16) G.R. No.

L-56450 July 25, 1983

RODOLFO T. GANZON and GREGORIO L. LIRA, in his capacity as Ex-Oficio Provincial Sheriff of
Iloilo, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE SANCHO Y. INSERTO, Presiding Judge, Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo,
RANDOLPH C. TAJANLANGIT and ESTEBAN C. TAJANLANGIT, respondents.

FACTS:

On August 28, 1979, petitioner Rodolfo Ganzon initiated proceedings to extra-judicially foreclose a real
estate mortgage executed by the private respondents in his favor. The Deed of Real Estate Mortgage
executed on March 19, 1979 (Annex "A", Petition) between Randolph Tajanlangit and Esteban
Tajanlangit as mortgagors on one hand and Rodolfo Ganzon as mortgagee on the other hand was to
secure the payment by the Tajanlangits of a promissory note amounting to P40,000.00 in favor of
Ganzon,

ISSUE:

whether or not the trial court may order the cancellation of a mortgage lien annotated in a Torrens
Certificate of Title to secure the payment of a promissory note and substitute such mortgage lien with a
surety bond approved by the same court to secure the payment of the promissory note

RULING:

the questioned orders violate the non-impairment of contracts clause guaranteed under the
Constitution. Substitution of the mortgage with a surety bond to secure the payment of the P40,000.00
note would in effect change the terms and conditions of the mortgage contract. Even before trial on the
very issues affecting the contract, the respondent court has directed a deviation from its terms,
diminished its efficiency, and dispensed with a primary condition.

17) G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
HON. JUDGE RUBEN AYSON, Presiding over Branch 6, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Baguio
City, and FELIPE RAMOS, respondents.

FACTS:

Felipe Ramos, a ticker freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines (PAL), was charged with estafa for
irregularities in the sale of plane tickets. Respondent Judge admitted all evidentiary and testamentary
evidence offered against Ramos except for the latter’s handwritten note expressing his willingness to
settle the irregularities alleged against him as well as his statement during an administrative
investigation as where he admitted to the offense.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent Judge is correct in not admitting the note and statement in evidence.

RULING:

No. Felipe Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation prior to and during the
administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in ticket sales in which he appeared to have a
hand. The constitutional rights of a person under custodial interrogation under sec.20 of Art. IV of the
1973 Constitution did not therefore come into play. He had voluntarily answered the questions posed to
him on the first day of the administrative investigation and agreed that the proceedings should be
recorded. The note that he sent to his superiors offering to compromise his liability in the alleged
irregularities, was a free and spontaneous act on his own.

18) G.R. Nos. 118866-68 September 17, 1997

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
RODOLFO DE LA CRUZ, alias RODOLFO DOMINGO or "OMPONG," accused-appellant.

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Rodolfo de la Cruz, alias Rodolfo Domingo or "Ompong," consistent with his negative

pleas when arraigned on November 5, 1992 and January 11, 1993, 1 impugns his conviction for multiple
murder. He anchors his entreaty for the reversal thereof mainly on the ground that he was not fully and
appropriately apprised of or allowed to exercise his constitutional rights prior to and while undergoing
custodial investigation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated?

RULING:

An accused person must be informed of the rights set out in said paragraph of Section 12 upon being
held as a suspect and made to undergo custodial investigation by the police authorities. 9 As explained by
this Court in People vs. Marra,10 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. And, the rule begins to operate at once as soon as the investigation
ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and direction is then aimed upon a particular
suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then direct interrogatory
question which tend to elicit incriminating statements.

Furthermore, not only does the fundamental law impose, as a requisite function of the investigating
officer, the duty to explain those rights to the accused but also that there must correspondingly be a
meaningful communication to and understanding thereof by the accused. A mere perfunctory reading
by the constable of such rights to the accused would thus not suffice.

The defendant in the dock must be made to understand comprehensively, in the language or dialect that
he knows, the full extent of the same. A confession made in an atmosphere characterized by deficiencies
in informing the accused of all the rights to which he is entitled would be rendered valueless and
inadmissible, perforated, as it is by non-compliance with the procedural and substantive safeguards to
which an accused is entitled under the Bill of Rights and as now further implemented and ramified by
statutory law

19) G.R. No. 102786 August 14, 1998

ALEJANDRO B. DE LA TORRE, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents

FACTS:

In the afternoon of April 18, 1989, Alexander Manalo, an electrical engineer of MERALCO assigned to
inspect six electric meters installed in the premises of the Cathay Pacific Steel and Smelting Corporation
(CAPASSCO) on De la Cruz Street in San Bartolome, Novaliches, Quezon City, discovered that the said
electric meters were missing. He reported the loss to the MERALCO office in Ortigas Avenue, Pasig City.
On April 20,1989, Manalo and Felino Olegario, also of MERALCO, gave statements to the Northern Police
District at Camp Karingal, Sikatuna Village, Quezon City regarding the loss of the electric meters. They
suspected that CAPASSCO employees must have damaged the electric meters while tampering with
them and that to conceal the attempt, the employees must have removed the electric meters. They
expressed suspicion that MERALCO personnel were involved.

Patrolman Edgar Enopia, who was assigned to the case, proceeded to the scene of the crime and
inquired from people he saw there if they had seen the electric meters being taken down from the post
near the gate of CAPASSCO. According to Enopia, one of those he asked, Danilo Garcia, said he had seen
at about 10:00 p.m. on April 11, 1989 four crewmembers in a MERALCO service truck, with the number
522 painted on its side, removing the electric meters. Acting on this lead, Enopia asked MERALCO for the
identities of the men, one of whom turned out to be petitioner de la Torre. It appears that MERALCO
service truck number 522 had specific crewmembers assigned to it.

On July 4, 1989, the crewmembers were taken to the NPD headquarters for investigation. They were
included in a line-up of eight (8) persons. Garcia pointed to petitioner de la Torre as the leader of the
group which took down the electric meters from the CAPASSCO premises, but he did not recognize the
three (3) other crewmembers

The RTC Judge relying heavily on the testimony of Garcia, found petitioner de la Torre guilty of Qualified
Theft 

Petitioner de la Torre appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending first, that his constitutional rights were
violated during the custodial investigation conducted in the case;

ISSUE:

Whether or not Petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated?

RULING:

No. In Gamboa v. Cruz, 4 this Court ruled that "no custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be
in the presence of counsel, engaged by the person arrested, or by any person in his behalf, or appointed
by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself, or by anyone in his behalf, and that, while the
right may be waived, the waiver shall not be valid unless made in writing and in the presence of
counsel." 5 However, this applies only from the moment the investigating officer begins to ask questions
for the purpose of eliciting admissions, confessions, or any information from the accused. A police line-
up is not considered part of any custodial inquest because it is conducted before that stage is reached. 6

In the instant case, petitioner de la Torre, together with the other crewmembers of MERALCO truck
number 522, was merely included in a line-up of eight (8) persons from which he was picked out by
Garcia as the leader of the group which had removed the electric meters from the CAPASSCO premises.
Until then, the police investigation did not focus on petitioner. Indeed, no questions were put to him.
Rather, the questions were directed to witnesses of the complainant. There is, therefore, no basis for
petitioner's allegations that his rights as a suspect in a custodial interrogation were violated.

20) G.R. No. 140740            April 12, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
JUANITO BALOLOY, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING:

21) G.R. No. 127755 April 14, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO y PASCUAL, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING:

22) G.R. No. 135562 November 22, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
BENITO BRAVO, accused-appellant.
FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING:

23) G.R. No. 149560             June 10, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
QUIRICO DAGPIN y ESMADE, appellant.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING:

24) G.R. Nos. 138934-35            January 16, 2002

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ANTHONY ESCORDIAL, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING:

25) G.R. No. 122485 February 1, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LARRY MAHINAY Y AMPARADO, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING:
26) Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

FACTS:

Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by
the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted
in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury.
Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on
each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not
violated in obtaining the confession.

ISSUE:

Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation”
are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether “procedures which assure that the individual is
accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to
incriminate himself” are necessary.

RULING:

27) G.R. No. L-59378 February 11, 1986

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
NELIA NICANDRO y VELARMA, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING:

28) G.R. No. L-65189 May 28, 1986

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
JOSE O. DUHAN, MANUEL RECLA and ROGER REYES, accused-appellants.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING:
29) G.R. No. L-59318 May 16, 1983

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROGELIO RAMOS y GAERLAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING:

30) G.R. No. L-60025 September 11, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
VIRGINIA MATOS-VIDUYA y GALPA, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING: