed and
killed her. Ronnie then gave the knife to Jimmy who stabbed the
younger maid, Remedios Hitta, from which she died.
- Thereafter, the two proceeded to Blumentritt Street and divided the
money. From there, Ronnie went to La Union, while Jimmy
proceeded to Pangasinan.
- This extrajudicial confession is in Tagalog and signed by Jimmy in the
presence of Atty. De los Reyes, a PC Captain of the WPD Headquarters in
UN Avenue. He said that while he was at Station 7 of the WPD, representing
a client accused of illegal recruitment, he was asked by Lt. Javier of the
WPD Homicide Section to assist Jimmy Obrero in executing an extrajudicial
confession.
- According to Atty. De los Reyes, he apprised accused-appelant of his
constitutional rights, explaining to him that any statement made by him could
be used against him in court, but accused-appelant said he was willing to
give a statement.
- At the trial, Jimmy Obrero pleaded not guilty of the crime charged.
- He said that he came back from his errand and remitted the amount
of P2000 which had been paid to him.
- He also claimed that after being informed of the charges against
him, he was beaten up and detained for a week and made to
execute an extrajudicial confession.
- He denied having known or seen Atty. De los Reyes before and
stated that he did not understand the contents of the extrajudicial
confession which he signed because he did not know how to read.
- TC: Convicted Jimmy Obrero for Robbery with Homicide. Moreover, the
court held that the accused consented to giving his extrajudicial confession
and that absent any showing that the assisting lawyer, though a station
commander but of another police station, was remiss in his duty as a lawyer,
the Court will hold that the proceedings were regularly conducted.
- Accused-appellant assails the validity of this extra-judicial confession, which
forms the basis of his conviction for the crime of Robbery with Homicide, and
claims that Atty. De los Reyes, who assisted him in executing his
confession, was not the counsel of his own choice.
ISSUE w/ HOLDING:
1. W/N Jimmy Obrero’s extrajudicial confession is valid and admissible in
evidence - NO
a. There are 2 kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions under Art.
III, Sec. 12 of the Constitution:
i. Those which are the product of third degree methods such
as torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, which are
dealt with in Sec. 12 (2).
ii. Those which are given without the benefit of Miranda
warnings, under Sec. 12 (1).
b. Vitiated Consent - Extrajudicial confessions are presumed
voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing
the declarant’s consent in the executing the same has been
vitiated, such confession will be sustained.
i. There was no proof that his confession was obtained by
force and threat.
ii. He did not seek medical treatment nor even a physical
examination.
iii. The confession was voluntarily given, based from the fact
that it was signed by Obrero not once, but five times
iv. The confession contains details that only the perpetrator of
the crime could have given, details which are consistent
with the medico-legal findings.
c. Miranda Warning - What renders the confession of Jimmy
inadmissible is the fact that he was not given the Miranda
warnings effectively. There was only a perfunctory reading of
 the Miranda rights to Jimmy without any effort to find out from
him whether he wanted to have counsel and, if so, whether he
had his own counsel or he wanted the police to appoint one for
him. This kind of giving of warnings has been found to be
merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful
information to the suspect.
d. Especially in this case, care should have been scrupulously
observed by the police investigator that Jimmy was specifically
asked these questions considering he only finished the fourth grade
of the elementary school.
e. An uncounseled statement is presumed to be psychologically
coerced.
f. Following warnings must be given:
i. He must be informed of his right to remain silent;
ii. He must be warned that anything he says can and will be
used against him;
iii. He must be told that he has a right to counsel, and that if
he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
g. Moreover, the Art. III, Sec. 12 (1) Constitution requires that counsel
assisting suspects in custodial interrogations be competent
and independent. In the case at bar:
i. He cannot be considered an “independent counsel” as
contemplated by the law because he was station
commander of the WPD at the time he assisted Jimmy.
ii. As PC Captain and Station Commander of the WPD, Atty.
De los Reyes was part of the police force who could not be
expected to have effectively and scrupulously assisted
accused in the investigation.
iii. People v. Bandula - the independent counsel cannot be a
special counsel, public or private prosecutor, municipal
attorney, or counsel of the police whose interest is
admittedly adverse to the accused.
[57] PEOPLE v. LABTAN
G.R. No. 127493 December 8, 1999 | Puno, J.
PROVISIONS:
● Sec. 12, ART. III, 1987 CONST. 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.
[...] Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible against him.
SUMMARY: Accused-appellant HENRY FELICIANO (Orlando Labtan is at large;
Jonelto Labtan has eluded arrest) appeals the decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Cagayan de Oro City convicting him of highway robbery and robbery with
homicide on the basis of a sworn statement which he repudiated during the trial.
This sworn statement was executed by him with the “assistance” of lawyer Pepito A.
Chavez provided for him by the police as counsel de oficio.
DOCTRINE: The right to counsel is a fundamental right and contemplates not a
mere presence of the lawyer beside the accused. An effective counsel was
characterized as “one who can be made to act in protection of his [accused's]
rights, and not by merely going through the motions of providing him with anyone
who possesses a law degree.
FACTS:
● Accused-appellant HENRY FELICIANO (Orlando Labtan is at large; Jonelto
Labtan has eluded arrest) appeals the decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25 convicting him of highway robbery and
robbery with homicide on the basis of a sworn statement which he
repudiated during the trial.
○ 1st Information: robbery with homicide
○ 2nd Information: highway robbery
● The prosecution's case was mainly anchored on the three-page sworn
statement executed by Feliciano, originally in Visayan language, before
the Cagayan de Oro City Police station, with the assistance of lawyer Pepito
A. Chavez provided for him as counsel de oficio after saying that he
“cannot pay for the services of a lawyer.” In the statement, Feliciano
admitted the several crimes that he did with his cohorts, including the
circumstances in which they happened. [Note that there was a printed
affirmation of Miranda rights in the sworn statement]
● In addition, the prosecution presented the testimony of Ismael Ebon that
on March 28, 1993, at 10:30 p.m., while he was driving along Bugo Highway,
two (2) men boarded his jeepney. He identified the men as Henry Feliciano
and Orlando Labtan. Suddenly, Bebot Labtan pointed a double bladed knife
on the right side of his neck. Feliciano then took the steering wheel and
proceeded to Bolonsori. The two then divested him of his watch, P700.00
cash, car stereo, two (2) tweeters and one (1) booster.
○ Ebon also stated that he knew Feliciano because the latter
previously worked as driver of Roman Mercado.
● When the defense presented its case, only accused Henry Feliciano
testified for his behalf. His DEFENSE consisted of an alibi and a
repudiation of his sworn statement.
○ He did not deny Ebon's claim that they were acquainted for he
used to work as driver of Roman Mercado. However, when his
driver's license expired on January 20, 1993, he went home to
Bukidnon and only came back to Cagayan de Oro by April 20,
1993 where he stayed at the residence of his his sister Carmen.
● Then, as regards the circumstances of his arrest, Feliciano claims that he
was only forced to sign the supposed sworn statement after being
randomly picked up then brought to the police station one afternoon
when, after Carmen asked him to buy snacks at a nearby store, he heard a
shot and when he looked around, he saw a man lying on the ground.
○ “Two men in civilian clothes poked their guns at him. One of
them asked him whether he was a companion of the man lying
on the ground. He said no. The two men brought him to the police
station. The man lying on the ground was brought to the hospital.
At the police station, the two men asked him to confess
whether he was a companion of the person who was shot. He
said no. They asked him whether he was one of those who robbed
Ismael Ebon. Again, he said no. He was questioned for about an
hour during which he was hit "at the right and left breast, at the
right and left ribs, and at the left side of [his] face." Afterwards, he
was locked up in jail. In the morning of the following day, he was
investigated and mauled for two hours. Again, he was asked
whether Orlando Labtan was his companion. He insisted that he
was not Labtan's companion for he does not even know him. After
the investigation, a policeman approached him and brought a
piece of paper for him to sign. He asked whether it was possible
for him to read the contents. The policeman answered, "No need,
just sign so that we can finish it." They then started to maul him.
He was forced to sign the paper. At around 4:00 o'clock in the
afternoon of April 22, 1993, he was brought to the office of Atty.
Pepito Chavez. He was told to sit down while Atty. Chavez signed
the papers. He did not know what was happening.”
● The trial court found the sworn statement credible and convicted Feliciano.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUES w/ HOLDING:
[1] W/N the lower court erred in admitting in evidence the tainted extra-judicial
confession of the accused executed in the absence of an effective and vigilant
counsel. — YES.
● Under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, the rights of
persons under custodial investigation are provided as follows:
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. [xxx]
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible against him.
● In People v. Macam, the rationale for the guarantee was explained: “as the
result of the changes in the patterns of police investigation, today's
accused confronts both expert adversaries and the judicial system well
before his trial begins. It is therefore appropriate to extend the counsel
guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even before the trial…”
○ Thus in People v. Gamboa, it was stated that “the right to counsel
attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e. when the
investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information
and/or confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused.”
● In this case, accused-appellant Feliciano had been denied of his right to
have a competent and independent counsel when he was questioned in
the Cagayan de Oro City Police Station.
○ SPO1 Alfonso Cuarez testified that he started questioning
Feliciano at 8:00 a.m. of April 22, 1993 regarding his involvement
in the killing of jeepney driver Florentino Bolasito,
notwithstanding the fact that he had not been apprised of his
right to counsel.
○ At that point, accused-appellant had been subjected to custodial
investigation without a counsel. In Navallo v. Sandiganbayan, it
was held that a person is deemed under custodial investigation
where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry
into an unsolved crime but has began to focus on a particular
suspect who had been taken into custody by the police who carry
out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating
statements.
■ When SPO1 Cuarez investigated accused-appellant
Feliciano, the latter was already a suspect in the killing
of jeepney driver Bolasito as shown by the joint
affidavit of SPO4 Johny Salcedo and SPO1 Florencio
Bagaipo who were the ones who arrested Feliciano.
● The prosecution tried to establish that Atty. Pepito Chavez provided
effective and independent counselling to accused-appellant Feliciano
which cured the initial lack of counsel. However, this is belied by the very
testimony of Atty. Chavez showing he performed his duty in a lackadaisical
fashion:
○ That he was approached by SPO3 Cuarez in his office and
requested him to assist Henry Feliciano in the taking of his
testimony at around 3:00 pm;
○ That while he was conversing with Feliciano, Alfonso Cuarez was
there listening to them at an arm's length only;
○ That Cuarez participated in the discussion, sometimes clarifying
some answers propounded by Henry Feliciano in the course of the
investigation;
○ That the investigation only started at around 3:30 pm [at least
that’s what they thought], after Feliciano expressed willingness to
be counselled by him;
○ That he clarified many times to Feliciano if what he confessed was
the truth and the latter answered in the affirmative.
● The right to counsel is a fundamental right and contemplates not a mere
presence of the lawyer beside the accused.
○ In People v. Bacamante, the term "effective and vigilant counsel"
was explained to be one who is “present and able to advise and
assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first
question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the
extrajudicial confession. Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain
that the confession is made voluntarily and that the person under
investigation fully understands the nature and the consequence
of his extrajudicial confession in relation to his constitutional
rights.”
○ In People v. dela Cruz, an effective counsel was characterized as
“one who can be made to act in protection of his [accused's]
rights, and not by merely going through the motions of providing
him with anyone who possesses a law degree.”
● In this case, Atty. Chavez did not provide the kind of counselling
required by the 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 possible that he could be found guilty and sent to
jail.
● Atty. Chavez's independence as counsel is also suspect — he is
regularly engaged by the Cagayan de Oro City Police as counsel de
officio for suspects who cannot avail the services of counsel. He also admits
during cross-examination that he even received money from the police
as payment for his services.
 ○ In fact, People v. Deniega expounded on the constitutional
requirement that the lawyer provided be "competent and
independent," an addition to the 1987 Constitution.
○ Thus in People v. Sahagun, the constitutional requirement that a
lawyer should be independent was not complied with when a
lawyer who just happened to be following-up a case at the NBI
was asked to counsel the accused.
○ In People v. Januario, it was a lawyer who was applying for work
at the NBI.
● The fact that Atty. Chavez notarized the sworn statement also seriously
compromised his independence. By doing so, he vouched for the
regularity of the circumstances surrounding the taking of the sworn
statement by the police. He cannot serve as counsel of the accused and
the police at the same time. There was a serious conflict of interest on
his part.
● The Court examined the three-page sworn statement allegedly executed
by Feliciano and we failed to see any badge of spontaneity and
credibility to it. It shows signs of what we call stereotype advice to which we
have already called the attention of police officers.
● On the charge of robbery with homicide, the only evidence presented
by the prosecution was the sworn statement which we have found
inadmissible. Thus, we are forced to absolve accused-appellant of this
charge.
● With respect to the charge of highway robbery, the prosecution presented
the testimony of Ismael Ebon. However, Ebon failed to identify Feliciano
as the perpetrator when he reported to the police immediately after the
incident.
○ Ismael Ebon and accused-appellant Feliciano are acquainted.
There is no reason for Ebon to withhold the identity of the
perpetrator except for the fact that he was not certain of it. 29
Consequently, there is no evidence pointing to Feliciano as one of
those who held-up Ebon.

RULING: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the trial court is SET ASIDE. Accused-
appellant Henry Feliciano is ACQUITTED on both charges of robbery with homicide
and highway robbery due to lack of evidence to sustain a conviction.

DICTA:
● Court also pointed out that since April 27, 1992 when Republic Act No.
7438 25 was enacted, the constitutional rights of persons under
custodial investigation have been further operationalized. Thus, they are
disappointed that some police officers still sidestep the constitutional
mandate.
[58] People v. Samolde
G.R. No. 128551 | July 31, 2000 | Mendoza, J.
PROVISIONS:
● Art. III, Sec. 12(1) - 1987 Constitution
A suspect in custodial investigation must be given the following warnings:
(1) He must be informed of his right to remain silent;
(2) he must be warned that anything he says can and will be used against him; and
(3) he must be told that he has a right to counsel, and that if he is indigent, a lawyer
will be appointed to represent him.
SUMMARY: Accused Samolde and Andres were found guilty of murder for the killing
of one Feliciano Nepomuceno by gunshot wounds and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant Samolde claimed that he was
beaten up by the police. He testified that during his detention, he was not allowed to
be seen, lest visitors notice his swollen face. As regards his counsel, accused-
appellant stated that, contrary to what was stated in his extrajudicial confession, his
lawyer did not really assist him. He was not informed of his constitutional rights when
he executed his extrajudicial confession, and he did so only after he had been
subjected to some brutality by the police. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of
the Trial Court stating that there is sufficient evidence in the records showing
accused-appellant's guilt. Accused-appellant confessed in open court that he had
killed Feliciano Nepomuceno. It is this admission of accused-appellant which should
be considered.
DOCTRINE:
● Extrajudicial confession of the accused is not admissible in evidence.
He was not informed of his constitutional right before his statements
were taken.
● However, his open court testimony is enough to convict him. His
subsequent allegation that he was given money to accept culpability
deserves scant consideration. Judicial confession constitutes evidence
of a high order. The presumption is that no sane person would
deliberately confess to the commission of a crime unless prompted to
do so by truth and conscience.
● Further, accused went into hiding. Flight has also been held to be an
indication of guilt.
FACTS:
● On August 10, 1989, accused-appellant Ramil Samolde was charged,
together with Armando Andres, with the crime of murder. They plead not
guilty.
○ On May 13, 1989 in Taytay, Rizal the accused, (conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another,
with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, taking
advantage of superior strength) grabbed the service firearm of one
P/Cpl. Feliciano Nepomuceno y Cruz (a caliber.38 revolver with
SN-982794 Smith & Wesso) and shot him. The gunshot wounds
sustained by the victim caused his death.
● The prosecution presented six witnesses:
○ Edgardo Cabalin. neighbor of the victim and accused; testified that
Samolde and Andres asked him to lend them a tear gas gun which
they would use to get someone's firearm. After finding out that
Nepomuceno had been shot he knew that the assailant was the
accused. He explained that accused-appellant had a grudge
against Nepomuceno because when the former was in jail, the
latter beat him up for stealing a chicken.
○ Ricardo Nepomuceno. a nephew of the victim; he saw Ricardo
Nepomuceno on Naval Street being followed by Armando Andres
and accused-appellant. When Feliciano Nepomuceno turned to
Mahinhin Street, accused-appellant grabbed him from behind while
Andres, who was in front, stabbed the victim on the side with a knife.
As Feliciano Nepomuceno's gun fell, Andres picked it up and shot
the victim three times.
○ Dr. Dario L. Gajardo examined the body of Feliciano Nepomuceno.
Nepomuceno sustained 3 fatal wounds which caused his
instantaneous death. Dr. Gajardo opined that these wounds were
caused by a .38 caliber gun.
○ P/Sgt. Benjamin Calderon. Chief investigator of the Taytay police;
he was the one to whom accused-appellant and Armando Andres
gave their statements in which they admitted that they killed
Feliciano Nepomuceno. He said that the statements were given
with the assistance of Atty. Emiliano Benito.
○ P/Sgt. Romeo De Leon. Chief of the intelligence operation of the
Taytay Police Station; on June 6, 1989, he went to Bustos to arrest
accused Ramil Samolde. Upon arriving in the town, he and his
companions found that accused-appellant Samolde was in jail for
stealing a television set. During the six-hour trip to Taytay, they
questioned accused-appellant regarding the whereabouts of Andres
and the gun taken from Nepomuceno. Sgt. De Leon denied
having used violence against Samolde
Accused Andres was found in Barrio Surbic, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. He asked Andres
for the gun used in killing Feliciano Nepomuceno, and Andres said it was in Antipolo.
It was admitted that no counsel assisted Andres when he was interrogated. Sgt.
De Leon denied using force against Andres during the twelve-hour trip from
Narvacan to Taytay.
○ Arsenia Nepomuceno. (mostly details about the civil indemnity)
● Samolde Testimony:
○ Samolde testified that the victim, Feliciano Nepomuceno, was his
neighbor in Taytay. He admitted harboring ill will and much
bitterness towards the latter because he was an abusive policeman.
○ He was walking towards the market when he met Feliciano
Nepomuceno. Nepomuceno pointed a gun at him and called him a
thief. Samolde said he parried the gun and stabbed Nepomuceno
with a carver, hitting the latter on the left side. When the gun fell to
the ground, Samolde picked it up and shot Nepomuceno.
○ He went to his brother’s house in Plaridel, Bulacan, where he
stayed until he was arrested. He was detained in Bustos for two
weeks, then transferred to the Taytay jail where he claimed he was
beaten up by the police. He testified that during his detention,
he was not allowed to be seen, lest visitors notice his swollen
face.
○ Samolde testified that the police wanted to know who helped him
kill Nepomuceno. He gave a statement implicating Andres because
of a grudge which he bore against the latter.
○ As regards his counsel, accused-appellant stated that,
contrary to what was stated in his extrajudicial confession, his
lawyer did not really assist him. He was not informed of his
constitutional rights when he executed his extrajudicial
confession, and he did so only after he had been subjected to
some brutality by the police.
● Andres Testimony
○ Andres explained that he knew accused-appellant because the
latter used to ride on his tricycle, but he denied that he and
accused-appellant were close friends. He likewise denied being
acquainted with the victim Nepomuceno, reiterating that he only
knew the latter by face. He denied shooting Nepomuceno. He
also disclaimed going to the house of a certain Leandro Nalo in
Antipolo, Rizal and denied burying Nepomuceno's .38 caliber
revolver.
○ Andres also claimed he was beaten up by a policeman at the
Taytay jail; that the sworn statement he gave had been prepared by
the police; that he was not given any opportunity to read it before
he signed it; and that he did so because he was subjected to torture
and intimidation by the police. He said he could not remember
whether he had a lawyer when he gave his sworn statement.
● Trial Court: Ramil Samolde y Tambunting and Armando Andres y Mendoza
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, and they are
hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
● Only Ramil Samolde appealed. He contends that:
1. The Court erred in finding there is complicity by circumstantial evidence; and
2. Accused-Appellant was given P10,000.00 by Armando Andres to confess to the
murder
ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIONALE:
1. Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the accused-appellant
admissible in evidence. -
NO. The extrajudicial confession of accused-appellant is not admissible in
evidence, he was not informed of his constitutional rights before his statement
was taken. The accused-appellant was not properly apprised of his constitutional
rights. Under Art. III, Sec.12(1) of the Constitution, a suspect in custodial investigation
must be given the following warnings:
"(1) He must be informed of his right to remain silent;
(2) he must be warned that anything he says can and will be used against him; and
(3) he must be told that he has a right to counsel, and that if he is indigent, a lawyer
will be appointed to represent him."
As the portion of the extrajudicial confession shows, accused-appellant was given no
more than perfunctory recitation of his rights, signifying nothing more than a feigned
compliance with the constitutional requirements. This manner of giving warnings has
been held to be "merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful
information to the suspect." For this reason, the Court held that the accused-
appellant's extrajudicial confession is invalid.
The validity of his extrajudicial confession aside, there is sufficient evidence in the
records showing accused-appellant's guilt. Accused-appellant confessed in open
court that he had killed Feliciano Nepomuceno. It is this admission of accused-
appellant which should be considered. The Court held that a judicial confession
constitutes evidence of a high order. The presumption is that no sane person
would deliberately confess to the commission of a crime unless prompted to do
so by truth and conscience. Indeed, it is hard to believe that a person, of whatever
economic status, would confess to a crime that he did not commit for monetary
considerations and thus barter away his liberty, and for that matter, even his life, for a
mess of potage, for that is what the mere sum of P10,000.00 allegedly paid to him to
make the confession means.
Another circumstance to be taken against accused-appellant was his flight after the
commission of the crime. Accused-appellant was arrested in Bulacan. Apparently, he
went into hiding in Bulacan to avoid arrest. In a similar case, it was held that the fact
that the accused disappeared shortly after the commission of the crime and could not
be found in their respective residences such that an alias warrant had to be issued for
their arrest were strong indications that they committed the crime. Flight has been
held to be an indication of guilt
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Antipolo, Rizal is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that, in addition to the award of P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity, accused-appellant is ordered to pay to the heirs of the victim Feliciano
Nepomuceno the amount of P23,800.00 as actual damages for the expenses incurred
by them as a result of the victim's death. The decision of the trial court is final as to
Armando Andres who did not appeal therefrom.

SO ORDERED.
[59] PEOPLE v. GALLARDO investigator neither read nor allowed them to read the contents. They merely
G.R. No. 113684 | January 25, 2000 signed.
Topic: Counsel of choice during custodial investigation
ISSUES AND RATIO:
PROVISION: Constitution, Sec. 12(1). Any person under investigation for the WON the extra-judicial confessions are admissible. YES.
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 confessions were given after they were completely and clearly apprised of their
the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. Constitutional rights.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. a. They were assisted by a lawyer, and a judge administered their oath
b. Although Atty. Velasco was provided by the State and not by the accused
SUMMARY: The accused were held guilty for the murder of Orizal. They questioned themselves, the accused were given an opportunity whether to accept or not to
the admissibility of the extra-judicial confessions made by them given that they were accept him as their lawyer
not afforded their constitutional rights. The Court held that the statements are c. There is no requirement in the Constitution that the lawyer of an accused during
admissible since they were assisted by a lawyer and they were informed of their custodial investigation be previously known to him.
constitutional rights. (Constitution merely provides that the counsel must be competent and independent)
d. Presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything
DOCTRINE: While the initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a person under which might incriminate him but, rather, it
custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest
police investigators, the accused really has the final choice as he may reject the coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false
counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. A lawyer provided by the (Counsel, however, should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily
investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any telling the truth)
objection against the former’s appointment during the course of the investigation and
the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
officer. AFFIRMED in toto. However, the award of moral damages
is reduced to P50,000.00.
FACTS:
 Police investigation on the death of Edmundo Orizal identified the suspects
as the accused
 Accused were hired by Congressman Tuzon to kill Orizal because
Orizal was allegedly planning to ambush Tuzon and grab his land.
Orizal is a strong campaigner and bodyguard of retired Gen. Olivas,
who was running as mayor against Tuzon’s wife.
 They received info that the accused were detained at the Camanlaniugan
Police Station for other criminal charges so they were fetched by members
of the Tuguegaro Police Department to be investigated.
 Upon arriving at the Tuguegaro Police Station:
 They were apprised of their Constitutional rights
 Dialect used during the investigation was Ilokano (their mother tongue)
 They were assisted by Atty. Velasco
 Judge Pauig was present, who administered the oath
 In the investigation, the accused gave statements admitting the crime
 Defense: They were fetched by the officers in the jail where they were
detained and the investigators took their statements without informing them
of their constitutional rights and after the statements were typewritten, the
[60] People v Canoy, et al.
G.R. Nos. 122510-11, March 17, 2000, Davide C.J.
Part One - Arrest. II. Custodial Investigation. C. Specific Requirements in case
law 3. Compliance with requirement to inform person detained of rights.
SUMMARY:
Heracleo, Gregorio and two others were indicted in two separate informations for
stabbing Gabuyan and Duay. Heracleo and Gregorio surrendered to Jeremias of the
PNP to clear their conscience. They pointed to Patrolman Romarate as the
mastermind of the crime who was likewise indicted in an amended information. After
they were apprised of their constitutional rights by Rodel of the ACTF, they told him
they did not need the assistance of a lawyer and were willing to give a statement.
Nevertheless, Rodel called for Atty. Tanjili from the PAO to assist in signing the sworn
statement waiving the right to counsel and remain silent. Afterwards, they executed
an extra-judicial confession in the presence of Fiscal Garcia. The Trial Court found
them both guilty for Murder. Only Gregorio appealed. Our relevant issue is whether or
not the waiver for the right to counsel and to remain silent valid? The Court held no
and Gregorio’s constitutional rights were violated. The extra-judicial confession is
inadmissible. He claims that the sworn statement was in English and not translated
into the Visayan-Cebuano Dialect, there was no proof that he, then only 18 years old
and a 4th grader, clearly understood the import and consequences of the waiver
which was “couched in broad and general terms”, etc. [See Doctrine below for the
brief ratio]. He was not asked if he wanted to avail of his right to counsel and was not
told that if he could not provide one of his own choice, he could avail of the one that
would be appointed to him. Nevertheless, even though the extra-judicial confession
against him is inadmissible, there is still sufficient evidence to convict him for murder.
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
● Const. SECTION 12. (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.
● RA 7438 Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial
Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. –
(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be
assisted by counsel.
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who
arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall
inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own
choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of
his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by
the investigating officer.
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating
officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person
arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and
adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by
the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained
person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect
whatsoever.
DOCTRINE:
The right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel contemplates the
transmission of meaningful information.
● Repeating the provisions of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Const. is not
enough.
● He must also explain the effects of such provision in practical terms and in a
language the subject fairly understands.
● The degree of explanation required will necessarily vary and depend on the
education, intelligence, and other relevant personal circumstances of the
person undergoing investigation.
FACTS: (if you have the time.. I expounded on witness testimony a bit)
● Heracleo Manriquez, Gregorio Canoy and two others were indicted in two
separate Informations for stabbing to death Ernesto Gabuyan and Ferdinand
Duay on 12 Jan 1990.
● Patrolman Paulino Romarate was indicted later in an amended Information.
● There were multiple witnesses that saw the murder.
● Emma Bangot, a waitress of the Kasiyahan pub house knew the victims
Gabuyan and Duay as members of the Metrodiscom Anti-Narcotics Unit
(MANU) since they usually post themselves to observe persons buying
illegal drugs. Past 9:00 pm of 12 Jan, she saw Pat. Romarate handcuffing
Gabuyan and Duay then dragging them towards a vehicle.
● Ramon de Asis saw a dead body surrounded by four persons. Romarate told
him that “we killed him ‘Nong because he is a sparrow”.
● Rolando Latayada, a MANU agent and lookout for the victims corroborated
Emma’s testimony on the two’s apprehension by the suspects.
● On 15 Jan, Dr. Jose Ladrido, Jr., a medico-legal officer conducted an
autopsy and found rope marks on the wrists of the victims and multiple stab
wounds causing their deaths.
● On 17 January, Jeremias Baguhin of the PNP while patrolling with two
others, were told that Heracleo and Gregorio wanted to surrender because
their conscience was bothering them. They both told him that Romarate was
the mastermind.
 ● Baguhin brought the two to the Anti-Crime Office for investigation. Romarate
was brought in later in the afternoon. Heracleo and Gregorio once again
identified him.
● Rodel Calo of the Anti-Crime Task Force of PNP Davao apprised the
Heracleo and Gregorio of their constitutional rights. They told him they didn’t
need a lawyer and were willing to give a statement.
● Nevertheless, Calo called Atty. Rideway Tanjili, Assistant Regional Attorney
of PAO to assist in signing a sworn statement waiving their rights to counsel
and to remain silent.
● On 19 February, Gregorio and Heracleo executed an extra-judicial
confession.
● Gregorio testified that as Heracleo was buying Pidol (a drug), he was
arrested by Gabuyan. Romarate with a drawn gun approached Gabuyan,
told him to release Heracleo, and handcuffed him. Thereafter, Romarate
arrested Duay.
● Gregorio watched Romarate and the others tie the hands of Duay and
Gabuyan with wire and gag their mouths with handkerchiefs. Meanwhile,
Heracleo went out to play basketball.
● Gregorio testified that at 10:00 pm, Gabuyan and Duay were brought 15m
from the river and repeatedly stabbed by Romarate and the others.
● Heracleo mostly corroborated the testimony of Gregorio and asserted that he
had no hand in killing the two.
● The trial court upheld the validity of the waiver. They were convicted with
murder with the aggravating circumstance of treachery and abuse of
superior strength evidenced by the tying of hands, gagging of mouth and use
of a gun and knives.
● Only Gregorio appealed to the CA who referred the case to the SC.
ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO:
[1] W/N the waiver executed by Gregorio is valid - NO, the waiver of Gregorio is
intrinsically flawed and thereby null and void.
● Repeating the provisions of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Const. is not
enough.
● He must also explain the effects of such provision in practical terms and in a
language the subject fairly understands.
● The degree of explanation required will necessarily vary and depend on the
education, intelligence, and other relevant personal circumstances of the
person undergoing investigation.
● Herein, Gregorio claims that:
(1) the sworn statement was written in English and there was no translation provided
into the Visayan-Cebuano dialect, a language spoken and understood by him;
(2) there was no proof that he, then only 18 years old and a 4th grader, clearly
understood the import and consequences of the waiver which was “couched in broad
and general terms”;
(3) the sworn statement related only to his alleged disinterest to be represented by a
counsel but it did not signify an agreement to make a confession of the crime with
which he was charged;
(4) he executed the sworn statement not knowing that an extrajudicial confession was
attached thereto and;
(5) the presence of his mother during the signing of the waiver did not guarantee that
the same was done voluntarily and intelligently.
● The waiver shows over the signature of Atty. Tanjili “Declared assisted by
counsel”.
● No meaningful information as to his rights under custodial investigation was
explained to Gregorio. He was not asked if he wanted to avail of counsel or
that he could avail of one appointed to him. Furthermore, there was no
showing in the waiver that he explicitly waived the right to counsel nor that
he agreed to be assisted by Atty. Tanjili. He only agreed that he recognized
that he had a right to counsel.
● Moreover, there was a showing that they only agreed to execute their
extrajudicial confession upon the condition of being turned into a state
witness.
● Finally, the extra-judicial confession was not yet prepared when Atty. Tanjili
was approached to assist Gregorio.
[2] W/N Gregorio is guilt of murder - yes, nothwithstanding the nullity of the
extrajudicial confession, the evidence on hand remains decisive to convict him of the
crime alleged. (i’ll summarize this part)
● There is conspiracy because there is a showing they acted in concert from
buying Pidol, to taking of the captives, to bringing to Heracleo’s house, to
acting as lookouts, and watching as their companions beat and ultimately
stabbing the victims.
● There is treachery when the victims were hogtied and gagged.
● Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated. Gregorio only surrendered to
clear his name in connection with the unlawful death of his co-conspirator
Corsonado.
● Gregorio is entitled to the benefit of the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority. He was only 17 years old at the time.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of 27 April 1995 of Branch 16, Regional Trial
Court of Davao City, in Criminal Case No. 19,615-90 and Criminal Case No. 19,616-
90, finding accused-appellant GREGORIO CANOY guilty in each case beyond
reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of murder defined and penalized under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification
that the penalty imposed in each case is reduced from reclusion perpetua to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor
minimum, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion
temporal minimum, as maximum.