PEOPLE V LAUGA

FACTS:
- Herein appellant was accused and convicted of the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE
allegedly committed. The decision was founded upon the testimonies of some
witnesses and the victim and the appellant’s alleged confession with a bantay
bayan member Moises Boy Banting
- Upon appeal, the appellant contested the admissibility of his alleged confession
to Banting he argues that even if he, indeed, confessed to Banting, the
confession was inadmissible in evidence because he was not assisted by a
lawyer and there was no valid waiver of such requirement.

So let us review whether the proper procedures in custodial investigation was

observed:
1. In the custody of competent authorities. No more General Inquiry, investigation
focuses on one particular suspect

But first it is It is proper to resolve first whether or not a "bantay bayan" may be deemed
a law enforcement officer within the contemplation of Article III, Section 12 of the
Constitution.
Executive Order No. 309: a Peace and Order Committee in each barangay shall be
organized "to serve as implementing arm of the City/Municipal Peace and Order Council
at the Barangay level."61 The composition of the Committee includes, among others: (1)
the Punong Barangay as Chairman; (2) the Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan; (3)
a Member of the Lupon Tagapamayapa; (4) a Barangay Tanod; and (5) at least three
(3) Members of existing Barangay-Based Anti-Crime or neighborhood Watch Groups or
a Non Government Organization Representative well-known in his community.62
This Court is, therefore, convinced that barangay-based volunteer organizations in the
nature of watch groups, as in the case of the "bantay bayan," are recognized by the
local government unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and
order at the barangay level.
Therefore there is no question on the authority of Banting to conduct a custodial
investigation, therefore the inquiry he made has the color of a state-related function and
objective
2. inform the suspect of his constitutional rights under section 12 (miranda
rights)
It appears that Banting did not
3. Admissibility of the extrajudicial confession
The supreme court held that the extrajudicial confession of appellant, which was taken
without a counsel, inadmissible in evidence.