Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Arizona
Brief Fact Summary. The defendants offered incriminating evidence
during police interrogations without prior notification of their rights
under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (the
Constitution).
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Government authorities need to inform
individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an
interrogation following an arrest.
Facts. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court)
consolidated four separate cases with issues regarding the
admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations.
The first Defendant, Ernesto Miranda (Mr. Miranda), was arrested
for kidnapping and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and
although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights, he
signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed
statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his
rights.
The second Defendant, Michael Vignera (Mr. Vignera), was
arrested for robbery. Mr. Vignera orally admitted to the robbery to the
first officer after the arrest, and he was held in detention for eight
hours before he made an admission to an assistant district attorney.
There was no evidence that he was notified of his Fifth Amendment
constitutional rights.
The third Defendant, Carl Calvin Westover (Mr. Westover), was
arrested for two robberies. Mr. Westover was questioned over
fourteen hours by local police, and then was handed to Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, who were able to get signed
confessions from Mr. Westover. The authorities did not notify Mr.
Westover of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.
The fourth Defendant, Roy Allen Stewart (Mr. Stewart), was
arrested, along with members of his family (although there was no
evidence of any wrongdoing by his family) for a series of purse
snatches. There was no evidence that Mr. Stewart was notified of his
rights. After nine interrogations, Mr. Stewart admitted to the crimes.
Ruling:
The court a quo rendered separate verdicts on the three accused on
the one hand, and Anacleto Olvis on the other. However Olvis was
acquitted, while the three were all sentenced to die for the crime of
murder.
In acquitting Olvis, the trial court rejected the three accused's earlier
confessions pointing to him as the mastermind, and denied the
admissibility thereof insofar as far as he was concerned. It rejected
claims of witnesses that the three accused-appellants would carry out
Olvis' alleged order to kill Bagon upon an offer of a reward when in
fact no money changed hands.
With the acquittal of Olvis, however the remaining accused-appellants
subsequently repudiated their alleged confessions in open court
despite prior confessions, and now were alleging that there were
threats by the Polanco investigators of physical harm if they refused
(1.)
(2.)
In the evening of May 5, 2000, Ganih told Mrs. Lee that they would
release her the next day. At about 4:00 a.m. of May 6, 2000, her
abductors brought Mrs. Lee to Arena Blanco in Zamboanga City
where Ganih gave her P100.00 for fare and an M203 bullet as
memento. She eventually got home.
FACTS:
Sometime after, the police arrested some men which in a police lineup, Mrs. Lee later positively identified as her abductors. For his part,
Ganih denied the allegations and claimed an alibi that he was in his
house at the said incident.
On May 21, 2002 the RTC rendered judgment,convicting Ganih of
the crime charged and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death.
The RTC, however, acquitted Awid for insufficiency of evidence.
ISSUE:
RULING:
To prove the crime charged, the prosecution had to show (a) that the
accused was a private person; (b) that he kidnapped or detained or
in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty; (c) that the
kidnapping or detention was illegal; and (d) that the victim was
kidnapped or detained for ransom. All these have been proved in this
case.
Significantly, Ganih offered nothing but his bare denial and
unsubstantiated alibi to counter the overwhelming evidence that the
prosecution adduced against him. His other contention is that the
police made Mrs. Lee identify him, not in a proper police line-up but
in a mere show-up after giving her some improper suggestions.
What the Court condemns are prior or contemporaneous improper
suggestions that point out the suspect to the witness as the
perpetrator to be identified. Besides, granting that the out-of-court
identification was irregular, Mrs. Lees court testimony clearly shows
that she positively identified Ganih independently of the previous
identification she made in front of the police station. Mrs. Lee could
not have made a mistake in identifying him since she had ample
opportunities to study the faces and peculiar body movements of her
kidnappers in her almost four months of ordeal with them.Indeed,
she was candid and direct in her recollection, narrating events as
she saw them take place. Her testimony, including her identification
of the appellant, was positive, straightforward, and categorical.
The totality of the prosecutions evidence proves beyond
reasonable doubt that Ganih and the others with him kidnapped Mrs.
Lee for ransom. The crime was punishable by death at the time of its
commission but, with the enactment of Republic Act 9346 that
prohibits the imposition of such penalty, the CA was correct in
lowering the penalty to reclusion perpetuawithout eligibility for parole
under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 109242, January 26, 1999
Facts:
On February 10, 1989, Jacinto Merete, a letter carrier in the Makati
Central Post Office, disclosed to his chief, Projecto Tumagan, the
existence of a group responsible for the pilferage of mail matter in the
post office. Among those mentioned by Merete were Arnold
Pasicolan, an emergency laborer assigned as a bag opener in the
Printed Matters Section, and Redentor Aguinaldo, a mail sorter of the
Makati Post Office. For this reason, Tumagan sought the aid of the
National Bureau of Investigation in apprehending the group
responsible for mail pilferage in the Makati Post Office.
On February 17, 1989, NBI Director Salvador Ranin dispatched NBI
agents to Legaspi Village following a report that the group would stage
a theft of mail matter on that day. Tumagan accompanied a team of
NBI agents composed of Senior Agent Arles Vela and two other
agents in a private car.
At 2:00 p.m., a postal delivery jeep, driven by one Henry Orindai, was
parked in front of the Esguerra Building on Adelantado Street.
Pasicolan alighted from the jeep bringing with him a mail bag. Upon
reaching Amorsolo St., Pasicolan gave the mail bag to two persons,
who were later identified as Ronnie Romero and petitioner Lito
Marcelo. The latter transferred the contents of the mail bag to a
travelling bag. Meanwhile, the NBI team led by agent Vela, upon
seeing Pasicolan going towards Amorsolo St., moved their car and
started towards Amorsolo St. They were just in time to see Pasicolan
handing over the mail bag to Marcelo and Romero. At that point, Atty.
Sacaguing and Arles Vela arrested the two accused. The NBI agents
followed the postal delivery jeep, overtook it, and arrested Pasicolan.
The NBI agents brought Pasicolan, Marcelo, and Romero to their
headquarters. Romero, Marcelo, and Pasicolan were asked to
affix their signatures on the envelopes of the letters. They did so
in the presence of the members of the NBI Administrative and
Investigative Staff and the people transacting business with the NBI at
that time. According to Director Ranin, they required the accused to
do this in order to identify the letters as the very same letters
confiscated from them.
A case for qualified theft was filed before the Sandiganbayan
wherein the accused were declared guilty.
Issue(s):
Antecedents
Appellant was charged under two separate informations filed before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City, Branch 12, with violation
of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II ofR.A. No. 9165, committed as
follows:
Criminal Case No. 0098-2003
That on or about the 20th day of November, 2002, at about 7:00
oclock in the evening, at Barangay 2-A, Municipality of
Mataasnakahoy, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully
and unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control eight (8)
small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu",
having a total weight of 0.32 gram, a dangerous drug.2
Criminal Case No. 0099-2003
That on or about the 20th day of November, 2002, at about 7:00
oclock in the evening, at Barangay 2-A, Municipality of
Mataasnakahoy, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully
and unlawfully sell, deliver and give away one (1) small heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu", weighing 0.04 gram, a
dangerous drug.3
Prosecutions Version of the Events
On 11 November 2002, police operatives of Mataasnakahoy Police
Station, acting on a report from a barangay official that appellant is
involved in illegal drug activities,conducted surveillance operations
on appellant. A week of surveillance confirmed the veracity of the
report4 hence, on 20 November 2002, a team, composedof SPO4
Moriel Benedicto (SPO4 Benedicto), SPO3 Nestor Babadilla(SPO3
ask the reason for his imprisonment because one of the police
officers punched him again.23 When he was subsequently taken out
of his cell, the police officers led him to a table where they showed
him plastic sachets containing shabuallegedly found in his
wallet.24 Thereafter, the police officers took photographs of him and
the items supposedly seized from him, although he refused to be
photographed. He was also made to signa document, which later
turned out to be the inventory of property seized, without allowing
him to read the contents thereof and without the assistance of a
counsel. Neither did the police officers inform him of his
constitutional rights.25
Appellant claimed that he did not file a case against the police
officers because he was already incarcerated and, besides, he is
ignorant of the procedure in the filing of cases.26
The Ruling of the Trial Court
Finding that the prosecution was able to successfully prove the
existence of the essential elements ofillegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, the trial court rendered a
Decision27 dated 22 October 2010, the dispositive portion of which
states:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, accused Reyman
Endaya y Laig is convicted of the offenses charged in these cases
for violation of Section 5 (paragraph 1) and Section 11 (paragraph 3),
both of Article II of Republic Act 9165 and is hereby sentenced to
suffer:
a) Section 11 Imprisonment for a period of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day as minimum to twenty (20) years as
maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 and;
b.) Section 5 Life imprisonment and a fine
of P500,000.00.28
xxx
Appellants guilt for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu was
proven beyond reasonable doubt
The illegal sale of dangerous drugs is punishable under the first
paragraph of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 as follows:
The Issues
Appellant raised the following errors in his brief:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS
11 AND 5 OF R.A. NO. 9165 NOTWITHSTANDING THE
PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE
RECEIPT FOR PROPERTY SEIZED WHICH THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT WAS FORCED TO SIGN IN VIOLATION OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE
SACHETS OF SHABU ASEVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit; hence, we sustain the judgment of
conviction.
I
xxxx
Q: And after your asset proceeded to that place, where did you
position yourselves?
A: We hid in a place not far from the place where the asset was
positioned.
xxxx
Q: And when [appellant] approachedyour asset, what transpired
between your asset and Reyman Endaya if anything happened that
time?
A: P500.00, sir.
Q: In what denomination?
A: They talked for a while and as we could see it, they exchanged
something, sir.
xxxx
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What money?
signal to us which means that he had already bought the shabu from
Reyman Endaya.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where were you when your asset who acted as poseur buyer and
Reyman Endaya were [doing] this transaction?
Q: What was your inkling about what Reyman Endaya gave to your
asset?
A: We were hiding on [sic] a place which was near from [sic] the two,
sir.
Q: And when you saw your asset giving that signal, what did you do?
A: We ran towards them and we arrested Reyman Endaya for selling
that shabu, sir.35
On the other hand, the pertinent provisions of Section 11 of R.A. No.
9165 on illegal possession of dangerous drugs state that:
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fineranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law,shall possess any dangerous drug in the following
quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing
quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the
quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium,
morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocainehydrochloride, marijuana resin
or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu",
or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or
"ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or
newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of
marijuana.
For the successful prosecution of the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, the following requisites must concur: (a) the
accused was in possession of an item or object thatis identified to be
a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession was not
authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the drug.36
The foregoing elements were likewise convincingly established
herein. When the police operatives bodily searched appellant for his
wallet at the police station, they found eight(8) plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance which, upon laboratory
examination, turned out to be shabu.The respective testimonies of
SPO4 Benedicto and PO2 Chavez on the matter provide:
[PROSECUTOR] And after putting the person of Reyman Endaya
under arrest and informing him of the cause of his arrest and his
constitutional rights, what else did you do in [sic] the person of
Reyman Endaya?
[SPO4 BENEDICTO] He was searched by our two companions, sir.
xxxx
Q: And did you come to know the result of this body search
conducted by SPO3 Nestor Babadilla and PO2 Edwin Chavez?
functionaries, would be clear evidence that the police had carried out
a legitimate buy-bust operation."40
The records of this case clearly showthat the foregoing requirements
were complied with.
As mandated by the above-quoted provision of law, the
apprehending team conducted a physical inventory of the drugs
confiscated from appellant, as evidenced by the "Receipt for
Property Seized"41 which was signed by representatives from the
municipal trial court, a non-governmental organization, the media,
and three locally elected public officials, as proof that they were
present when the inventory was carried out. Likewise, a
photograph42 of the accused, together with the items seized from
him, and with the aforementioned representativesfrom the public and
private sector as witnesses, was taken at the police station. The
physical inventory and taking of the photograph weredone after the
confiscated items were marked by PO2 Chavez. Finally, within 24
hours from the time the plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance were taken from appellant, the same were forwarded to
the regional crime laboratory office for qualitative examination where
the specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.43
In view of the foregoing, the allegation of appellant that the
apprehending officers failed to complywith the mandates of Section
21, particularly paragraph 1, of R.A. No. 9165 has no basis. In
addition to this, jurisprudence states that "the phrase marking upon
immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest
police station or office of the apprehending team."44 Hence, the fact
that the seized plastic sachets were marked at the police station only
does not deviate from the elements required in the preservation of
the integrity of the seized drugs.
In any case, contrary to appellants claim, strict compliance with
Section 21, Article II ofRA 9165 is not necessary45"as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seizeditems are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team." Elaborating on the
provisions of R.A. No. 9165, Section 21 (a) of its IRR states:
him after his arrest if you will be shown these nine (9) plastic sachets
of shabu can you identify the same? [SPO4 BENEDICTO] Yes sir.
Indeed, this Court has, in many casesheld that "while the chain of
custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, as it is almost
always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.The most important
factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused."46
Q: Can you distinguish in [sic] these nine (9) plastic sachets which
one was the subject matter ofthe buy bust operation and which of
those was taken from the possession of the accused after his arrest?
A: Yes sir
Q: How would you distinguish these specimens from each other?
A: My companion placed his markings on all the sachets sir.
Q: How about the one (1) plastic sachet which your poseur buyer
was able to buy from Reyman Endaya has it any distinguishing mark
also after his arrest?
Q: How about the sachet of shabu which your asset was able to buy
from Reyman Endaya and this sachet of shabu which was handed to
you at the place of the buy-bust operation. Can you identify that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How about the other eight (8) sachets which you recovered from
the wallet of Reyman Endaya at the police station. Can you identify
those eight (8) sachets?
A: Yes, sir.
xxxx
Q: Can you tell the Court which one of these nine (9) sachets was
the one bought by the poseur buyer from Reyman Endaya?
A: It is in my possession, sir.
Q: When did you take custody of that?
A: When we arrested Reyman Endayaat the place of the incident, he
handed it to me, sir.
Q; Why are you sure that this is the one that was bought by your
poseur buyer from Reyman Endaya?
xxxx
Q: How about the eight (8) sachets of shabu that were recovered by
you from the wallet of Reyman Endaya when you were already at the
police station. Can you recognize those eight (8) sachets of shabu?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I am showing to you these eight (8) sachets of shabu previously
marked as Exhibits "I," "J," "K," "L," "M," "N," "O" and "P" during the
testimony of SPO4 Muriel Benedicto. What relation has those eight
(8) sachets of shabu to those that you recovered from the wallet of
Reyman Endaya?
A: Those are the shabu which I was able to confiscate from his
wallet.
Q: Why do you say so?
A: Because of my initials, sir. (Witness pointing to the initials which
appear to be a figure "8"on the eight (8) sachets of shabu.
Q: In this sachet of shabu which your asset was able to buy from
Reyman Endaya, do you have any marking also here aside from the
burned corner of the plastic sachet?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What is that?
II
(Emphasis supplied)
inadmissible in evidence
Facts:
Respondents is being accused of were charged with criminal case for
killing Alejandro Patungan, the husband of Marietta Patungan, who is
one of the accused. The criminal charge arise from the extra judicial
confession of Elmerto Pulga linking his sister Marietta and his cousin
Edgar Acebuche respectively as the master mind and the coperpetrator of the crime. However, Elmerto contradicted his
confession and alleged that he was not guilty and he was only forced
to confess because of the physical violence the policemen inflicted on
him in the open court. The respondents questions the validity of the
decision of the lower court against them who relied entirely on the
extrajudicial confession of Elmerto. They content that the confession
was not voluntary and he was not assisted by counsel from the time
he entered into custodial investigation rendering his confession
inadmissible as evidence.
Issue:
Whether or not the extra-judicial confession of Elmerto is admissible
as evidence?
Held:
An extra-judicial confession to be admissible in evidence must be
express and voluntarily executed in writing with the assistance of an
independent and competent counsel. Contrary to PO3 Villacortes
assertion that Pulga was taken into custody on August 10, 1994, the
police officer who actually took all three appellants into custody, SPO2
Orlando Gacute, testified that the appellants were all invited to the
police station on August 9, 1994 and that they were all subjected to
custodial investigation without counsel. Villacorte himself admitted
that Pulga at first did not want to confess and pointed to another
suspect as the perpetrator of the crime. This statement negates the
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
RULING:
With respect to Batocan, he did not finish first year high school. He
was interviewed before he gave his confession for around five
minutes. After this initial interview with Atty. Rous, counsel just
listened nonchalantly to the questions propounded by the police and
to the answers given by Batocan. Atty. Rous attention even seemed
divided for while he was attending the custodial investigation, he was
also looking over another paperwork on his desk.
In view of these, the court is not convinced that Batocans
extrajudicial confession was obtained without violating his
constitutional rights.
As to the Suelas, Atty. Sansano did not understand the exact nature
of appellants rights to counsel and to remain silent during their
custodial investigations. He viewed a refusal to answer as an
obstruction in the investigation. Moreover, when he interviewed
appellants, he did not even bother to find out the gist of their
proposed statements in order to apprise them of the nature and
consequences of their extrajudicial confessions. Clearly and sadly,
appellants were not accorded competent and independent counsel
whom they could rely on to look after their interests.
As to the admissibility of the wristwatch, it is of limited probative
value as it was taken without a search warrant and not as an incident
Held: After being illegally arrested, Samus was not informed of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel. Hence, any admission elicited from him by the
law enforcers during custodial investigation are normally inadmissible
in evidence. In their affidavits, the police officers readily admitted that
Samus was subjected to a preliminary interview. Yet, during their
examination in open court, they tried to skirt this issue by stating that
it was only the media that had questioned Samus, and that they were
merely present during the interview. However, an examination of the
testimonies of the three law enforcers show the folly of their crude
attempts to camouflage inadmissible evidence. In the absence of
testimony from any of the media persons who allegedly interviewed
Samus, the uncertainties and vagueness about how they questioned
and led him to his confession lead us to believe that they themselves
investigated Samus and elicited from him uncounselled admissions.
This fact is clearly shown by the Affidavits they executed on 11
September 1997, as well as by their testimonies on crossexamination. Nonetheless, even if the uncounselled admission per se
may be inadmissible, under the present circumstances the Court
cannot rule it out because of Samus' failure to make timely objections.
Indeed, the admission is inadmissible in evidence under Article III,
Section 12(1) and (3) of the Constitution, because it was given under
custodial investigation and was made without the assistance of
counsel. However, the defense failed to object to its presentation
during the trial, with the result that the defense is deemed to have
waived objection to its admissibility. If only Samus had made a timely
objection to the admissibility of Pontaos testimony and the picture of
a pair of earrings together with the turnover receipt, which Samus
identified during his testimony, the prosecution could have been
warned of the need to present additional evidence to support its case.
To disregard unceremoniously a major portion of its case at this late
stage when it can no longer present additional evidence as substitute
for that which is now claimed to be inadmissible goes against
fundamental fairness