1 In Re: Query of Mr.

Roger Prioreschi
A.M. No. 09-6-9-SC
August 19, 2009
Facts:
In his letter dated May 22, 2009 addressed to the Chief Justice, Mr. Roger C.
Prioreschi, administrator of the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., questioned OCA
Circular No. 42-2005 and Rule 141 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines that
reserve the privilege of exemption from docket and filing fees to indigent persons.
He questioned why the rules excluded foundations or associations that work with and
for the most Indigent persons, as in the case of the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc.
which had been reaching out since 1985 to the poorest among the poor, the newly
born and abandoned babies, children who never saw the smile of their mother, old
people who cannot afford a few pesos to pay for common prescriptions, broken
families who returned to a normal life, whom the Philippine Government and the
Filipino society could not reach to or had rejected or abandoned.
To answer the query of Mr. Prioreschi, the Supreme Court held that it could not grant
to foundations like the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc. the same exemption from
payment of legal fees granted to indigent litigants even if the foundations are
working for indigent and underprivileged people. The basis for the exemption from
legal and filing fees is the free access clause, embodied in Sec. 11, Art. III of the 1987
Constitution, which provides that free access to the courts and quasi judicial bodies
and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty.
Held:
In implementation of the right of free access under the Constitution, the Supreme
Court promulgated rules, specifically, Sec. 21, Rule 3, Rules of Court, and Sec. 19,
Rule 141, Rules of Court.
The Court held that the clear intent and precise language of the aforequoted
provisions of the Rules of Court indicated that only a natural party litigant may be
regarded as an indigent litigant. The Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., being a
corporation invested by the State with a juridical personality separate and distinct
from that of its members, is a juridical person. Among others, it has the power to
acquire and possess property of all kinds as well as incur obligations and bring civil or
criminal actions, in conformity with the laws and regulations of their organization. As
a juridical person, it cannot be accorded the exemption from legal and filing fees
granted to indigent litigants.
The Court stated that the free access clause of the Constitution applies only to a
natural person who suffers from poverty. It added that extending the exemption to a
juridical person on the ground that it works for indigent and underprivileged people
may be prone to abuse (even with the imposition of rigid documentation
requirements), particularly by corporations and entities bent on circumventing the
rule on payment of the fees and that the scrutiny of compliance with the
documentation requirements may prove too time-consuming and wasteful for the
courts.
2 HO WAI PANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 176229

October 19, 2011

FACTS:
When Gilda Cinco search the bag of Ho Wai Pang in the Baggage Declaration at the
arrival area, she found boxes of chocolate which when she saw inside had white
substance. They were then brought to the PNP after the procedures in the airport.
The RTC found Pang guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The CA while
affirming the RTC decision took note that their right to counsel during custodial
investigation was violated.
ISSUE: Whether the violation of the petitioner's right to counsel made the evidence
taken from the petitioner inadmissible.
RULING:
The SC held in the negative. The SC reiterated that infractions to the accused during
the custodial investigation render only extrajudicial confession or admissions of the
suspect inadmissible as evidence.
Also, the guilt of Pang was based on the testimony of Cinco when she caught Pang in
flagrante delicto transporting shabu.
3 Gamboa v Cruz
G.R. No. L-56291
June 27, 1988
Facts: Petitioner was arrested for vagrancy without a warrant. During a line-up of 5
detainees including petitioner, he was identified by a complainant to be a companion
in a robbery, thereafter he was charged. Petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit on the
ground that the conduct of the line-up, without notice and in the absence of his
counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. The court
denied said motion. Hearing was set, hence the petition.
Issue: Whether or Not petitioners right to counsel and due process violated.
Held: No. The police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, petitioner
was not yet entitled, at such stage, to counsel. He had not been held yet to answer
for a criminal offense. The moment there is a move or even an urge of said
investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may
appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then and
there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be
made in writing and in the presence of counsel.
On the right to due process, petitioner was not, in any way, deprived of this
substantive and constitutional right, as he was duly represented by a counsel. He was
accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate
his defense; only that he chose not to, and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit
after the prosecution had rested its case. What due process abhors is the absolute
lack of opportunity to be heard.
4 People v Macam

G.R. Nos. 91011-12

November 24, 1994
Facts: Accused was charged and prosecuted for robbery with homicide as guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. Defense assails the court decision contending the
constitutional rights of the accused were violated for subjecting them to a police line
up at the hospital where they were identified by the victims without the presence of
their counsel and without any warrant.
Issue: Whether or not the constitutional rights of the accused were violated.
Held: Although the accused were arrested without a warrant such defect was cured
during the proceeding when the defense failed to object on the issue during the initial
proceedings before the court. Having failed to assail the issue beforehand the
accused is estopped to assail the validity of their arrest as they further voluntarily
submitted their self before the court by entering the plea of not guilty instead of
moving to quash the information before the court on ground of an invalid arrest. It is
also held that any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up
is inadmissible. HOWEVER, the prosecution did not present evidence regarding
appellants identification at the line-up. The witnesses identified the accused again in
open court. Also, accused did not object to the in-court identification as being tainted
by illegal line-up. The witnesses and victims positively identified the accused thereby
further affirming the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. SC affirmed the
decision of the lower court.
5 People v Judge Ayson
G.R. No. 85215
July 7, 1989
Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines and was
allegedly involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. The PAL management
notified him of an investigation to be conducted. That investigation was scheduled in
accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining
Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to
which Ramos pertained. A letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle
the amount of P76,000. The findings of the Audit team were given to him, and he
refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was prevented from
settling said amounts. He proffered a compromise however this did not ensue. Two
months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not
guilty. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos written admission and
statement, to which defendants argued that the confession was taken without the
accused being represented by a lawyer. Respondent Judge did not admit those
stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent
and to have counsel. A motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was
denied. Hence this appeal.
Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as
evidence the admission and statement of accused.
Held: No. The judge should admit the evidence in court as the accused was not
under custodial investigation when his statements were taken. One cannot invoke
violation of the right to counsel in administrative proceeding. The right to self
incrimination and custodial investigation are accorded only when the accused is
subjected to custodial inquest which involves the questioning initiated by police

authorities after a person is taken in custody or deprived of his freedom in any way.
Because the statements were obtained beyond the purview of custodial investigation
the evidence should be admitted in court.
6 People v Pinlac
G.R. Nos. 74123-24
September 26, 1988
Facts: The accused was convicted for two separate criminal cases for robbery and
robbery with homicide. He assailed his conviction on the contention that the court
erred in admitting his extrajudicial confession as evidence which was taken by force,
violence, torture, and intimidation without having appraised of his constitutional
rights and without the assistance of counsel.
Issue: Whether or not due process was observed during the custodial investigation
of the accused.
Held: The court find it meritorious to declare that the constitutional rights of the
accused was violated in the failure of the authorities in making the accused
understand the nature of the charges against him without appraising him of his
constitutional right to have a counsel during custodial investigation. Moreover the
prosecution merely presented the extrajudicial confession of the accused which is
inadmissible as evidence and the other evidences provided therein are merely
circumstantial and subject for rebuttal. The court acquitted the accused.
7 People v Bolanos
G.R. No. 101808
July 3, 1992
Facts: Police authorities arrested the accused for murder. Together with the accused
the police boarded a jeep to take him to their station. While on board the jeep the
accused started admitting killing the deceased. This extrajudicial confession was
used as evidence in court and the accused was convicted.
Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to
counsel.
Held: Yes. The accused on board the police vehicle on the way to the police station is
already under custodial investigation and should therefore be accorded his rights
under the Constitution and be informed of his Miranda rights. Any extrajudicial
confession he makes without his counsel is deemed inadmissible to court.
8 People vs. Pablito Andan
G.R. No. 116437
March 3, 1997
Re.: Extrajudicial Confessions to Mayor and Media Admissible
Facts:
Pablito Andan alias "Bobby" was accused of the crime of rape with homicide. The
offense was committed on February 19,1994 in Baliuag, Bulacan; the victim being
Marianne Guevarra, 22 and a 2nd year student at the Fatima School of Nursing. On

said day, victim left her home for her school dormitory in Valenzuela. While on her
way, appellant invited her to his house. He used the pretext that the blood pressure
of his wife's grandmother should be taken. Marianne agreed to do so as the old
woman was her distant relative. She did not know that nobody was inside the house.
Appellant then punched her in the abdomen, brought her to the kitchen and raped
her. By night time, Marianne, who was still unconscious, was dragged by appellant to
theirbackyard that was adjacent to a vacant lot. Appellant was to transfer Marianne
to the vacant lot when she moved, promptingappellant to hit her head with a piece of
concrete block. No longer moving, he dragged her to the lot and abandoned her. At
11amher body was discovered. The autopsy revealed that she died of "traumatic
injuries."Marianne's gruesome death drew public attention and prompted Baliuag
Mayor Cornelio Trinidad to form an investigationteam. The investigation pointed to
the appellant. Appellant's nearby house was searched but he was not there. On
February 24, apolice team led by Mayor Trinidad traced appellant in his parents'
house. They took him and brought him to the police headquarterswhere he was
interrogated. Initially, he denied any knowledge of Marianne's death. However, when
the police confronted himwith evidence, appellant relented but implicated two of his
neighbours, and that he was merely a lookout. Larin and Dizon werelikewise brought
there by the police. The following day a physical examination conducted on the
suspects revealed that appellanthas multiple scratches on the neck, chest and
back.By that time, people and media representatives were already at the police
headquarters awaiting the results of theinvestigation. Mayor Trinidad arrived. Upon
seeing the mayor, appellant approached him and whispered that they talk
privately.The mayor led him to the office of the Chief of Police and there, he broke
down and said "Mayor, patawarin mo ako! I will tell youthe truth. I am the one who
killed Marianne." The mayor opened the door of the room to let the public and media
representativeswitness the confession. Since no lawyer was available he ordered the
proceedings photographed and videotaped. In the presenceof the mayor, the police,
representatives of the media and appellant's own wife and son, appellant confessed
his guilt. He asked forforgiveness from Larin and Dizon whom he falsely implicated
saying he did it because of ill-feelings against them. He also said thatthe devil
entered his mind because of the pornographic magazines and tabloid he read almost
everyday. After his confession,appellant hugged his wife and son and asked the
mayor to help him. His confession was captured on videotape and covered by
themedia nationwide.On arraignment, however, appellant entered a plea of "not
guilty." He testified that on said date he was at his parent'shouse for the birthday
party of his nephew. He, his wife and son went home after 5pm, slept at 8pm, and
woke up at 6am the nextday. Appellant claimed that after he was picked up by the
police on February 24, he was coerced to confess that he raped and killedMarianne.
Fearing for his life, appellant did as he was told.The trial court convicted the
appellant and sentenced him to death. He was found guilty of the crime charged in
theInformation (Rape with Homicide) and penalized accordingly. Hence, the
automatic review.
Issue: W/N the appellants confession not being assisted by a counsel is in violation
of the constitution, and is thereforeinadmissible as evidence against him.
Held:
Under these circumstances, it cannot be successfully claimed that appellant's
confession before the mayor is inadmissible.It is true that a municipal mayor has
"operational supervision and control" over the local police and may arguably be
deemed a lawenforcement officer for purposes of applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of
Article III of the Constitution. However, appellant's confessionto the mayor was not
made in response to any interrogation by the latter. In fact, the mayor did not

question appellant at all. Nopolice authority ordered appellant to talk to the mayor. It
was appellant himself who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily soughtthe mayor for
a private meeting. The mayor did not know that appellant was going to confess his
guilt to him. When appellanttalked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law
enforcement officer, his uncounseled confession to him did not violate
hisconstitutional rights. Thus, it has been held that the constitutional procedures on
custodial investigation do not apply to aspontaneous statement, not elicited through
questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby
appellantorally admitted having committed the crime. What the Constitution bars is
the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts orconfessions. The rights under
Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as
would lead theaccused to admit something false, not to prevent him from freely and
voluntarily telling the truth. Hence we hold that appellant'sconfession to the mayor
was correctly admitted by the trial court.Appellant's confessions to the media were
likewise properly admitted. The confessions were made in response toquestions by
news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer. We have held that
statements spontaneouslymade by a suspect to news reporters on a televised
interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence.The Court therefore
held accused-appellant Pablito Andan guilty of the special complex crime of rape with
homicide.
9 Navallo v Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 97214
July 18, 1994
Facts: Petitioner is the collecting and disbursing officer of Numancia National
Vocational School found to have misappropriated public funds for private benefit after
a COA audit. He failed to restitute the amount despite COA demands. A warrant of
arrest was issued but petitioner pleaded not guilty and invokes his right to custodial
investigation since during the COA audit and actual cash count he was made to sign
the certification on the fund shortage in the absence of a counsel. He further
contends that the shortage of funds was due to the assurance of certain Macasemo
to settle his unliquidated cash advance and his failure to do so resulted to the fund
shortage.
Issue: Whether or not the right to counsel be invoked during the COA audit
Held: No, the right to counsel could not be invoked during the COA audit since the
procedure is not within the ambit of custodial investigation. A person may be
subject to malversation of funds even in the absence of direct proof of
misappropriation as long as there is evidence of fund shortage which the petitioner
failed to explain with convincing justification.
10 People v Dy
G.R. No. 74517
February 23, 1988
Facts: Accused is the owner of Bennys Bar at Boracay Island and was sentenced
with murder before the trial court for shooting a Swiss national in his bar. The
accused contends the court erred in admitting the presentation of the prosecution of
evidence that he came to a police officer and made a confession on the crime and
informed said officer where to find the gun he used, a statement the accused denied
to have done. They assail its admissibility to the court on the grounds that such

statement was not made in writing and is in violation of the due process required in
custodial investigation.
Issue: Whether or not the evidence presented by the prosecution be admissible to
warrant guilt of the accused.
Held: In view of the documentary evidence on record the defense lost its credibility
before the court. An oral confession made by the accused to the officer and telling
him the gun is in his bar which he wants to surrender can be held admissible in court
as evidence against him. This is because such confession was made unsolicited by
the police officer and the accused was not under investigation when he made the oral
confession. Therefore there is no need to invoke compliance of the proper procedure
in a custodial investigation at the case at bar. The rule on RES GESTAE is applicable
where a witness who heard the confession is competent to satisfy the substance of
what he heard if he heard and understood it. An oral confession need not be repeated
verbatim, but in such a case it must be given in substance. Thus the oral confession
made by the accused outside the ambit of custodial investigation can be admissible
in court and was given due credence to warrant the judgment of the accused being
guilty of the crime.
11 People v Alicando
GR No. 117487
December 2, 1995
Facts: Accused was convicted with a crime of rape with homicide of a 4 year old girl.
He was arrested and during the interrogation he made a confession of the crime
without the assistance of a counsel. By virtue of his uncounseled confession the
police came to know where to find the evidences consisting of the victims personal
things like clothes stained with blood which was admitted to court as evidences. The
victim pleaded guilty during the arraignment and was convicted with the death
penalty. The case was forwarded to the SC for automatic review.
Issue: Whether or not due process during the custodial investigation was accorded
to the accused.
Held: Due process was not observed in the conduct of custodial investigation for the
accused. He was not informed of his right to a counsel upon making his extrajudicial
confession and the information against him was written in a language he could not
understand and was not explained to him. This is in violation of section 1(a) of Rule
116, the rule implementing the constitutional right of the appellant to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The lower court also violated
section 3 of Rule 116 when it accepted the plea of guilt of the appellant without
conducting a search inquiry on the voluntariness and full understanding of the
accused of the consequences of his plea. Moreover the evidences admitted by the
court that warranted his convicted were inadmissible because they were due to an
invalid custodial investigation that did not provide the accused with due process of
the law. Thus the SC annulled the decision of the imposition of the death penalty and
remanded the case back to the lower for further proceeding.