You are on page 1of 28

ARTICLE III SECTION 12

SECTION 12
MIRANDA DOCTRINE
MIRANDA v ARIZONA
384 US 436
The person in custody must be informed in the outset in clear and
unequivocal terms that he has a right to remain silent.
After being so informed he must be told that anything he says can
and will be used against him in court.
He must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a
lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation. He
does not have to ask for a lawyer. The investigators should tell him
that he has the right to counsel at that point.
He should be warned that not only has he the right to consult with a
lawyer but also that if he is an indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to
represent him.
If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or
during questioning that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation
must cease. Even if the person consents to answer questions
without the assistance of counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer
at any point in the investigation, the interrogation must cease until
an attorney is present.
If the foregoing protections and warnings are not demonstrated
during the trial to have been observed by the prosecution, no
evidence obtained as a result of the interrogation can be used
against him.
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MIRANDA DOCTRINE
People v. Ma!"a#
$R 12248%
ahinay was convicted of raping and killing a !"#yr old girl. He
claims that his e$tra%udicial confession was e$ecuted in violation of
his constitutional right to counsel.
HELD&
His contention is belied by the records as well as the testimony of
the lawyer who assisted, warned and e$plained to him his
constitutionally guaranteed pre#interrogatory and custodial rights.
The &ourt lays down the procedure, guidelines and duties which the
arresting, detaining, inviting, or investigating officer or his
companions must do and observe at the time of making an arrest
and again at and during the time of the custodial interrogation '( in
accordance with the &onstitution, %urisprudence and )epublic Act
*o. +',-. '! It is high#time to educate our law#enforcement
agencies who neglect either by ignorance or indifference the so#
called iranda rights which had become insufficient and which the
&ourt must update in the light of new legal developments.
!. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial
investigation must be informed in a language known to and
understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be
shown the warrant of arrest, if any/ Every other warnings,
information or communication must be in a language known to and
understood by said person/
". He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and
that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him/
,. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at
all times and have the presence of an independent and competent
lawyer, preferably of his own choice/
'. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot
afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him/ and that
a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may
be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or
one acting in his behalf/
0. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he
must be informed that no custodial investigation in any form shall be
conducted e$cept in the presence of his counsel or after a valid
waiver has been made/
1. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he
has the right to communicate or confer by the most e$pedient
means 2 telephone, radio, letter or messenger 2 with his lawyer
3either retained or appointed4, any member of his immediate family,
or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any
one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited
by5confer with duly accredited national or international non#
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
government organi6ation. It shall be the responsibility of the officer
to ensure that this is accomplished/
+. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of
said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently
and ensure that he understood the same/
-. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a
lawyer, he must be informed that it must be done in writing A*7 in
the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the
waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak/
8. That the person arrested must be informed that he may
indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that he
does not wish to be questioned with warning that once he makes
such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the same had
not yet commenced, or the interrogation must cease if it has already
begun/
!(. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver
of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights
does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the process,
regardless of whether he may have answered some questions or
volunteered some statements/
!!. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence,
as the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing,
whether inculpatory or e$culpatory, in whole or in part, shall be
inadmissible in evidence.
9E*E)A: 7;&T)I*E
People v. Ol!va'e(
$R ))86%
Accused was convicted of parricide. He assails the admissibility of
the e$tra%udicial confession.
HELD&
<nder the &onstitution, any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right, among others, to
have a counsel, which right can be validly waived. In this case, the
said confession was obtained during custodial investigation but the
confessant was not assisted by counsel. His manifestation to the
investigating officer that he did not need the assistance of counsel
does not constitute a valid waiver of his right within the
contemplation of our criminal %ustice system.
<nder the present laws, a confession to be admissible must
be. !.4 e$press and categorical/ ".4given voluntarily, and
intelligently where the accused reali6es the legal significance of his
act/ ,.4 with assistance of competent and independent counsel/ '.4
in writing/ and in the language known to and understood by the
confessant/ and 0.4 signed, or if the confessant does not know how
to read and write, thumbmarked by him.
In this case, the absence of the third requisite above makes
the confession inadmissible. The purpose of providing counsel to a
person under custodial investigation is to curb the uncivili6ed
practice of e$tracting confession even by the slightest coercion as
would lead the accused to admit something false. =hat is sought to
be avoided is the >evil of e$torting from the very mouth of the person
undergoing interrogation for the commission of an offense, the very
evidence with which to prosecute and thereafter convict him.> These
constitutional guarantees have been made available to protect him
from the inherently coercive psychological, if not physical,
atmosphere of such investigation. In any case, said e$tra%udicial
confession of one accused may not be utili6ed against a co#accused
unless they are repeated in open court or when there is an
opportunity to cross#e$amine the other on his e$tra%udicial
statements. It is considered hearsay as against said accused under
the rule on res inter alios acta rule, which ordains that the rights of a
party cannot be pre%udiced by an act, declaration, or omission of
another.
People v*. Mo"+!e''o
246 SCRA )86
Imelda <mali was found dead, after being raped, and her %ewelry
and money stolen. Accused ontierro had a pending case of
robbery, and he was invited to the police station for questioning.
They denied the crime. In the afternoon, he was again requested to
come for questioning, but he refused. The ne$t day, he admitted
verbally to the chief of police that he had committed the crime. He
later signed an e$tra%udicial confession in the presence of counsel.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
Hel,&
The e$tra%udicial confession was not violative of the constitutional
guarantee. The purpose of such guarantee is to prevent the use of
coercion in e$tracting a confession from a sub%ect. Any form of
coercion, whether physical, mental or emotional taints the
confession, and makes it inadmissible. ontierro?s confession is
free from duress, and was obtained with the assistance of counsel,
who e$plained the contents of the statement and apprised ontierro
of his rights.
E@T)AA<7I&IA: A7IBBI;* C. E@T)AA<7I&IA: &;*DEBBI;*
People V. Ma-.e,a
242 SCRA %6%
Accused aqueda, alig and Balvamante 3the latter are at large4
were charged in the )T& for robbery w5 homicide E serious physical
in%uries and sentenced to reclusion perpetua plus damages. The
Fritish homeowner Farker and his Dilipino wife were robbed and
badly in%ured in their Fenguet home. Their " maids were in%ured as
well.
HELD&
The Bupreme &ourt made a distinction between e$tra#%udicial
confession and e$tra#%udicial admission## the former admitting guilt
the latter, no such acknowledgment of guilt or criminal intent. The
statement, in this case, is an e$tra#%udicial admission only. The right
to counsel and the right to remain silent or the right against self#
incrimination are not confined to a period of filing a criminal
complaint or information, but are available at the stage when a
person is under investigation for a commission of an offense. It is
available any time before arraignment whenever he is investigated
for the commission of an offense.
MORALES DOCTRINE
People v. Ca'.llo
28/ SCRA 481
&arullo and Taule was convicted of robbery with homicide. They
broke into &arolina beauty parlor, took valuables and money, raped
&arolina &oronel and killed her. They both e$ecuted e$tra#%udicial
confessions. They now claim that those should not be admitted as
evidence.
HELD&
It is not denied that the confessions were made without the
assistance of counsel. The investigating officer testified that after
being advised of their constitutional rights, they had waived the
assistance of a counsel and the waivers were made without
counsel. The court has held as early as APRIL 260 1/83 in the case
of Morales v. Enrile that the assistance of counsel was needed in
order to waive the right to counsel in custodial interrogations. The
confessions were therefore inadmissible.
PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
MA$TOTO v MAN$UERA
63 SCRA 4
HELD&
The right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel
under the !8+, &onstitution applies prospectively. &onfession
obtained from a person under investigation for the commission of an
offense, who has not been informed of his rights, is inadmissible if
the same has been obtained after the effectivity of the !8+,
&onstitution 3!+ Aanuary !8+,4. &onversely, such confession is
admissible even if obtained prior to but presented after the
effectivity.
1 INVITATION2
People v. Ta"
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
Accused was convicted of highway robbery with murder.
HELD&
)A +',-. custodial investigation shall include the practice of issuing
an GinvitationH to a person who is investigated in connection with an
offense he is suspected to have committed. His right are
impregnable from the moment he is investigated in connection with
an offense, even if the same be initiated by invitation.
RI$HT TO 3E IN4ORMED O4 ONE5S RI$HTS
PEOPLE v PINLAC
16% SCRA 6)%
Accused was made to sign an e$tra#%udicial confession regarding
the crimes of robbery and robbery with homicide.

Held.
Acquitted. The right of the accused to be informed of his rights
contemplates the transmission of meaningful information, and not
%ust a mere ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract
constitutional principle.
The aforementioned documents are inadmissible as evidence
because they are declarations or admissions of guilt of the crime
charged. They were obtained in violation of the accused?s right to
counsel during custodial investigation. That he waived such right is
immaterial in this case because such was not done in writing and in
the presence of counsel.
People v*. I*la 2)8 SCRA 4)
Dacts. Accused charged with kidnapping a 1#year#old kid. Included
in the prosecution?s evidence was the e$tra%udicial confession
allegedly e$ecuted w5 the assistance of &:A; 3&iti6en?s :egal
Assistance ;ffice4.
Issue. =5* the confession is admissible.
Held.
!4 The violations were that preliminary questioning was not
reduced to writing, no assistance of counsel and she was not
informed of her rights. As long as there was detention, the rights of
an individual are protected by Bec !". It was only after investigation
that &:A; entered the picture.
PEOPLE v. 3OLANOS
211 SCRA 262
The accused was arrested for murder and brought to the police
station on board a %eep. ;n the way, the arresting officers asked
him if he killed the victim. The accused confessed. The admission
was presented as evidence against him.
HELD& Bince the accused was already under custodial
investigation, the confession is inadmissible as evidence for he was
not informed of his constitutional rights.
People v. M.le+a
The right to be informed of one?s constitutional rights during
custodial investigation means effective communication between the
investigative officer and suspected individual with the purpose of
making the latter understand these rights. <nderstanding would
mean that the information transmitted was effectively received and
comprehended. It is not to merely GinformH but to be GinformedH.
RI$HT TO COUNSEL DURIN$ CUSTODIAL INVESTI$ATION
PEOPLE v ARCEO
262 SCRA 1)6
Fased on confession of Arceo, Iapanta was likewise convicted of
illegal possession of drugs
HELD&
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
Bine Arceo?s confession was not made in the presence and without
the assistance of counsel, it cannot be the basis for Iapanta?s
conviction.
PEOPLE v NICOLAS
264 SCRA 1/1
HELD&
A confession made without the presence of counsel is inadmissible
for being violative of Bection !". After the !8-+ &onstitution a
confession, regardless of its truth, is inadmissible as long as it was
given without the assistance of counsel, even if it is the product of
the accused?s own free will and volition.
PEOPLE v SIMON
234 SCRA %%%
Bimon was convicted of violating the 7angerous 7rugs Act when he
was caught selling four tea bags of mari%uana to a *A)&;
poseur#buyer. He was made to sign a Fooking sheet and Arrest
)eport, which stated that he was caught selling mari%uana, and a
receipt for the sei6ed property, wherein he acknowledged the
confiscation of the marked money from him.
HELD&
The aforementioned documents are inadmissible as evidence
because they are declarations or admissions of guilt of the crime
charged. They were obtained in violation of the accused?s right to
counsel during custodial investigation. That he waived such right is
immaterial in this case because such was not done in writing and in
the presence of counsel.
PEOPLE v PARO7INO$
263 SCRA 6)3
Jaro%inog was convicted for the murder of three police officers. He
claimed that his right to counsel was violated as he was not assisted
by counsel during custodial investigation.
HELD&
The facts of the case belie the accused?s allegations. Even before
the interrogation started, he was already appraised of his rights and
that Atty. Duentes could act as his counsel in the event that he could
not afford to retain the services of his own counsel. He did not
ob%ect to Atty. Duentes and he voluntarily answered the questions
posed to him in the presence of the said counsel.
PEOPLE V. MANTES
$R 11)16686)
Accused#appellants were convicted for the murder and death of
Erliste Arcilla.
HELD&
The uncounselled admissions of the accused#appellants given
during custodial investigation are inadmissible. In Jeople v.
&abintoy, it was held that admissions before formal investigation are
inadmissible as violation of Bec. !", Art. III of the &onstitution. In
this case, the oral admissions during the investigation are also
inadmissible.
People v. 3a9o'
$R 1228/%
Accused was convicted of murder. He assails the admissibility of
the e$tra%udicial confession he made.
HELD&
It was ascertained through the testimony of his JA; counsel that
the e$tra%udicial confession of the accused was validly and
voluntarily obtained. The counsel e$plained to the accused his
rights as well as the implication of each statement and answer the
accused gave. The confession was sworn to before the clerk of
court.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
People. V*. Lle"a'e*a*
248 SCRA 62/
)omeo Aabil, Armando 7epusoy, )ufo :lenaresas, Aesus
&apistrano, Herminio de )amos and )olly Hernande6 were charged
with the crime of robbery with homicide against Antonio aligaya.
The police discovered a cap and slipper which belonged ot Aabil and
:lenaresas, through the testmonies of their wife and mistress.
:lenaresas and Aabil signed e$tra%udicial confessions in the
presence of Atty. eliton Angeles. 7uring the investigation, both
were informed of their constitutional rights. Foth were convicted.
Hel,&
:lenaresas failed to submit any evidence that violence and
intimidation had been inflicted upon him to e$tort his sworn
confession. The e$tra%udicial statements of the appellants are
replete with details and complement each other substantially such
that it is difficult to suppose they had been merely derived from the
police?s imagination.
People v*. R.ela"
231 SCRA 6%6
)uelan surrendered to the police after killing his employer. Bince
there was no lawyer in the police station, he was brought to the
&:A;. Here they met Atty. &orte6, who apprised appellant of his
constitutional rights, in his own dialect. Atty. &orte6 also warned
)uelan or his right to remain silent, despite which )uelan answered
all questions in a straightforward manner. )uelan now questions his
e$tra%udicial confession.
Hel,&
Appellant voluntarily e$ecuted his e$tra%udicial confession after
having been informed of his rights, and in the presence of and with
the assistance of counsel. He effectively waived his right to remain
silent.
People v*. Ma-.e,a
242 SCR %6%
Hector aqueda was convicted by the )T& of Fenguet with the
crime of robbery with homicide and physical in%uries. The conviction
was based on his confession, and proof of his corpus delicti. His
sworn statement was taken without the assistance of counsel, and
the court admitted this anyway since it was of the opinion that an
information had already been filed against him, and he was alr'eady
arrested. The )T& ruled that since at the time of confession, the
accused was already facing charges, he was without such right of
counsel.
Hel,&
The e$ercise of the rights to remain silent, and to counsel, and to be
informed are not confined to the period prior to the filing of a criminal
complaint or information. These rights are available at the stage
when a person is under investigation for the commission of an
offense.
People v*. Co:p!l
244 SCRA 13%
&ompil was one of the accused present the night that A Durnitures
was robbed. &ompil was interrogated, and he readily admitted his
guilt. He was brought to the Tayabas Jolice Btation where he was
again investigated. ;n the way back to anila, he was again
investigated, and he also confessed. He was charged with robbery
with homicide, to which he pleaded not guilty. He was subsequently
found guilty.
Hel,&
The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation,
when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit
information and5or confessions or admissions from
respondent5accused. At this point, the accused must be assisted by
counsel. In this case, &ompil was immediately sub%ected to
interrogation, and in all , instances, he was not assisted by counsel.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
People v*. 3a'l!*
231 SCRA 426
Farlis surrendered to the police and admitted that he, and two
companions Derdie and Fuboy, robbed and killed Honorina Fallerda.
He was asked to testify against the other accused, and with the
assistance of counsel, he signed an e$tra%udicial confession
narrating the events. He was detained and an information was filed
against him, while the other co#accused remained at large.
Hel,&
Fefore Farlis was questioned he was duly informed and advised in
Tagalog of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel. He was assisted by no less
than the &hairman of the :egal Assistance ;ffice of the IFJ. The
fact that the mother and the girlfriend?s names were stated on the
confession as witnesses, but without their signatures does not affect
its validity. The &onstitution does not require the presence of
witnesses during custodial investigations. =hat is required is the
presence of counsel.
People v*. R!ve'a
24% SCRA 421
Appellant )ivera questions his arrest for the rape of Almirante?s
housemaid, Aileen. Aileen was able to identify the accused when
she was brought to his residence. )ivera now challenges the
validity of his arrest, and questions the validity of the sworn
statement he e$ecuted, allegedly in violation of his right to counsel.
Hel,&
The accused is estopped from questioning the validity of his arrest,
because he voluntarily submitted to the %urisdiction of the court
when he entered his plea. The sworn statement was inadmissible
as it was obtained during a custodial investigation without the
assistance of counsel. His conviction was sustained nonetheless,
because of the victim?s positive identification.
People v*. 3o"ola
2)4 SCRA 238
Dacts. Fonola, an illiterate who did not go to school at all, was
arrested in connection with the robbery and killing of spouses
Austiniano. He was questioned and he e$ecuted a confession, all
w5out counsel.
Issue. =5* the confession is admissible in court.
Held.
1; Te 9o"<e**!o" =a* !"a,:!**!>le <o' +e# =e'e
."9o."*elle,. Te 1/)3 Co"*+!+.+!o" '.le* +a+ =?" +e
9o"<e**!o" !* ve'>al o' !" ='!+!"@ +e'e !* *+!ll !"a,:!**!>le
!< !+ !* ."9o."*elle,. 3e!"@ a" !ll!+e'a+e !+ !* a', +o !:a@!"e
+a+ e 9o.l, ave val!,l# =a!ve, !* '!@+ +o 9o."*el0 le+
alo"e .",e'*+a", =a+ +e =ole p'o9e** !*.
People v*. Ma9o#
2)% SCRA 1
Dacts. acoy was accused of killing Jaul ;campo. He was
arrested near the scene of the crime w5 a gun. He later e$ecutes an
e$tra%udicial confession w5out presence of counsel.
Issue. =5* the e$tra%udicial confession is valid, hence admissible.
Held.
1; No0 <o' !+ =a* +aAe" =?o.+ 9o."*el a", !* v!ola+!ve o< !*
'!@+ +o 9o."*el ,.'!"@ 9.*+o,!al !"ve*+!@a+!o".
People v*. T.'!"@a"
282 SCRA 424
Dacts. Frods Turingan were accused of murder of &orte6 through
gunshot. )e$ was convicted and contended that it was Efren his
brother who shot &orte6, after having confessed to the police.
Issue. =5* the confession is valid.
Held.
1; Te 9o"<e**!o" !* !"val!,0 <o' eve" !< E<'e" 9o"<e**e, +o +e
9'!:e0 e ,!, *o =?o.+ 9o."*el a", "o =a!ve' o" !* pa'+.
Te *+a+e:e"+ =a* .",e' +e l!:!+a+!o"* o< 9.*+o,!al
!"ve*+!@a+!o" a", o"e o< +e '!@+* @.a'a"+ee, ># *.9 !*
+e '!@+ +o 9o."*el o< a" a99.*e,.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
People v*. Sala(a'
266 SCRA 66)
Dacts. Arrested for selling mari%uana. Bhe was interrogated and
forced to sign her name on the bond paper used to wrap the
mari%uana sticks to be used by the laboratory.
Issue. =5* the bond paper is admissible as evidence.
Held.
1; He' '!@+ +o 9o."*el =a* v!ola+e,0 pl.* +e pape' .*e,
,!'e9+l# !"9'!:!"a+e, e' a", 9a" >e a" a9+.al a,:!**!o" o<
@.!l+. Te ev!,e"9e !* !"a,:!**!>le.
People v*. La9>a"e*
2)6 SCRA 1/3
Dacts. :acbanes was arrested for selling mari%uana sticks. He was
made to sign a receipt of property sei6ed from him w5out counsel.
Issue. =5* the signing of the receipt of evidence is admissible.
Held.
1; S!@"!"@ +e 'e9e!p+ =a* +a"+a:o."+ +o a,:!**!o" o< @.!l+0
a", *!"9e !+ =a* ."a**!*+e, ># 9o."*el0 *.9 !*
!"a,:!**!>le a* ev!,e"9e.
People v*. Ca*+'o
2)4 SCRA 11%
Dacts. &astro was arrested for selling ! kg. of mari%uana. He was
made to sign a receipt of the mari%uana.
Issue. =5* the signing of receipt is admissible for evidence.
Held.
1; Ca*+'o5* *!@"a+.'e =a* al'ea,# a" ope" a,:!**!o" o< @.!l+.
Te'e<o'e *!"9e !+ =a* ."a**!*+e, ># 9o."*el0 +e" !+ !*
!"val!, a", 9a""o+ >e a,:!++e, a* ev!,e"9e.
People v*. Mal!:!+
264 SCRA 16)
Dacts. alimit was charged w5 comple$ crime of robbery w5
homicide. He contested the admissibility of the victim?s wallet found
in his possession, proving his guilt.
Issue. =5* the wallet can be admissible as evidence.
Held.
1; Te '!@+ a@a!"*+ *el<8!"9'!:!"a+!o" 9ove'* o"l# o'al
a"*=e'*0 a,:!**!o"* o< @.!l+0 e+9. a", ,oe* "o+ 9ove'
o>Be9+ ev!,e"9e. Te '!@+ +o 9o."*el 9ove'* o"l#
9o"<e**!o"* o' a,:!**!o"* !" 9.*+o,!al !"ve*+!@a+!o"*. I+
,oe* "o+ 9ove' ev!,e"9e +a+ a'e "o+ =!+!" +e a:>!+ o<
*el<8!"9'!:!"a+!o" o' +e '!@+ +o 'e:a!" *!le"+.
People v*. Sal9e,o 2)3 SCRA 4)3
Dacts. Appellants were suspects in the killing of &orte6. 7uring the
interrogation, they were not assisted by counsel and the waivers
were not done w5 the assistance of counsel.
Issue. =5* the e$tra%udicial confessions are admissible as
evidence.
Held.
1; No. Te# ave +e '!@+ +o 9o."*el ,.'!"@ 9.*+o,!al
!"ve*+!@a+!o". I< +e'e !* a =a"+!"@ <'o: +e a99.*e, +a+
e =!*e* +o =a!ve !* '!@+0 *.9 a9+ *+!ll a* +o >e ,o"e
=? +e a**!*+a"9e o< 9o."*el.
People v*. Dela C'.(
2)/ SCRA 24%
Dacts. 7ela &ru6 was arrested in connection with the murder of a
father and his two children. 7uring the investigation, he was not
informed of his right that if he cannot afford a counsel, he could be
provided with one. He was not also given the right to choose his
counsel. He then signs an e$tra%udicial confession.
Issue. =5* the confession be admissible for evidence.
Held.
1; No. He :.*+ 9o"+!".o.*l# ave a 9o."*el p'e*e"+ !" +e
9a*e. Te pol!9e :e'el# p!9Ae, a" a++o'"e# !" +e a++e:p+
+o le@al!(e +e p'o9ee,!"@* a", a99.*e, =a* "o+ @!ve" +e
9o!9e o< 9o."*el. Te'e !* al*o "o 'e9o', +o *o= +a+ e
=a* !"<o':e, o< !* '!@+*0 :o'e !:po'+a"+l#0 <o' e =a* a
"o 'ea, o' ='!+e pe'*o".
People v*. Mala9a+
283 SCRA 1%/
Dacts. alacat was arrested w5 a hand grenade after police
patrolling the area of Jla6a iranda noticed him and his
companions looking from side to side in a fast manner. He was
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
informed of his rights including the right to counsel. He manifested
his willingness to proceed with the investigation despite absence of
a counsel, therefore a waiver on his part. He admitted to the
possession of the hand grenade.
Issue. =5* the confession is admissible or not.
Held.
1; No. Te =a!ve'0 eve" !< +e a99.*e, 9o"*e"+e,0 "ee,* +o
>e =? +e a**!*+a"9e o< 9o."*el =o =!ll !"<o': !: o< !*
'!@+* a", 9o"*e-.e"9e*. O+e'=!*e0 +e *+a+e:e"+*
@o++e" <'o: !: *all >e !"a,:!**!>le a* ev!,e"9e.
$ALMAN v. PAMARAN
138 SCRA 2/4
Cer and ;livas were invited by the Agrava Foard for investigation
whereby the two gave their testimonies. They now question the
admissibility of their confessions for want of counselKs assistance.
Hel,.
The fact that it was the Agrava Foard investigating them cannot
shed them of their right to be informed and assisted by counsel in a
custodial investigation. They were suspects in AquinoKs
assassination and questions were asked from them which
ascertains the degree of their participation in the crime.
ESTACIO v. SANDI$AN3ACAN
183 SCRA 12
Jetitioner waived his right to counsel through writhing. As it was
done without counsel, it was an invalid waiver. However, towards
the end of the investigation, a lawyer arrived to aid him. He claims
that his statements were inadmissible as counsel came too late.
Hel,& Although the counsel came later, counsel managed to
appraise Estacio of his rights, the consequences of his actions, and
the options available to him before he signed the statement. Hence,
there was a substantial compliance with the right to counsel.
PEOPLE v. DE 7ESUS
213 SCRA 34%
In the course of their investigation for stabbing a tricycle driver, the
police interrogated the appellants without the assistance of counsel.
The ne$t day, the investigator fetched a lawyer from the &iti6en?s
:egal Aid ;ffice in whose presence the testimony was reduced in
writing. The appellant assailed the validity of testimony.
HELD& The statements are inadmissible. The right to counsel
attaches at the start of the investigation. oreover, the defect was
not cured by the subsequent arrival of counsel as there was merely
perfunctory performance of duties and there was no proper
appraisal of the available rights and the proper recourse of the
accused.
PEOPLE v. 3AELLO
224 SCRA 218
Jolice conducted formal investigation of accused in the presence of
counsel. Accused gave his statement and this was put to writing.
&ounsel read the statement to the accused and let the latter read it
himself, after which both signed said document. Issue herein is
whether or not there was proper counseling.
Hel,.
There was proper counseling. &ounsel conferred with the accused,
warned that latter of the consequences of his confession and even
advised him not to make any/ however, accused insisted on going
ahead with the confession. The lawyer should never prevent an
accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.
PEOPLE v. CAMAT
2%6 SCRA %2
Appellants were convicted of the special comple$ crime of with
homicide. Jat. &arino testified that &amat orally admitted his
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
participation in the killing of the soldier during interrogation in the
precinct. &amat challenged the validity of the testimony.
Hel,&
&onfession, even if it is gospel truth, is inadmissible as evidence
without the presence of counsel, as in this case. This right begin to
be available when investigation is no longer a general inquiry but
has already focused on particular suspects.
PEOPLE v. SEDUINO
264 SCRA )/
Bequino and two others robbed payroll money. As main suspects in
the crime, they were invited for questioning and they voluntarily
went. Thereafter, they confessed. Appellant assails the validity of
the interrogation.
Hel,&
=here a policeman suspected a person to have a committed a
crime, the act of such suspect voluntarily going with the policeman
constitutes an arrest. Therefore, in the subsequent questioning
counsel must be present. Absent such counsel, investigation is
invalid and any confession in inadmissible.
People v A-.!"o
$R 123%%6 7.l# 1/0 1///
Aquino was convicted of the comple$ crime of rape with homicide.
He contended that his constitutional right was violated when he
e$ecuted an e$tra%udicial confession without the assistance of
counsel.
HELD&
It was proved that he e$ecuted a handwritten confession with the
assistance of Atty. &ampanilla, who he agreed to be assigned as his
counsel.
People v A+'eBe"!o
$R 126166 7.l# 130 1///
Arte%enio was convicted of double murder.
HELD&
The trial court was correct in ignoring the testimony of JD& Dade%as
because the testimony was e$tracted in violation of the iranda
rights.
CHOICE O4 COUNSEL
People v. 7e'e(
$R 11438%
Accused were convicted of robbery with double homicide. Appellant
assails the lower court for giving credence to his e$tra#%udicial
statement, stating that at the time of the taking thereof, he was
assisted by an ineffectual counsel.
HELD&
Appellant?s e$tra%udicial confession was done in the presence of a
counsel and sworn to before the ayor.
=hile the initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a
person under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a
lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused
has the final choice as he may re%ect the counsel chosen for him
and ask for another one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is
deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any
ob%ection 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.
People v. E*p!'!+.
$R 12828)
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
Espiritu appeals the decision of the )T& Faguio, convicting him of
murder. He assails the admission of his uncounselled e$tra%udicial
confession. He asserts that he was uncouncelled because it was
his uncle who hired the lawyer.
HELD&
It was satisfactorily shown that his confession was voluntary and
made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel.
The right to counsel does not mean that the accused must
personally hire his own counsel. The constitutional requirement is
satisfied when a counsel is 3!4 engaged by anyone acting on behalf
of the person under investigation or 3"4 appointed by the court upon
petition of the said person or by someone on his behalf. The fact
that it was his uncle who retained the counsel is not proof of counsel
deprivation. His uncle acted on his behalf. Fesides, he did not
ob%ect to the counsel and even e$pressly acknowledged the
counsel.
People v*. 3!"a:!'a
2)) SCRA 232
Finamira was implicated in the robbery and killing of a woman. He
was brought in for interrogation, and after it was alleged that he was
properly informed of his rights, e$ecuted an e$tra%udicial confession.
He later claims that his right to counsel had been violated.
Issue. =5* the e$tra%udicial confession is valid hence admissible.
Held.
1; Te eE+'aB.,!9!al 9o"<e**!o" !* !"a,:!**!>le <o' e =a* "o+
!"<o':e, o< +e '!@+ +o 9oo*e 9o."*el a", :e'el#
p'e*e"+e, =!+ a 9o."*el p'epa'e, ># +e:. He =a* "o+
@!ve" a CHOICE "o' =a* !+ eEpla!"e, +o !:.
2; Eve" !< +e 9o"<e**!o" =a* a99o:pl!*e, >e<o'e +e 1/8)
Co"*+!+.+!o"0 *.9 '!@+ +o 9oo*e o"e5* o"e 9o."*el
al'ea,# eE!*+e, a+ +a+ +!:e8a* <a' >a9A a* 1/)3.
PEOPLE V SANTOS
283 SCRA 443
ercy Bantos was found guilty of the crime of kidnapping +#yr old,
&harmaine amaril. Bhe was convicted based on her e$tra#%udicial
confession and the testimonies of &harmaine and another witness.
Bhe claims that she was threatened by the *FI to sign the
confession.
HELD
&onfession is inadmissible. ere terse and perfunctory statements
of her rights do not meet constitutional standards and do not evince
a clear and sufficient effort to inform and e$plain her rights.
oreover, the prosecution has failed to prove that Atty. <y was a
competent and independent counsel. In the face of Bantos?s claim
that she did not know an Atty. <y, prosecution still failed to produce
him as a witness.
PEOPLE V PA$AURA
26) SCRA 1)
Jagaura was charged of violating Bec. ' of the Anti#7angerous
7rug Act. He signed a waiver in a Discal?s house and signed a
confiscation receipt in the presence of Atty. 7urias. He said he was
made to sign the papers in the presence of 7urias, but he did not
know nor was he informed of the contents.
HE:7
Appellant was made to sign a waiver without assistance from a
lawyer. Although Atty. 7urias was present, there was no showing
that he e$plained to the accused the content or purpose of the
paper. Appellant testified that he did not know what it was about and
he merely signed thereon because he was threatened by the police.
There was no proof that the accused was assisted by a lawyer
during interrogation.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
PEOPLE V SINOC
2)% SCRA 3%)
Binoc was charged of kidnapping with murder. Accused e$ecuted a
written confession in the presence of Atty. Aalad. Accused claims
that he e$ecuted the same under threat and torture.
HELD
&onfession was admissible. It is true that at the initial interrogation
of Binoc, he was not informed of his rights. However, the record
adequately shows that the confession made by him some time
afterwards at the Jublic Attorney?s ;ffice was e$ecuted voluntarily
and under applicable safeguards, apart from being consistent with
other evidence.
PEOPLE V SUAREZ
16/ SCRA 11/
The three accused were charged of robbery with homicide. 7uring
investigation, the accused e$ecuted e$tra#%udicial confessions.
7uring trial, they claimed that the same was procured through
intimidation and coercion, and e$ecuted without counsel. They were
convicted based on their confessions.
HELD
The sworn statement signed by accused )eyes and appellant :ara
state that they had been informed their rights under the constitution.
)eyes stated that counsel had assisted him during custodial
investigation. Appellant :aura confirmed that a lawyer assisted him
when he waived his constitutional rights. Beveral witnesses testified
that the constitutional mandates were observed during investigation.
PEOPLE V 4A3RO
2)) SCRA 1/
Accused was charged with the crime of murdering Aoaquin. He was
interrogated and made to sign an e$tra#%udicial confession in the
presence of Atty. Aungco. Dabro claims that the same was e$tracted
under threat and intimidation and he was made to sign the same
without reading it and without the presence of counsel.
HE:7
A confession is admissible since the rebuttal testimony of Atty.
Aungco is more credible than Dabro?s bare denial. The constitution
requires that counsel should be independent. He cannot be a
special counsel, public prosecutor, counsel for the police, or a
municipal attorney whose interest is adverse to that of the accused.
Atty. Aungco does not fall under the enumeration. *or is there any
evidence that he had any interest adverse to that of the accused.
PEOPLE V MA$DAMIT
2)/ SCRA
Accused were charged with killing a Taiwanese national, tying other
workers and ransacking offices. Foth claimed that they were
arrested prior identification, sub%ected to torture and forced to sign
their confessions.
HELD
&onfession is admissible. The confession is presumed to be
voluntary until the contrary is proven and the burden of proof is upon
the person making the confession. In this case, the presumption has
not been overcome. Appellant?s confession was e$ecuted before the
IFJ &hapter Jreseident and was sworn to before the %udge. It also
contained details only he could have supplied.
PEOPLE V HERNANDEZ
$R 11)62/
Hernande6 et al. were charged with the kidnapping of Tan. The &IB
investigators came up with 0 suspects, all arrested separately
but all waived their right to counsel and e$ecuted e$tra#%udicial
confessions in the presence of Atty. Cillanueva, a retired
member of AA9;, and since has been in private practice.
HE:7
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
The confessions were admissible. Appellants? charge that they were
coerced to e$ecute their confessions lack proof and is belied by the
records. *o medical certificate was presented to prove maltreatment
and there was no physical marks of violence. The fact that
Atty.Cillanueva is a retired member of AA9; should not cast doubt
on his impartiality in assisting appellants during custodial
investigation. Cillanueva cannot be faulted when he did not prevent
appellants from truthfully answering thee questions.
PEOPLE V ESPANOLA
2)1 SCRA 68/
Accused were charged with the rape and murder of Tarro6a. ;ne of
the accused, Jacquingan, made an e$tra#%udicial confession with
the assistance of the legal counsel of the &ity ayor?s ;ffice and a
member of the IFJ :egal Aid. However, when asked to sign the
stenographic notes, Jaquingan refused, saying he would wait for his
mother first.
HE:7
The confession was inadmissible. The fact that Jacquingan did not
sign his sworn statement casts serious doubt as to the voluntarines
of its e$ecution. =hen Jacquingan gave his confession, he was no
longer under custodial investigation, since he was already charged
in court. *onetheless, the right to counsel applies in certain pretrial
proceedings that can be considered Gcritical stagesH in the criminal
process. &ustodial interrogation before or after charges have been
filed and non#custodial interrogations after the accused has been
formally charged are considered to be critical pretrial stages.
PEOPLE V SAHA$UN
2)4 SCRA 268
Bahagun, Cillareal and Fonifacio raped and killed Avendano.
Cillereal surrendered to the police, after which he claimed he was
tortured and made to sign a confession. He also said that he was
made to undertake a re#enactment without counsel and sign a
waiver without counsel. He told this to Atty. 7i6on, the lawyer he
was assigned to. =hen they offered him a lawyer, he refused to
accept his services, because he did not know the legal procedure
3he only had a 9r.! education4.
HE:7
The counseling given by Atty. 7i6on was not sufficiently protective of
Cillareal?s rights. To start with, 7i6on was not known to the accused,
Atty. 7i6on merely happened to be there because he was following#
up a client?s case. He did no more than recite to the accused his
constitutional rights. He made no independent effort to determine
whether Cilleereal?s confessions were free and voluntary.
PEOPLE V CA3ILES
284 SCRA 1//
&abiles was charged with robbery with rape. The latter admitted his
guilt and pointed the complainant Atien6a?s brother#in#law as the
mastermind. He was convicted. He claims that his verbal
admissions are inadmissible.
HELD&
The written confession is inadmissible. Even if the accused admits
the truth, it was made without the assistance of counsel. Dor a
waiver to be valid, it must be in the presence of counsel and in
writing. The verbal confession made before complainant Atien6a, on
the other hand, is admissible. &onstitutional procedures on custodial
investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited
through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary
manner whereby the accused orally admitted having committed the
crime.
MACASIRAC V PEOPLE
2/1 SCRA 1%4
The accused is charged for murdering her husband. 9on6ales
e$ecuted an e$tra#%udicial confession, wherein he admitted
participation in the crime and implicated petitioner acasiray. The
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
e$tra#%udicial confession and a transcript affirming the same was
presented by the prosecution as evidence.
HELD
The confession is inadmissible. The e$tra#%udicial confession and
the statements recorded in the transcript were taken without the
assistance of counsel. Jetitioner 9on6ales was informed of his
rights in a very perfunctory manner. *o effort was made to drive
home the seriousness of the situation. He waived assistance of
counsel, but did so without counsel?s advice and assistance.
PEOPLE V MENESES
288 SCRA /%
&esar Cictoria was stabbed to death was sleeping beside his + year
old son, &hristopher. =hen first questioned, &hristopher could not
identify the killer. =hen he was again brought to the precinct, where
during a confrontation w5 appellant, &hristopher identified the same
as the killer.
HE:7
&hristopher?s identification of the appellant was ob%ectionable. An
identification of the accused during a Gshow#upH, or where the
suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for
identification, is seriously flawed. It constitutes the most grossly
suggestive identification procedure ever used.
PEOPLE V TEEHANFEE
24/ SCRA %4
Teehankee was charged for the murders and frustrated murder of
Hultman and two other boys. Teehankee was identified by ,
witnesses via line#up. The security guard identified him among !(
photos, later via line#up. :eino, one of the surviving victims identified
him out of a line#up conducted outside his house. He complained of
lack of due process in the manner of his identification.
HE:7
In resolving the admissibility of relying on out#of#court identification
of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances
where they consider the following factors. 3!4 the witness?
opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime/ 3"4 the
witness? degree of attention at that time/ 3,4 the accuracy of any
prior description given by the witness/ 3'4 the level of certainty
demonstrated by the witness at the identification/ 304 the length of
time between the crime and the identification/ and 314 the
suggestiveness of the identification procedure. There is nothing
wrong in :eino?s identification of appellant. The records reveal that
this mode was resorted for security reasons.
PEOPLE V TAN
286 SCRA 26)
Appellant was invited by the police in connection with the case of
highway robbery with murder and with respect to two other cases of
robbery. In the belief that they were merely conversing inside the
station, the police did not inform appellant of his constitutional rights
to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel, nor did they
reduce the supposed confession to writing.
HELD
&ustodial 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 and begins
to focus a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody and
the police carried out a process of interrogations that tends itself to
eliciting incriminating statements. The rights to remain silent and to
counsel are impregnable from the moment he is investigated in
connection with an offense he is suspected to have been
committed, even if the same be initiated by mere invitation.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
PEOPLE v ALE$RIA
1/6 SCRA 122
Accused contend that they were not informed of their rights nor
represented and assisted by counsel
HELD&
The accused are correct. =hile there was a lawyer present during
the custodial investigation, he did not actively assist or advise the
accused, being there merely to give a semblance of legality to the
proceedings. *othing in the record to show that the lawyer made a
single manifestation or representation on behalf of the accused. In
fact the lawyer was part of the police organi6ation investigating the
accused. Any confession thus taken is inadmissible.
PEOPLE v CAMPOS
262 SCRA 38)
Accused was given counsel to assist him throughout the
investigation. The counsel was not the choice of the accused.
Durthermore, the counsel for the accused was with him in the
beginning, but left him, and returned when the confession had
already been written, without, however a signature.
HELD&
&onfessions or admissions of guilt e$tracted on promises of release
or better treatment cannot be considered admissible evidence.
oreover, the e$tra#%udicial confession was flawed because the
accused was deprived of the right to an independent and competent
counsel of his choice.
PEOPLE v 7IMENEZ
264 SCRA )1/
The Aimene6 brothers were convicted of parricide for the killing of
their father. They contended that there right to counsel was violated
when they were made to sign an e$tra%udicial confession by one e$#
Audge Aabagat, who was supposed to be the counsel assigned to
him.
HELD.
The accused is entitled to have a competent counsel of his own
choice. Aabagat was not his choice, and even if she were merely
assigned to assist the two accused, their approval should been
sought first. oreover, she was not present during the critical times
of the interrogation/ she merely appeared to have the typewritten
confession signed.
People v*. A@.*+!"
246 SCRA %41
Agustin was one of the five accused who was charged with murder.
=hen he was taken to the Discal?s ;ffice for investigation, Atty.
&a%ucom assisted him. Agustin now insists his e$tra#%udicial
confession was taken in violation of his rights.
Hel,&
There is a distinction between an admission and a
confession. A confession is an admission of guilt, while an
admission is not a direct admission of guilt, but of the e$istence of
some facts which could implicate the person.
Although Agustin was assisted by counsel, this right is to a
competent and independent counsel. In this case, Atty. &a%ucom
read Agustin?s rights to him in English and Tagalog, when he was
familiar only with Ilocano. It is not enough that the person be
informed his rights under Art. III, sec. !". The accused must be able
to effectively understand its meaning and implications, and in a
language which he fairly understand.
People v*. 3a'a*!"a
22/ SCRA 4%6
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
Farasina was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
possesion of firearms and of the murder of Discal ayo. Atty.
endo6a was retained as counsel, but it turned out that it was Atty.
Torres who assisted during the interrogation, as directed by J.:t.
Burara. Accused now questions the statement for want of
competent, independent counsel of his choice.
Hel,&
7uring the custodial investigation, accused failed to indicate
that he wished to consult with a counsel of his own choice. In fact,
he did not show resistance when he was assisted by Atty. Torres.
The word GpreferablyH in the te$t of the &onstitution does not mean
that the choice of a lawyer is e$clusive, and precludes other equally
competent and independent attorneys from handling his defense. If
this were the rule, then the custodial investigation would be solely in
the hands of the accused who can impede and obstruct the process
simply by selecting a lawyer who, for one reason or another, is not
available.
Peopl* v*. De"!e@a
2%1 SCRA 626
7aniego was arrested for the rape and killing of arlyn
&anoy. ;n the basis of a confession obtained by police authorities
during custodial investigation, appellant <rnillo was invited for
questioning. Another statement was taken, corroborating details of
7eniega?s statement, from appellant 7ia6 who admitted his
participation in the rape, but not the death of the victim. Foth
counsels Atty. Bansano and Atty. )ous were present at the signing
of the documents, but not during the actual custodial investigation at
the headquarters.
Hel,&
The right to competent and independent counsel
contemplated by the &onstitution e$tends from the beginning to the
end, at all stages of the interview. &ounsel must advise his client at
every turn of the investigation, and stopping the interrogation once
in a while either to give advice to the accused that he may either
continue, choose to remain silent, or terminate the interview.
People v*. Pa.le
261 SCRA 64/
)eynaldo Jaule was convicted of the murder of &arlos
Tubongbanue. Amos analo and his lady friend witnessed the
incident in the public market. Accused was one of the , male
passengers in a %eepney who was frisked by the police. The frisk
yielded a hand grenade. The accused then admitted the killing for a
fee of J0,(((. <pon arrest, he was brought to the police
headquarters where he indicated that he could not afford a counsel.
The investigators assigned Atty. *orberto dela &ru6 to assist him
e$ecute the e$tra%udicial confession.
Hel,&
Jrosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving
evidence of effective and vigilant counsel. The purpose of this
guarantee is to curb the practice of e$tracting confessions by
coercion. Any form of coercion, whether physical, mental or
emotional renders the confession inadmissible. The lawyer must
ascertain that the accused makes the confession voluntarily and
that he fully understands the nature and consequences of his
e$tra%udicial confession.
People v*. Ro.*
242 SCRA )32
)ous and :aygo were convicted with the crime of highway robbery
with homicide. :aygo stated in his e$tra%udicial confession that he
conspired with )ous in the hold#up and shooting of Jastor Jasahol.
)ecords show that accused conferred with his counsel, Atty. 7atlag,
after which he was returned to the &IB ;ffice, where the
investigation started. Atty. 7atlag shortly arrived after the
investigation started, and leaving before the last , questions were
asked. The statement was later brought to Atty. 7atlag?s office, who
read and e$amined it. The accused and counsel conferred, and
:aygo was advised to sign.
Hel,&
Although Atty. 7atlag arrived shortly after the questioning
had begun, and left before it was concluded does not render the
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
confession inadmissible. The reason is that, after the confession
was put down into writing, both the accused and investigating officer
proceeded to counsel?s office, where counsel read the confession,
and conferred with :aygo. The confession was voluntary, and done
upon advice of counsel.
People v*. L.9e'o
244 SCRA 42%
:ucero was arrested for robbery. He had no lawyer, so Atty. Jeralta
was requested to assist :ucero. After informing :ucero of his
rights, Atty. Jeralta observed no reaction from :ucero and took this
to mean that he understood his advise of his rights. A &IB
investigator began asking questions, and Atty. Jeralta left during the
interrogation to attend the wake of his friend. The ne$t day, Atty.
Jeralta e$plained the implications of the already signed e$tra%udicial
statement to :ucero.
Hel,&
=hat the &onstitution requires is an effective and vigilant
counsel. The appellant received no such effective counseling. The
right to counsel attaches from the moment that the investigating
officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and confessions
from the accused. :ucero gave an uncounselled e$tra%udicial
confession which is inadmissible.
PEOPLE v. SA33AN
266 SCRA 636
Babban and company were charged with murder. The police
assigned a lawyer from the IFJ to assist in the investigation.
)egardless of the lawyer, appellant still claimed that his right to
counsel was violated.
Hel,&
As an officer of the court, a lawyer carries a presumption of
regularity in the performance of his duties. Absent any showing that
the lawyer was remiss, presumption holds, as in this case.
RI$HT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE
People v*. T.'!"@a" 282 SCRA 424
Dacts. Accused was charged with murder. He contests the validity
of his conviction for he claimed there was a violation for his right to
present evidence on his part.
Issue. =5* his right to present evidence had been violated.
Held.
1; No. H!* <!l!"@ o< a ,e:.''e' +o ev!,e"9e =?o.+ leave o<
9o.'+ !* a" ."-.al!<!e, =a!ve' o" !* pa'+ +o p'e*e"+
ev!,e"9e. A<+e' all0 *.9 :ove =a* +a"+a:o."+ +o :ove <o'
,!*:!**al o" +e @'o.", o< !"*.<<!9!e"9# o< +e
p'o*e9.+!o"5* ev!,e"9e. Te'e<o'e e !* al*o e*+oppe,
<'o: p'e*e"+!"@ !* ev!,e"9e.
People v*. Pa#"o' 2%6 SCRA 611
Dacts. Accused was charged with murder through stabbing of
victim. He contests that the clothing and the material gotten from
him was w5out the assistance of counsel.
Issue. =5* the evidence is valid, hence admissible as evidence.
Held.
1; Te '!@+ +o 9o."*el !* o"l# appl!9a>le +o +e*+!:o"!al
*+a+e:e"+* ,o"e !" +e 9o.'*e o< 9.*+o,!al !"ve*+!@a+!o". I+
,oe* "o+ 9ove' =e" +e ev!,e"9e 9a" >e *a!, +o <o': pa'+
o< +e >o,# o< +e a99.*e,.
"4 I" l!"e =? +!* !* al*o !* 9la!: o< *el<8!"9'!:!"a+!o" <o'
a@a!" +!* o"l# 9ove'* +e*+!:o"!al 9o:p.l*!o" a", "o+ +o
+e ev!,e"9e 'e+'!eve, <'o: +e >o,# o< +e a99.*e,.
PEOPLE v. ALICANDO
2%1 SCRA 2/3
Alicando was accuse of raping and killing a ' year old girl. 7uring
the interrogation, he verbally confessed to the killing without the
assistance of counsel. Drom the confession, police were able to
gather material evidence. Appellant challenges the admissibility of
the confession and the evidence.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
Hel,&
The confession as well as the evidence obtained as a result thereof
were inadmissible because they were obtained without counsel.
The material evidence was inadmissible because of the Gfruit of the
poisonous treeH doctrine.
GAIVER O4 COUNSEL
People v*. $o:e( 2)6 SCRA 432
Dacts. 9ome6 and his cohort were implicated in the transporting of
"( kg. of heroin from the Jhilippines to Ban Drancisco, <BA. At
about the same time, an *FI agent visited 9ome6?s cohort,
Immaculata wallowing in an HL prison and e$tracted a confession in
connection w5 the heroin.
Issue. =5* the confession is admissible.
Held.
!4 Te *+a+e:e"+* @a+e'e, ># +e N3I a@e"+ a'e "o+
a,:!**!>le. He =a* "o+ 9lea'l# app'a!*e, o< !* '!@+* !"
9.*+o,!al !"ve*+!@a+!o". Ge" a*Ae, !< e "ee,e, a
9o."*el0 e *a!, +a+ e "ee,e, "o"e <o'e e =a* +ell!"@
+e +'.+ a"#=a#. Ho=eve'0 +!* !* a 9lea' v!ola+!o" o< Se9.
12. I" o',e' +o =a!ve +e '!@+ +o 9o."*el0 +e =a!ve' :.*+
>e ,o"e *+!ll !" +e p'e*e"9e o< a 9o."*el.
PEOPLE v. $EROLA$O
263 SCRA 143
)obert 9erolago and two others were charged with the murder of
Antonio By. <pon investigation, 9erolago waived his right to
counsel and e$ecuted an e$tra#%udicial confession. Appellant
claimed that there was no valid waiver.
HELD&
A waiver of the right to counsel must be in writing and in the
presence of counsel. )egardless of the fact that waiver was made
in the presence of mother and cousin, waiver is still defective.
Hence, his testimony had no evidentiary value.
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERED AS
ADMISSIONS?CON4ESSIONS
Ma'9elo v. Sa",!@a">a#a"
$R 16/242
arcelo was convicted of qualified theft for working in the post office
and stealing the mail bag. =hen apprehended, they were made to
sign on the envelopes to authenticate the envelopes as the ones
sei6ed from him.
HELD&
The signatures are actually evidence of admission obtained from
petitioner under circumstances contemplated in sec. !" because
they signed following their arrest. Hence, they were at the time
under custodial investigation. Fecause it was done without counsel,
it is inadmissible.
PEOPLE v. GON$ CHUEN MIN$
2%6 SCRA 182
Appellants, both Hongkong nationals, together with other alaysian
nationals were convicted for unlawfully transporting shabu into the
country. Appellants affi$ed their signatures in the shabu bo$es
found inside their bags without the assistance of counsel.
Hel,.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
Baid signatures are tantamount to uncounseled e$tra#%udicial
confession. Hence, evidence is inadmissible. The e$clusionary rule
covers both aliens and citi6ens.
PEOPLE v. LINSAN$AN
1/% SCRA )84
:insangan was arrested in a buy#bust operation. The police made
him sign the marked bills used to buy the drugs. He assailed the
validity of the signing of the marked money as it was done without
counsel.
Hel,&
He was not denied the right to counsel. Although he was not
assisted by counsel when he initialed the !( peso bills, there was no
violation as mere possession of the marked bills did not constitute a
crime. *either did the signing tantamount to any confession.
PEOPLE v. DE LAS MARINAS
1/6 SCRA %64
Appellant signed a )eceipt of Jroperty acknowledging that they are
owners of the sei6ed listed properties. He signed without counsel.
Hel,.
His act of signing was tantamount to e$tra#%udicial confession.
Therefore, the evidence is inadmissible for violation of the right to
counsel. It is the police officer who confiscated the same who
should have signed.
PEOPLE v. ENRIDUE
264 SCRA 6)4
Accused was arrested during a buy#bust operation and convicted by
the trial court for violation of the 7angerous 7rugs Act. He assails
the admissibility of evidence as he was not assisted by counsel
when he signed the mari%uana sticks.
Hel,&
Evidence is inadmissible. An accused who signs his name on rolled
mari%uana an act amounting to an admission of his culpability.
Hence, case at bar is tantamount to an uncounseled e$tra#%udicial
confession.
PEOPLE v. 3ANDIN
226 SCRA 2//
Accused was apprehended in a buy#bust operation for the sale of
mari%uana. He avers that he signed the Fooking Bheet and Arrest
)eport, as well as the )eceipt of Jroperty Bei6ed, without the
assistance of counsel.
Hel,.
=hen an arrested person signs a Fooking Bheet and Arrest )eport
at a police station, he does not admit the commission of an offense
nor confess to any incriminating circumstance. The Fooking Bheet
is merely a statement of the arresteeKs being booked and of the date
which accompanies the fact of an arrest, and not an e$tra#%udicial
confession. Fut as to the signature on the )eceipt of Jroperty
Bei6ed the same is a tacit admission and amounts to uncounseled
e$tra#%udicial confession.
People v*. A"@ C." F!+
2%1 SCRA 666
Ang &hun Lit was arrested by *A)&; operatives in a buy#bust
operation, after he sold to an undercover agent J'((,((( worth of
shabu. The trial court found Ang &hun Lit guilty of selling the
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
shabu. He signed the receipt of items confiscated from him, and the
Fooking Bheet, without the assistance of counsel.
Hel,&
Ang &hun Lit?s signature on the receipt of confiscated items
is inadmissible since he was not assisted by counsel. &onformance
to these documents are declarations against the interest and are
tacit admissions of the crime charged, since mere possession of
illegal drugs is punished by law. They were obtained in violation of
the accused?s rights. An arrested person who signs a booking sheet
and arrest report, on the other hand, does not admit the commission
of an offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance. It is
merely a statement of the accused?s arrest an date of such arrest.
Ang &hun Lit?s conviction was affirmed notwithstanding the
inadmissibility of the signed receipt.
People v*. Mo'!9o
246 SCRA 214
A buy#bust operation led to the arrest of Bi$to. ;n the third day of
his detention, he was made to sign a receipt of sei6ed property,
without the assistance of counsel. He also signed the booking
sheet and arrest report, which was never e$plained to him.
Hel,&
The receipt of property sei6ed is inadmissible as evidence, because
there was no assistance of counsel. This is a declaration against
the accused?s interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged.
This violates his right to counsel during custodial investigation. The
booking sheet and arrest record are dispensable, since they are
merely statements of the accused?s arrest and date.
=HE* THE )I9HT =I:: *;T AJJ:M
No+ C.*+o,!al I"ve*+!@a+!o"
NAVALLO v SANDI$AN3ACAN
234 SCRA 1)%
Jetitioner is a collecting and disbursing officer of a vocational school
who was charged with malversation of public funds 3Art. "!+ of
)J&4. He alleges that his right against custodial investigation w5o
counsel was violated when he was pressured to sign the
e$amination report during a normal audit e$amination.
HELD&
The rights of the accused are invocable only when the accused is
under custodial investigation. &ustodial investigation has been
defined as Gquestioning 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.H A person under a normal
audit e$amination is not under custodial investigation. An audit
e$aminer himself can hardly be deemed to be the law enforcement
officer contemplated in the above rule.
PEOPLE v LIM
1/6 SCRA 86/
)obina 9okongwei was kidnapped.
HELD&
The e$tra#%udicial confession must be made with the assistance of
counsel. =aiver of right to counsel must also be written and made
in the presence of counsel. The custodial investigation starts from
the moment a person is arrested or voluntarily surrenders.
ARROCO v CA
263 SCRA )%6
*eri who filed a criminal complaint against his wife for committing
adultery had consented to the act, and thus sought a dismissal. The
wife also sought for the dismissal.
HELD&
;ne of the grounds for dismissal submitted by the wife was that her
confession to her husband about her adultery was a violation of her
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
right against self#incrimination, and should not be admissible. The
right only pertains to custodial investigations, which in this case
never took place because the confession was made to the husband.
The husband was not an investigating officer conducting custodial
investigation. oreover, the confession was not elicited, but rather
spontaneous, hence admissible.
PEOPLE v MARRA
236 SCRA %6%
A person witnessed the shooting of his companion. He informed
police and described the accused. Jolice began their search and
found accused in a restaurant. There police asked accused if he
had a gun, and when he last fired it, and then asked him if he had
shot the victim. Accused admitted it but said it was self#defense. The
police then took him to the station and charged him with murder.
HELD&
The testimony of the police as to the confession by the accused that
he shot the victim is admissible because the accused was not under
custodial investigation when the police found him in the restaurant.
He had not been coerced to answer the questions, and could have
refused to answer any question from the very start. &ustodial
investigation starts when it is no longer a general inquiry into the
crime, but centers on a particular suspect, who?s taken into custody,
and the police carries out a process of interrogation that lends itself
to eliciting incriminating statements.
PEOPLE v 7UD$E ACSON
1)% SCRA 216
Ticket freight clerk was suspected of being involved in
irregularities in ticket sales. His admission in the administrative
inquiry was used against him in an estafa case.
Hel,&
His admission without counsel is admissible because he is
not yet under custodial investigation when it was made. )ights in
favor of persons under custodial investigation cannot be invoked
under an administrative inquiry.
PEOPLE v DE $UZMAN
224 SCRA /3
7e 9u6man et al were convicted of three counts of murder
and one count of frustrated murder. They contended that there was
a violation of their right to counsel when they were sub%ected to a
paraffin test without the assistance of counsel.
HELD&
The paraffin test was not part of the custodial investigation.
Hence, the right to counsel has not yet attached. Buch right
attaches only at the beginning of the custodial investigation, that is,
when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit
information, confessions, or admissions from the accused.
People v*. To>!a* 26) SCRA 22/
Dacts. Tobias was accused of illegal possession of firearms and the
murder of :im. Fefore he was arrested, &hief of Jolice Turingan
asked him why he was holding a gun and he merely replied that he
had %ust shot :im. He contested the confession.
Issue. =5* the confession is admissible given w5out counsel.
Held.
1; I+ !* a,:!**!>le <o' +e 9o"*+!+.+!o"al '!@+ ,.'!"@ 9.*+o,!al
!"ve*+!@a+!o" ,!, "o+ 9ove' +e ,!*9lo*.'e. I+ =a* a<+e' all
,o"e p'!o' +o !* a''e*+ o' 9.*+o,!al !"ve*+!@a+!o".
PEOPLE v. MARCOS
14) SCRA 264
Accused was charged with the crime of kidnapping. He now
questions the admissibility of the sworn statement he rendered
before the *FI.
Hel,.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
The sworn statement is valid. =hen he gave the same before the
*FI, he was not then under police custody. He was merely invited
for questioning so he can shed light on the kidnapping. He was
even allowed to go home after the investigation.
PEOPLE v. $AM3OA
!8' B&)A ,+"
Accused, involved in a shooting incident, was arrested and
sub%ected to a paraffin test, allegedly without counsel.
Hel,.
The paraffin test, though conducted without the presence of a
lawyer, does not violate the accusedKs right to self#incrimination.
The right to counsel e$tends only to testimonial compulsion and not
to the e$amination of the accusedKs body. A paraffin test only
reveals that he fired a gun.
PEOPLE v. EVAN$ELISTA
2%6 SCRA 611
Accused shot and killed Arce. Ja. :adia invited the accused to eat
in a restaurant. :adia asked the latter about the incident/ accused
eventually confessed to the killing. Accused contends his admission
was done without the benefit of warning him of his right to remain
silent and to counsel.
Hel,.
Evidence is admissible. Accused was not under custodial
investigation. iranda warnings apply only when the investigation
has ceased to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and has
begun to focus on the guilt of a suspect and the latter is taken into
custody.
7.,!9!al Co"<e**!o"*
People v*. 3al!*+e'o*
23) SCRA 4//
*ilo Avestros, Balvador Falisteros, and Ernesto 9alvante were
charged for the murder of )omeo Abad. <pon arraignment, they
pleaded not guilty. 9alvante was e$cluded because he became
state witness. Falisteros and Avestros were found guilty. Appellant
Falisteros contends that there was a violation of Art. III, sec. !",
when 9alvante e$ecuted a sworn statement without the assistance
of counsel.
Hel,&
Falisteros cannot invoke the said provision of the &onstitution. The
inadmissibility of a confession taken in violation of sec. !" and sec.
!+ of Art. III applies only to the confessant whose rights have been
violated. This right is personal, and cannot be raised by Falisteros.
And anyway, 9alvante?s confession was repeated in court, making it
a %udicial confession, which does not require the presence of
counsel.
OCA v*. S.:!la"@ 2)1 SCRA 316
Dacts. An audit was done by the ;ffice of the &ourt Administrator
and found that the T& of :aguna had misappropriated a certain
amount of money from a civil case. The money was entrusted to
the steno#interpreter who spent such amount for personal needs.
Bhe later e$ecuted the affidavit of admission if spending the money
for her own.
Issue. =5* the affidavit was valid hence admissible.
Held.
1; Malla 9a""o+ 9la!: "o= +a+ e' a<<!,av!+ =a* eEe9.+e,
+'o.@ <o'9e a", 9oe'9!o". A<+e' all0 +e !"<!':!+# +a+ :a#
>e =a* 9.'e, ># e' 'epea+!"@ +e 9o"<e**!o" !" ope"
9o.'+0 :aA!"@ !+ a B.,!9!al a,:!**!o" o< @.!l+.
Co"<e**!o" +o a P'!va+e Pe'*o"
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
People v. Ca>!le*
284 SCRA 1//
&abiles entered the house of arites Atien6a and robbed her and
raped her maid. The trial court found him guilty of robbery with
rape. The trial court relied on his e$tra#%udicial confession and the
confession he made before arites in the presence of a council
woman and another person.
HELD&
The court ruled against the validity of the written confession
because it was done without the presence of a counsel. However,
the verbal confession before arites is admissible in evidence
because 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 wereby the
accused orally admitted having committed the crime.
People v. Do:a"+a#
$R 136612
Accused was found guilty of rape with homicide. Accused#appellant
contends that his alleged confessions to BJ;! Espino6a and radio
reporter anuel are inadmissible in evidence.
HELD&
His confession to BJ;! Espino6a is inadmissible because it was
not put in writing nor made in the presence of a counsel. However,
his confession to the radio reporter is admissible. The Fill of )ights
does not concern itself with the relationship between the individual
and the Btate. The prohibitions are primarily addressed to the state
and its agents. There is no showing that the reporter was acting for
the police or that the interview was conducted under circumstances
where it is apparent that the accused confessed to the killing out of
fear.
People v. Mo'a,a
$R 12/)23
orada was convicted for murder. He contends that the
e$tra%udicial confession made to the Faranggay &aptain is
inadmissible.
HELD&
=hile the court held that the constitutional guarantees during
custodial investigations do not apply to spontaneous statements in
ordinary conversation, this ruling does not apply if the confession
was made in a situation not divorced from police interrogation. In
this case, it was doubtful whether the confession to the Faranggay
&hairman was divorced from police interrogation. The confession is
inadmissible.
People v*. Ta#la'a"
168 SCRA 3)3
Taylaran killed Atup, the neighborhood herbolaryo. He
surr'endered himself to the policemen, and the policemen who
arrested him repeated Taylaran?s statement at the trial. Taylaran
now ob%ects to the inclusion of his statement.
Hel,&
The rights of the accused do not apply when all that was testified to
was what the accused stated upon surrendering, which in this case,
is not part of custodial investigation. Taylaran also freely repeated
this statement to a civilian witness while he was already in %ail.
Feing a civilian, the e$clusionary rule cannot apply.
Ma".el v*. N.C. Co"*+'.9+!o"
282 SCRA 326
Dacts. anuel and his companions were caught stealing wires out
of the company?s premises. They e$ecuted their admission before
their employer w5out the assistance of counsel, and the criminal
charges were dropped in e$change for the dismissal of them from
the company. The accused subsequently filed for illegal dismissal.
Issue. =5* the right to counsel is available in admi investigations.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
Held.
1; I+ =a* "o+ +e pol!9e o' a"# la= e"<o'9e:e"+ a@e"9# +a+
9o",.9+e, +e !"ve*+!@a+!o"0 >.+ +e e:plo#e'. Te '!@+*
.",e' Se91 2 a'e "o+ ,e:a",a>le !" a,:!"!*+'a+!ve
p'o9ee,!"@*.
People v*. A",a"
266 SCRA 26)
Dacts. Andan was accused of raping and killing arianne 9uevarra.
He was arrested and was brought back to the scene of the crime
and was photographed by the media holding two bags of evidence
of his guilt. After that he confessed the crime to the mayor.
Issue. =5* both confessions were valid.
Held.
1; +e pol!9e !" +e!' !"+e''o@a+!o" a,:!++e, +a+ A",a" =a*
"o+ !"<o':e, o< !* '!@+* +e'e<o'e +e 9o"<e**!o" e
eEe9.+e, 9a""o+ >e a,:!**!>le !" 9o.'+.
"4 Ho=eve'0 +e 9o"<e**!o" e +ol, +o +e Ma#o' *all >e
a,:!**!>le !" 9o.'+ <o' e =a* "o+ !" 9.*+o,!al
!"ve*+!@a+!o" ,.'!"@ +e +!:e e =a* =? +e :a#o'. Te
:a#o' !* "o+ a" e"+!+# +a+ !* 9ove'e, ># Se9 12
'e*po"*!>!l!+!e*. He !* "o+ a pol!9e +a*Ae, +o !"+e''o@a+e.
Te'e<o'e +e a,:!**!o" !* val!,.
Pol!9e L!"e8.p
PEOPLE v 4AR$O
232 SCRA 6%3
Accused allegedly surreptitiously entered the room of the alleged
rape victim, after he attempted to rape the first victim. The rape
victim was allegedly carried by the accused to a vacant house
asleep. =hen she woke up, she was no longer wearing her skirt or
underwear. The stranglehold of the accused awakened her.
Accused was identified in a police line#up, where he was %oined by 8
other men.
HELD&
Jetitioner in the course of identification in a police line#up had not
yet been held to answer for a criminal offense. Therefore, he was
not deprived of his right to counsel and due process, as
confrontation between the Btate and him had not yet begun. The
complainant identified him. He did not give any statement to the
police.
PEOPLE v TIMPLE
23) SCRA %2
)T& found Timple and his , companions guilty of the crimes of
robbery w5 homicide. Timple questions the admissibility of his
identification from the police line#up, without the assistance of
counsel.
HELD&
The police line#up is not part of the custodial investigation, where
the suspect has not yet been held to answer for the criminal offense
with which they were later charged and convicted. The customary
practice is
that it is the witness who is investigated and interrogated in the
course of the line#up. Thus, there is no real need to afford a
potential suspect
the service of counsel at the police line#up. It is the witness who
gives statement to the police rather than the accused who is not
questioned at that stage.
$AM3OA v 7UD$E CRUZ 162 SCRA 6)%0
PEOPLE v LOVERIA 18) SCRA 4)
HELD&
Jolice line#up is not part of custodial investigation because police
officer has not started to ask questions designed to elicit information
and5or confession. Jresence of counsel is not yet required.
PEOPLE v MACAM
238 SCRA %66
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
7anilo and Ernesto )oque were convicted of )obbery with
Homicide. They contended that the uncounseled identification by
the prosecution witnesses during the police line#up at the hospital
where the latter were confined was violative of their right to counsel.
HELD&
It is appropriate to e$tend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of
prosecution before the trial. A police line#up done after the start of
custodial investigation is considered part of the critical stage of the
proceedings. Thus, there should have been a counsel for the
accused present during the said line#up.
People v*. La:*!"@
248 SCRA 4)1
:amsing was arrested for the killing of a security guard. He was
identified by witness Eli6abeth delos Bantos in a police lineup,
without the assistance of counsel. ;n the strength of this witness?
testimony, :amsing was convicted.
Hel,&
The right to counsel does not e$tend to police lineups, because they
are not yet part of custodial investigations. At this point, the process
has not yet shifted from investigatory to accusatory. The accused?s
right to counsel attaches only from the time that the adversarial
%udicial proceedings are taken against him.
People v*. Salva+!e''a 2)6 SCRA %%
Dacts.
Issue. =5* the right to counsel is covered in a police line#up.
Held.
1; R!@+* .",e' Se9 12 9a""o+ >e !"voAe, !" a pol!9e l!"e8.p.
4.'+e'0 e *!@"e, +e >ooA!"@ a", !"<o *ee+ =?o.+ +e
a**!*+a"9e o< 9o."*el ,oe* "o+ :aAe +e *a:e 9ove'e, !"
+e a<o'e:e"+!o"e, p'ov!*!o". Te'e !* "o -.e*+!o"!"@ o'
a,:!**!o" !" +e *!@"!"@ o< a >ooA!"@ o' !"<o *ee+ +a+
=a''a"+* a 9o."*el.
PEOPLE V. DIMAANO
26/ SCRA 86/
7anilo 7imaano and four others were found guilty of robbing the
house of Eli6abeth Fatara. Eli6abeth and her house helper
Eli6abeth identified them in the police station. The appellants
assailed the validity of the police line#up.
Hel,&
=hen the appellants were identified by the complainants at the
police line#up, they had not yet been held to answer for any criminal
offense. The police, therefore, could not have violated their right to
counsel.
PEOPLE v. HATTON
216 SCRA 1
Herein witness to a stabbing incident narrated his story to the police
and described the assailantKs features. Two days after the incident,
the witness was made to identify the suspect who turned out to be
the accused. The latter was sitting on a bench in the police station
and a policeman pointed him as their suspect.
Hel,.
Identification was invalidly conducted. He was not identified in a
police line#up. Drom all indications, his identification was suggested
by the police and this is ob%ectionable. The right to counsel is
indispensable in a post#indictment line#up, when accused has been
arrested and sub%ected to custodial investigation.
So=8.p a", Ve'>al A,:!**!o"
People v. Me"e*e*
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
288 SCRA /%
&esar Cictoria was stabbed. The lone witness was his +#yr old son
&hristopher. &hristopher could not identify the murderer. eneses
was arrested after being implicated by his wife, Angelina.
&hristopher later on identified his uncle eneses. He was
convicted of murder.
HELD&
Identification in a Gshow#upH is ob%ectionable. An identification of the
accused during a Gshow#upH or where the suspect alone is brought
face to face with the witness for identification is seriously flawed. It
constitutes the most grossly suggestive identification procedure ever
used. The boy might have been influence by his aunt. His actions
are suspect since he could not identify the accused before.
The verbal admission which the Jeople claim the accused
gave 3and which the accused denies4 is not admissible in evidence
against him because the constitutional preconditions for its
admission were not complied with. The mere assertion by a police
officer that he readily admitted his guilt even after being told of the
right to remain silent does not make the admission admissible. It
was not even shown that it was given with the benefit of a counsel.
No Co"<e**!o"
People v. Mo"+!lla
28% SCRA )63
The police were informed that a mari%uana courier will be coming
from Faguio to &avite. ontilla was arrested when the informer
pointed him out. He was convicted for violation of 7angerous 7rugs
Act. He questions the interrogation conducted by the police,
claiming that he wasnot allowed to communicate with anybody, and
that he was not duly informed of his right to remain silent and to
have a counsel of his own choice.
HELD&
The police could possibly have violated the rights of the accused.
Assuming the e$istence of such irregularities, however, the
proceedings in the lower court will not necessarily be struck down.
The appellant never admitted or confessed anything during his
custodial investigation. Thus, no incriminatory evidence in the
nature of a compelled or involuntary confession or admission was
elicited from him which would otherwise have been inadmissible in
evidence. Durthermore, his guilt was established by other evidence.
INTERLOCFIN$ CON4ESSION
People v. L!*!"@
$R 166216811
A young couple was abducted and murdered. The co#conspirators
to the crime were convicted because of the testimony of a credible
witness and the interlocking#confessions of the co#conspirators,
analili, 9arcia, and :ising. :ising claims that his e$tra%udicial
confession was forced from him and that it should not be admitted.
HELD&
There is no question that the e$tra%udicial statements of analili and
9arcia were e$ecuted voluntarily. They were assisted by their
counsel and properly sworn to before a duly authori6ed officer.
E$tra%udicial statements are as a rule, admissible as against
their respective declarants, pursuant to the rule that the act,
declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given
in evidence against him. The rule that an e$tra%udicial statement is
evidence only against the person making it, also recogni6es various
e$ceptions. ;ne such e$ception is the rule that where several
e$tra%udicial statements had been made by several persons charged
with an offense and there could have been no collusion with
reference to said several confessions, the facts that the statements
are in all material respects identical, is confirmatory of the
confession of the co#defendants and is admissible against other
persons implicated therein. They are also admissible as
circumstantial evidence against the person implicated therein to
show the probability of the latter?s actual participation in the
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
commission of the crime and may likewise serve as corroborative
evidence if it is clear from other facts and circumstances that other
persons had participated in the perpetration of the crime charged
and proved. These are known as Ginterlocking confessions.H
People v. Sa>alo"e*
$R 12348%
Babalones and Feronga were convicted of murder and frustrated
murder. It arouse from a shooting incident in &ebu which resulted in
the killing of two persons and the wounding of three others, who
were all riding in two vehicles, which were allegedly ambushed by
appellants. Babalones insists that Feronga?s e$tra%udicial statement
was inadmissible against him.
HELD&
Appellants were convicted primarily on the positive identification of
the two survivors, not only the e$tra%udicial statement which merely
corroborates the eyewitness testimonies. Any allegation of violation
of rights during custodial investigation is relevant and material only
to cases in which an e$tra%udicial admission or confession is the
basis for conviction.
In any case, the confession of Feronga was e$ecuted in
compliance with the constitutional requirements.
The well#settled rule is that the e$tra%udicial confession of
an accused is binding only upon himself and is not admissible as
evidence against his co#accused, it being mere hearsay evidence as
far as the other accused are concerned. Fut this rule admits of
e$ception. It does not apply when the confession, as in this case, is
used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of
participation of the co#accused in the killing of the victims or when
the confession of the co#accused is corroborated by other evidence.
People v. D.!,a+o
$R 11)166
Accused was convicted of parricide. The lower court relied mainly
on the e$tra%udicial confessions of the alita brothers. The accused
questions the admissibility of the confessions.
HELD&
In indicting accused#appellant, the prosecution relied heavily on the
affidavits e$ecuted by )eynaldo and Eddie. The two brothers were,
however, not presented on the witness stand to testify on their
e$tra%udicial confessions. The failure to present the two gives these
affidavits the character of hearsay. It is hornbook doctrine that
unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the
averments in their affidavits, the affidavits must be e$cluded from
the %udicial proceeding, being inadmissible hearsay. The voluntary
admissions of an accused made e$tra%udicially are not admissible in
evidence against his co#accused when the latter had not been given
an opportunity to hear him testify and cross#e$amine him.
:ikewise, the manner by which the affidavits were obtained
by the police render the same inadmissible in evidence even if they
were voluntarily given. The settled rule is that an uncounseled
e$tra%udicial confession without a valid waiver of the right to counsel
2 that is, in writing and in the presence of counsel 2 is
inadmissible in evidence. It is undisputed that the alita brothers
gave their statements to Jatrolman ara in the absence of counsel,
although they signed the same in the presence of counsel the ne$t
day.
PEOPLE v. PAMON
21) SCRA %61
Accused was charged with murder and subsequently arrested by
virtue of an arrest warrant. In the presence of a &:A; lawyer,
accused e$ecuted a confession and implicated his co#accused.
Hel,.
As a general rule, where counsel is provided for by investigators,
confession taken in the presence of such counsel is inadmissible.
An e$ception is where counsel has been appointed by investigators
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 12
with the conformity of the confessant. Durthermore, an e$tra#%udicial
confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not
admissible against his co#accused. As against the latter, the
confession is merely hearsay.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER

You might also like