Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONTRACT CLAUSE
Whether the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 can
1. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK EMPLOYEES be given retroactive application to the Columbio FTAA
UNION- NUBE v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK (Note: The Columbio FTAA was entered into by the
Philippine Government and WMC Philippines on 22
2. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. v. March 1995, undoubtedly before the Philippine Mining
WMC RESOURCES INTL. PTY. LTD., WMC Act of 1995 took effect on 14 April 1995).
PHILIPPINES, INC. and SAGITTARIUS MINES,
INC. Ruling:
G.R. No. 162331, November 20, 2006, CHICO-
NAZARIO, NO. It is engrained in jurisprudence that the
constitutional prohibition on the impairment of the
obligation of contract does not prohibit every change in
A law which changes the terms of a legal contract existing laws, and to fall within the prohibition, the
between parties, either in the time or mode of change must not only impair the obligation of the existing
performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses contract, but the impairment must be substantial. Section
with those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction 40 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 requiring the
something different from that provided in its terms, is a approval of the President with respect to assignment or
law which impairs the obligation of a contract and is transfer of FTAAs, if made applicable retroactively to the
therefore null and void. Columbio FTAA, would be tantamount to an impairment
of the obligations under said contract as it would
Facts: effectively restrict the right of the parties thereto to assign
or transfer their interests in the said FTAA. By imposing
In 1995, the Philippine Government and WMC a new condition apart from those already contained in the
Philippines executed a Financial and Technical agreement, before the parties to the Columbio FTAA may
Assistance Agreement (denominated as Columbio FTAA) assign or transfer its rights and interest in the said
for the purpose of large scale exploration, development, agreement, Section 40 of the Philippine Mining Act of
and commercial exploration of possible mineral resources 1995, if made to apply to the Columbio FTAA, will
in the provinces South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Davao effectively modify the terms of the original contract and
del Sur, and North Cotabato in accordance with Executive thus impair the obligations of the parties thereto and
Order No. 279 and Department Administrative Order No. restrict the exercise of their vested rights under the
63, Series of 1991. The Columbio FTAA is covered in original agreement. Such modification to the Columbio
part by 156 mining claims held under various Mineral FTAA, particularly in the conditions imposed for its valid
Production Sharing Agreements (MPSA) by Southcot transfer is equivalent to an impairment of said contract
Mining Corporation, Tampakan Mining Corporation, and violative of the Constitution.
Sagittarius Mines, Inc. (collectively called the Tampakan
Companies), in accordance with the Tampakan Option
Agreement entered into by WMC Philippines and the
Tampakan Companies for purposes of exploration of the
mining claims in Tampakan, South Cotabato. The Option
Agreement, among other things, provides for the grant of
the right of first refusal to the Tampakan Companies in
case WMC Philippines desires to dispose of its rights and
interests in the mining claims covering the area subject of
the agreement.
Issue:
fees granted to indigent litigants. The Court added that
XIII. POVERTY AND LEGAL PROTECTION extending the exemption to a juridical person on the
ground that it works for indigent and underprivileged
1. RE: QUERY OF MR. ROGER C. PRIORESCHI people may be prone to abuse (even with the imposition
RE EXEMPTION FROM LEGAL AND FILING of rigid documentation requirements), particularly by
FEES OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD FOUNDATION, corporations and entities bent on circumventing the rule
INC on payment of the fees and that the scrutiny of compliance
A. M. NO. 09-6-9-SC, August 19, 2009, Bersamin, J. with the documentation requirements may prove too time-
consuming and wasteful for the courts.
The free access clause of the Constitution applies 2ND VERSION
only to a natural person who suffers from poverty.
In Re: Query of Mr. Roger Prioreschi
Facts:
Facts:
In his letter addressed to the Chief Justice, Mr.
Roger C. Prioreschi, administrator of the Good Shepherd In his letter dated May 22, 2009 addressed to the Chief
Justice, Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi, administrator of the
Foundation, Inc., questioned OCA Circular No. 42-2005
and Rule 141 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines that Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., questioned OCA
reserve the privilege of exemption from docket and filing Circular No. 42-2005 and Rule 141 of the Rules of Court
of the Philippines that reserve the privilege of exemption
fees to indigent persons. He questioned why the rules
excluded foundations or associations that work with and from docket and filing fees to indigent persons. He
for the most indigent persons, as in the case of the Good questioned why the rules excluded foundations or
Shepherd Foundation, Inc. which had been reaching out associations that work with and for the most Indigent
since 1985 to the poorest among the poor, the newly born persons, as in the case of the Good Shepherd Foundation,
and abandoned babies, children who never saw the smile Inc. which had been reaching out since 1985 to the
of their mother, old people who cannot afford a few pesos poorest among the poor, the newly born and abandoned
to pay for common prescriptions, broken families who babies, children who never saw the smile of their mother,
returned to a normal life, whom the Philippine old people who cannot afford a few pesos to pay for
Government and the Filipino society could not reach to or common prescriptions, broken families who returned to a
had rejected or abandoned. normal life, whom the Philippine Government and the
Filipino society could not reach to or had rejected or
abandoned.
Issue:
To answer the query of Mr. Prioreschi, the Supreme Court
Whether Good Shepherd Foundation is exempted held that it could not grant to foundations like the Good
from payment of legal fees granted to indigent litigants. Shepherd Foundation, Inc. the same exemption from
payment of legal fees granted to indigent litigants even if
Ruling: the foundations are working for indigent and
underprivileged people. The basis for the exemption from
NO. The basis for the exemption from legal and legal and filing fees is the free access clause, embodied in
filing fees is the free access clause, embodied in Sec. 11, Sec. 11, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, which provides
Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that free that free access to the courts and quasi judicial bodies
access to the courts and quasi judicial bodies and adequate and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by person by reason of poverty.
reason of poverty.
Held:
In implementation of the right of free access
under the Constitution, the Supreme Court promulgated In implementation of the right of free access under the
rules, specifically, Sec. 21, Rule 3, Rules of Court, and Constitution, the Supreme Court promulgated rules,
Sec. 19, Rule 141, Rules of Court. The Court held that the specifically, Sec. 21, Rule 3, Rules of Court, and Sec. 19,
clear intent and precise language of the provisions Rule 141, Rules of Court.
indicated that only a natural party litigant may be regarded
as an indigent litigant. The Good Shepherd Foundation, The Court held that the clear intent and precise language
Inc., being a corporation invested by the State with a of the aforequoted provisions of the Rules of Court
juridical personality separate and distinct from that of its indicated that only a natural party litigant may be regarded
members, is a juridical person. As a juridical person, it as an indigent litigant. The Good Shepherd Foundation,
cannot be accorded the exemption from legal and filing 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 held that there can be no doubt that the Fifth During questioning about a robbery he was connected to,
Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal Charles Dickerson made statements to authorities
court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all admitting that he was the getaway driver in a series of
settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in bank robberies. Dickerson was then placed under arrest.
any significant way from being compelled to incriminate The timing of his statement is disputed. The FBI and local
themselves. As such, the prosecution may not use detectives testified that Dickerson was advised of his
statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming Miranda rights, established in Miranda v. Arizona, and
from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it waived them before he made his statement. Dickerson
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to said he was not read his Miranda warnings until after he
secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By gave his statement. After his indictment for bank robbery,
custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by Dickerson filed a motion to suppress the statement that he
law enforcement officers after a person has been taken made on the ground that he had not received Miranda
into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of warnings before being interrogated. The government
action in any significant way. argued that even if the Miranda warnings were not read,
the statement was voluntary and therefore admissible
The Court further held that without proper safeguards the
under 18 USC Section 3501, which provides that "a
process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected
confession shall be admissible in evidence if it is
or accused of crime contains inherently compelling
voluntarily given." The District Court granted Dickerson's
pressures which work to undermine the individuals will
motion, finding that he had not been read his Miranda
to resist and to compel him to speak where he would
rights or signed a waiver until after he made his statement,
otherwise do so freely. Therefore, a defendant must be
but the court did not address section 3501. In reversing, second time. This prompted Miss De la Riva, who was
the Court of Appeals acknowledged that Dickerson had justifiably annoyed, to ask: "Ano ba?" Forthwith, Pineda
not received Miranda warnings, but held that section 3501 stopped the car which he was driving, jumped out of it and
was satisfied because his statement was voluntary. The rushed towards her. f events that she Undaunted, Pineda
court held that "Congress enacted section 3501 with the opened the door of Miss De la Riva's car and grabbed the
express purpose of legislatively overruling Miranda and lady's left arm. The girl held on tenaciously to her car's
restoring voluntariness as the test for admitting steering wheel and, together with her maid, started to
confessions in federal court." scream. Her strength, however, proved no match to that of
Pineda, who succeeded in pulling her out of her car.
QUESTION Seeing her mistress' predicament, the maid jumped out of
the car and took hold of Miss De la Riva's right arm in an
May Congress legislatively overrule Miranda v. Arizona
and its warnings that govern the admissibility of effort to free her from Pineda's grip. The latter, however,
statements made during custodial interrogation? was able to drag Miss De la Riva toward the Pontiac
convertible car, whose motor was all the while running.
CONCLUSION She was later brought to Swanky hotel where the accused
Jaime Jose, Edgardo AquinoBasilio Pineda, Jr. And
No. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William Rogelio Caal raped her. Later that night she was then
H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Miranda governs the release by the accused and threaten her that they will
admissibility of statements made during custodial throw acid on her face if she tell anyone what happened.
interrogation in both state and federal courts. "Miranda When maggie got home she disclose to her mother that
has become embedded in routine police practice to the she was raped. Then her mother told her to doughed
point where the warnings have become part of our herself not to get infected or pregnant. It was four days
national culture," wrote Rehnquist. "Miranda announced later when they reported the incident to the police.
a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede
legislatively. We decline to overrule Miranda ourselves,"
concluded the Chief Justice. Dissenting, Justice Antonin
Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, blasted the ISSUE: whether or not the the rights of the accused was
Court's ruling, writing that the majority opinion gave violated
needless protection to "foolish (but not compelled)
confessions."
HELD: No, Jose and Caal seek the exclusion of their
4) PEOPLE V JOSE extra-judicial statements from the mass of evidence on the
This case is now before us by virtue of the appeal grounds that they were secured from them by force and
interposed by Basilio Pineda, Jr., Edgardo Aquino, and intimidation, and that the incriminating details therein
Jaime Jose, and for automatic review as regards Rogelio were supplied by the police investigators. We are not
Caal. However, for practical purposes all of them shall convinced that the statements were involuntarily given, or
hereafter be referred to as appellants. Facts: It was that at that the details recited therein were concocted by the
about 4:30 o'clock in the morning of June 26, 1967, Miss authorities. The statements were given in the presence of
De la Riva, homeward bound from the ABS Studio on several people and subscribed and sworn to before the
Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, was driving her bantam car City Fiscal of Quezon City, to whom neither of the
accompanied by her maid Helen Calderon, who was also aforesaid appellants intimated the use of inordinate
at the front seat. She was already near her destination methods by the police. They are replete with details which
when a Pontiac two-door convertible car with four men could hardly be known to the police; and although it is
came abreast of her car and tried to bump it. She stepped suggested that the authorities could have secured such
details from their various informers, no evidence at all
on her brakes to avoid a collision, and then pressed on the
gas and swerved her car to the left, at which moment she was presented to establish the truth of such allegation.
was already in front of her house gate; but because the While in their statements Jose and Caal admitted having
driver of the other car (Basilio Pineda, Jr.) also waited - together with the two other appellants - for Miss
accelerated his speed, the two cars almost collided for the De la Riva at the ABS Studi, each of them attempted in
the same statements to exculpate himself: appellant Jose from the arraignment to the promulgation of the
stated that only Pineda and Aquino criminally abused the judgment." The only instanes where an accused is entitled
complainant; while appellant Caal would make it appear to counsel before arraignment, if he so requests, are
that the complainant willingly allowed him to have sexual during the second stage of the preliminary investigation
intercourse with her. Had the statements been prepared by (Rule 112, Section 11) and after the arrest (Rule 113,
the authorities, they would hardly have contained matters Section 18). The rule in the United States need not be
which were apparently designed to exculpate the affiants. unquestioningly adhered to in this jurisdiction, not only
It is significant, too, that the said two appellants did not because it has no binding effect here, but also because in
see it fit to inform any of their friends or relatives of the interpreting a provision of the Constitution the meaning
alleged use of force and intimidation by the police. Dr. attached thereto at the time of the adoption thereof should
Mariano Nario of the Quezon City Police Department, be considered. And even there the said rule is not yet quite
who examined appellant Caal after the latter made his settled, as can be deduced from the absence of unanimity
statement, found no trace of injury on any part of the said in the voting by the members of the United States
appellant's body in spite of the claims that he was boxed Supreme Court in all the three above-cited cases.
on the stomach and that one of his arms was burned with
a cigarette lighter. In the circumstances, and considering, 5) MAGTOTO VS. MANGUERA
further, that the police officers who took down their FACTS: Extrajudicial confessions were taken prior to the
statements categorially denied on the witness stand that grant of the constitution of custodial rights of the accused.
the two appellants were tortured, or that any detail in the The courts did not grant this rights to the accused on
statements was supplied by them or by anyone other than grounds that such rights do not retroact.
the affiants themselves, We see no reason to depart from
ISSUE: Whether or not, the constitutional mandate
the trial court's well-considered conclusion that the
should be given a retroactivity effect
statements were voluntarily given. However, even
disregarding the in-custody statements of Jose and Caal, RULING: No, it should not be given a retroactive effect
We find that the mass of evidence for the prosecution on
Constitutional Provision in Question: No person shall be
record will suffice to secure the conviction of the two. The
compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person
admissibility of his extrajudicial statements is likewise under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
being questioned by Jose on the other ground that he was have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be
not assisted by counsel during the custodial informed of such right. No force, violence, threat,
interrogations. He cites the decisions of the Supreme intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free
Court of the United States in Messiah vs. U.S. (377 U.S. will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained
in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in
201), Escobedo vs. Illinois (378 U.S. 478) and Miranda
evidence,
vs. Arizona (384 U.S. 436). The provision of the
Constitution of the Philippines in point is Article III (Bill Specifically, the portion thereof which declares
of Rights), Section 1, par. 17 of which provides: "In all inadmissible a confession obtained from a person under
criminal prosecutions the accused shall . . . enjoy the right investigation for the commission of an offense who has
to be heard by himself and counsel . . ." While the said not been informed of his right (to remain silent and) to
counsel.
provision is identical to that in the Constitution of the
United States, in this jurisdiction the term criminal We hold that this specific portion of this constitutional
prosecutions was interpreted by this Court, in U.S. vs. mandate has and should be given a prospective and not a
Beecham, 23 Phil., 258 (1912), in connection with a retrospective effect. Consequently, a confession obtained
similar provision in the Philippine Bill of Rights (Section from a person under investigation for the commission of
an offense, who has not been informed of his right (to
5 of Act of Congress of July 1, 1902) to mean proceedings
silence and) to counsel, is inadmissible in evidence if the
before the trial court from arraignment to rendition of the same had been obtained after the effectivity of the New
judgment. Implementing the said constitutional provision, Constitution on January 17, 1973. Conversely, such
We have provided in Section 1, Rule 115 of the Rules of confession is admissible in evidence against the accused,
Court that "In all criminal prosecutions the defendant if the same had been obtained before the effectivity of the
shall be entitled . . . ( b) to be present and defend in person New Constitution, even if presented after January 17,
and by attorney at every stage of the proceedings, that is, 1973, and even if he had not been informed of his right to
counsel, since no law gave the accused the right to be so 29, 1903, 2 Phil. 458). But with the repeal of said
informed before that date. provision of law by the Administrative Code in 1916, the
burden of proof was changed. Now, a confession is
Section 20, Article IV of the New Constitution granted, admissible in evidence without previous proof of its
for the first time, to a person under investigation for the voluntariness on the theory that it is presumed to be
commission of an offense, the right to counsel and to be voluntary until the contrary is proved
informed of such right. And the last sentence thereof
which, in effect, means that any confession obtained in And once the accused succeeds in proving that his
violation of this right shall be inadmissible in evidence, extrajudicial confession was made involuntarily, it stands
can and should be given effect only when the right already discredited in the eyes of the law and is as a thing which
existed and had been violated. Consequently, because the never existed. It is incompetent as evidence and must be
confessions of the accused in G.R. Nos. L-37201-02, rejected.
37424 and 38929 were taken before the effectivity of the
New Constitution in accordance with the rules then in Miranda vs. Arizona : To summarize, we hold that when
force, no right had been violated as to render them an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived
inadmissible in evidence although they were not informed of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way
of "their right to remain silent and to counsel," "and to be and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-
informed of such right," because, We repeat, no such right incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must
existed at the time. be employed to protect the privilege *[384 U.S. 479]* and
unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify
Inadmissible evidence rule cannot be gainsaid to be found the person of his right of silence and to assure that the
in Art. 125 par. 2 of RPC because it only confers to the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the
accused the right to be informed of the cause as to why he following measures are required. He must be warned prior
is detained and the assistance of counsel upon his request to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent,
that anything he says can be used against him in a court
None of these statutes requires that police investigators of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney,
inform the detained person of his "right" to counsel. They and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be
only allow him to request to be given counsel. It is not for appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
this Court to add a requirement and carry on where both Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to
Congress and the President stopped. him throughout the interrogation. After such warning
have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the
The history behind the new right granted to a detained individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these
person by Section 20, Article IV of the New constitution rights and agree to answer questions or make statement.
to counsel and to be informed of said right under pain of But unless and until such warning and waiver are
a confession taken in violation thereof being rendered demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence
inadmissible in evidence, clearly shows the intention to obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against
give this constitutional guaranty not a retroactive, but a him.
prospective, effect so as to cover only confessions taken
after the effectivity of the New Constitution. However, this is not applied in our jurisdiction as seen in
the case of People vs. Jose
Furthermore, Extrajudicial confessions of the accused in
a criminal case are universally recognized as admissible The Constitutional Convention at the time it deliberated
in evidence against him, based on the presumption that no on Section 20, Article IV of the New Constitution was
one would declare anything against himself unless such aware of the Escobedo and Miranda rule which had been
declarations were true. Accordingly, it has been held that rejected in the case of Jose. That is the reason why the
a confession constitutes an evidence of a high order since Miranda-Escobedo rule was expressly included as a new
it is supported by the strong presumption that no person right granted to a detained person in the present provision
of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly of Section 20, Article IV of the New Constitution.
confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and
conscience. When Delegate de Guzman (A) submitted the draft of this
Section 20, Article IV to the October 26, 1972 meeting of
The fundamental rule is that a confession, to be the 17-man committee of the Steering Council, Delegate
admissible, must be voluntary. And the first rule in this Leviste (O) expressly made of record that "we are
connection was that before the confession could be adopting here the rulings of US Supreme Court in the
admitted in evidence, the prosecution must first show to Miranda-Escobedo cases." And We cannot agree with the
the satisfaction of the Court that the same was freely and insinuation in the dissenting opinion of Justice Castro that
voluntarily made, as provided for in Section 4 of Act 619
of the Philippine Commission (U.S. vs. Pascual, August
the Delegates did not know of the existence of the second ISSUE: Whether or not their constitutional rights while
paragraph of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code. being detained is violated
Hence, We repeat, this historical background of Section RULING: No, such rights was not violated
20, Article IV of the New Constitution, in Our considered
opinion, clearly shows that the new right granted therein Regarding their warrantless arrest: Valid
to a detained person to counsel and to be informed of such
right under pain of his confession being declared An arrest may be made with or without a warrant.
inadmissible in evidence, has and should be given a
prospective and not a retroactive effect. It did not exist
before its incorporation in our New Constitution, as We SEC. 3. The right of the people to be secure in their
held in the Jose and Paras cases persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
Furthermore, to give a retroactive effect to this purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or
constitutional guarantee to counsel would have a great warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
unsettling effect on the administration of justice in this to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible
country. It may lead to the acquittal of guilty individuals officer as may be authorized by law, after examination
and thus cause injustice to the People and the offended under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
parties in many criminal cases where confessions were witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
obtained before the effectivity of the New Constitution place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
and in accordance with the rules then in force although seized.
without assistance of counsel. The Constitutional
Convention could not have intended such a a disastrous Our Constitution clearly defines the persons who may
consequence in the administration of justice. For if the issue a warrant of arrest and limits them to a "judge, or
cause of justice suffers when an innocent person is such other responsible officer as may be authorized by
convicted, it equally suffers when a guilty one is law." It also lays down in unmistakable terms the
acquitted. procedure required before a search warrant or warrant of
arrest may issue.
Lastly, retroactivity effect of penal laws are not applicable
to the case at bar A Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order is a warrant
of arrest issued by the President of the Philippines. Its
First, because of the inclusion We have arrived at that the issuance must therefore comply with the requirements of
constitutional provision in question has a prospective and the Constitution, in the same manner and to the same
not a retrospective effect, based on the reasons We have extent, as a warrant of arrest issued by a judge issuance
given; second, because the "penal laws" mentioned in must therefore comply with the requirements of the
Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code refer to substantive Constitution, in the same manner and to the same extent,
penal laws, while the constitutional provision in question as a warrant of arrest by a judge.
is basically a procedural rule of evidence involving the
incompetency and inadmissibility of confessions and The Memorandum to the President dated April 21, 1982
therefore cannot be included in the term "penal laws;" and from Gen. Fabian C. Ver, Chief of Staff of the Armed
third, because constitutional provisions as a rule should be Forces of the Philippines, wherein he reported the arrest
given a prospective effect. of petitioners, the subversive documents seized from them
and the results of the ensuing tactical interrogation, with
6) MORALES JR. VS. ENRILE a recommendation for the issuance of a Presidential Arrest
FACTS: In April 1982, Morales and some others were and Commitment Order, was approved by the President
arrested while driving a motor vehicle in Laong-Laan St, only on April 23, 1982. Indeed, therefore, petitioners were
QC. They were charged in CFI Rizal for rebellion arrested without a warrant. However, months before their
punishable under the RPC. Morales alleged that they were arrest, petitioners were already under surveillance on
arrested without any warrant of arrest; that their suspicion of committing rebellion. From the results of the
constitutional rights were violated, among them the right said surveillance, the evidence then at hand, and the
to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to a speedy documents seized from them at the time of their arrest, it
and public trial, and the right to bail. Respondents would appear that they had committed or were actually
countered that the group of Morales were already under committing the offense of rebellion. Their arrest without
surveillance for some time before they were arrested and a warrant for the said offense is therefore clearly justified.
that the warrantless arrest done is valid and at the same Right to Bail: Cannot post bail due to suspension of writ
time the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was already of habeas corpus and crime charged is rebellion
suspended.
In all criminal prosecutions the accused is presumed and a certain "Pabling" accidentally met each other at
innocent. Because of this presumption and inasmuch as Marikina, Rizal, and in their conversation, the three
every man has a natural desire to be free, our Constitution agreed to rob Natividad Fernando; that it was further
laid down the right to bail in these words: agreed among them to enter the premises of the victim's
house at the back yard by climbing over the fence; that
SEC. 18. All persons, except those charged with once inside the premises, they will search every room,
capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, especially the aparador and filing cabinets, with the sole
before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties. aim of looking for cash money and other valuables.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
Early dawn of August 23, 1977 when the three were able
Although martial law was terminated on January 17, to gain entrance into the house of the victim; as the three
1981, by virtue of Proclamation No. 2045 of the President could not find anything valuable inside the first room that
of the Philippines, the privilege of the writ of habeas they entered, Juling Dulay destroyed the screen of the
corpus continues to be suspended in the two autonomous door of the victim, Natividad Fernando; that upon
regions in Mindanao and in all other places with respect entering the room of the victim, the three accused decided
to certain offenses to kill first the victim, Natividad Fernando, before
searching the room for valuables; that Juling Dulay, who
Normally, rebellion being a non-capital offense is was then holding the bolo, began hacking the victim, who
bailable. But because the privilege of the writ of habeas was then sleeping, and accused Galit heard a moaning
corpus remains suspended "with respect to persons at sound from the victim; that after the victim was killed, the
present detained as well as other who may hereafter be three accused began searching the room for valuables.
similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or
rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit Before the trial: The prisoner was arrested for killing the
such crimes, and for all other crimes and offenses victim oil the occasion of a robbery. He had been detained
committed by them in furtherance of or on the occasion and interrogated almost continuously for five days, to no
thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith," avail. He consistently maintained his innocence. There
the natural consequence is that the right to bail for the was no evidence to link him to the crime. Obviously,
commission of anyone of the said offenses is also something drastic had to be done. A confession was
suspended. To hold otherwise would defeat the very absolutely necessary. So the investigating officers began
purpose of the suspension. Therefore, where the offense to maul him and to torture him physically. Still the
for which the detainee was arrested is anyone of the said prisoner insisted on his innocence. His will had to be
offenses he has no right to bail even after the charges are broken. A confession must be obtained. So they continued
filed in court. to maltreat and beat him. 'They covered his face with a rag
and pushed his face into a toilet bowl full of human waste.
The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or The prisoner could not take any more. His body could no
proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses longer endure the pain inflicted on him and the indignities
committed in furtherance thereof or in connection he had to suffer. His will had been broken. He admitted
therewith constitute direct attacks on the life of the State. what the investigating officers wanted him to admit and
Just as an individual has right to self-defense when his life he signed the confession they prepared. Later, against his
is endangered, so does the State. The suspension of the will, he posed for pictures as directed by his investigators,
privilege of the writ is to enable the State to hold in purporting it to be a reenactment.
preventive imprisonment pending investigation and trial Trial court found him guilty for the crime charged and
those persons who plot against it and commit acts that sentenced him with the capital punishment of death
endanger the State's very existence. For this measure of
self-defense to be effective, the right to bail must also be ISSUE: Whether or not his rights as an accused is violated
deemed suspended with respect to these offenses.
RULING: Yes, his rights were violated
7) PEOPLE VS. GALIT
After a review of the records, We find that the evidence
FACTS: Accused was charged with the special complex presented by the prosecution does not support a
crime of robbery with homicide conviction. In fact, the findings of the trial court relative
to the acts attributed to the accused are not supported by
Prosecution witness Florentino Valentino testified that he competent evidence. The principal prosecution witness,
heard accused Francisco Galit and his wife having an Florentino Valentino merely testified that he and the
argument in connection with the robbery and killing of the accused were living together in one house in Marikina,
victim, Natividad Fernando. It appears that on August 18, Rizal, on August 23, 1977, because the mother of his wife
1977, accused Galit and two others, namely, Juling Dulay is the wife of the accused; that when he returned home at
about 4:00 o'clock in the morning from the police station
of Marikina, Rizal, the accused and his wife were
quarreling (nagtatalo); that he heard that the accused was
leaving the house because he and his companions had
robbed "Aling Nene", the owner of a poultry farm and
piggery in Montalban, Rizal; that the wife of the accused
was imploring him not to leave, but the latter was
insistent; that he saw the accused carrying a bag
containing about two handfuls (dakot) of coins which he
had taken from Aling Nene; that upon learning of what
the accused had done, he went to the Montalban police the
next day and reported to the police chief about what he
had heard; and that a week later, Montalban policemen
went to their house and arrested the accused.
RULING Serafin drove on, but as the motorcycle went past the
accused, he and Godinez heard a gunshot.[7] Godinez
NO. Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 noticed that Broniola had fallen off the
Constitution provides that an accused is entitled to have motorcycle. Serafin leapt from the motorcycle and ran
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. The phrase "preferably of his own choice" does away. The motorcycle toppled over Godinez, pinning him
not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a to the ground. Accused Tumangan, with gun in hand,
person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude approached Godinex, took the money from the money
other equally competent and independent attorneys from bag, and fled. Godinez ran home, leaving Broniola
handling the defense. A lawyer provided by the behind.[8] Meanwhile, Serafin had proceeded to the house
investigators is deemed engaged by the accused when he of the Broniolas which was near the crime scene, and
does not raise any objection to the counsels appointment
informed Broniolas wife of the incident.[9]
during the course of the investigation, and the accused
thereafter subscribes to the veracity of the statement SPO Elpidio Luna, received a report from another
before the swearing officer. Appellants Arnaldo and
Flores did not object to the appointment of Atty. Uminga policeman about a robbery. Together with other
and Atty. Rous as their lawyers, respectively, during their policemen and some Cafgus, Luna went to the crime
custodial investigation. Hence, appellants Arnaldo and scene he found an abandoned motorcycle. People around
Flores are deemed to have engaged the services of Atty. the site informed Luna that the culprit had already
Uminga and Atty. Rous, respectively fled. Luna noticed that the bushes were compressed and
found a piece of paper utilized as toilet paper with a stool
on it [which] was somewhat newly delivered. The paper
11) PEOPLE VS SEQUIO
was a bio-data sheetwith the name Melvida, Nenito and
FACTS the entry for the fathers name filled in with Elpidio
Melvida.
Accused-appellants Ermelito Sequio, Vicente Tumangan
and Nenito Melvida appeal from the decision of 24 One bystander volunteered to take Luna to Elpidio
February 1994 (promulgated on 1 March 1994) of the Melvidas house where, however, Elpidio told Luna that
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 21, in Nenito Melvida was not there but was at his (Nenitos)
Criminal Case No. CBU-22486, finding them guilty of the brothers house. Elpidio took Luna to the said house where
crime of robbery with homicide as charged in an Luna saw the accused Nenito Melvida playing cards with
information. other persons. Luna asked Melvida to go with him to the
barangay captains house.
on April 24, 1991, Eugenio Godinez, overseer since 1952
of Hacienda Jose Ancajas in Medellin, Cebu, and Pedro The barangay captain was not home, so Luna took
Broniola, the haciendas bookkeeper, went to the Medellin Melvida to the police station instead. Melvida was kept at
Rural Bank, located three kilometers from the hacienda, the station the whole evening of 24 April 1991 for
to withdraw P50,557.17 to pay for the wages of the investigation conducted, first, by Luna, then, by his fellow
hacienda workers. The banks cashier instructed Jimmy policemen Sgt. Pablo Ygot, Cpl. Alfredo Mondigo and
Serafin, janitor and motorcycle driver of the bank, to drive Eliseo Tepait, as Luna had to take his supper. Melvida
Godinez and Broniola back to the hacienda on one of the was allowed to go home the next day, but only after the
banks motorcycles. Serafin drove the motorcycle with police had filed criminal charges against him and he had
posted bail. Melvida was not assisted by counsel during and P9,000.00, no evidence was adduced how and from
the police investigation, although Luna assured the trial whom it was recovered. Police officer Mariano Remulta
judge that the Municipal Mayor of Medellin, who is a merely declared that the P26,526.00 was entrusted to him
lawyer, was present, While Luna claimed he asked the by the station commander who told him that the amount
Mayor to act as Melvidas counsel, he admitted that his was recovered in connection with the highway robbery
request did not appear in the record of the case.[42]
investigation. Lunas investigation of Melvida was not
reduced into writing.[13] Since the recovery of P9,000.00 from Melvida was due to
his admission in the course of the custodial interrogation
In the course of Lunas investigation, Melvida admitted made in violation of paragraph (1) of Section 12, Article
that he kept his share the loot in his house. Melvida then III of the Constitution and thus inadmissible in evidence
was brought to his house where he got P9,000.00, in one pursuant to paragraph (3) of the said section then
hundred peso bills, placed inside a shoe which he the P9,000.00 cannot also be admitted in evidence as a
delivered to the policemen.[14] fruit of the poisonous tree.The rule is settled that once
the primary source (the tree) is shown to have been
During the investigation, Melvida admitted that his unlawfully obtained -- as the admission of Melvida in this
(Melvidas) companions during the robbery were Vicente case -- any secondary or derivative evidence (the fruit)
Tumangan and Ermelindo Sequio, who were staying in derived from it - - the P9,000.00 obtained from Melvida
the house of Juanito Hones. Immediately, Mondigo and as a consequence of his admission - - is also inadmissible.
policeman Proniely Artiquela proceeded to the house of
Hones where they saw Tumangan and Sequio on the The statement of the trial court may, be considered mere
porch. Noticing something bulging on the waist of surplusage since, in the final analysis, it did not take into
Tumangan, Mondigo and Artiquela approached account against the accused whatever admission they
Tumangan and asked him what was that bulging at his made during police interrogation. We need to elaborate,
waist. Tumangan did not answer. So, Mondigo patted the however, why such admissions are inadmissible in
bulge which turned out to be a .38 caliber Squires evidence.
Bingham revolver with holster and four bullets.[16] When
asked if he had a license for the firearm, Tumangan Regardless of Lunas claim to the contrary, accused Nenito
answered in the negative. Mondigo and Artiquela then Melvida was arrested. An arrest is the taking of a person
brought Tumangan and Sequio to the police into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for
station. Tumangan was then investigated in the presence the commission of an offense,and it is made by an actual
of the Municipal mayor. Tumangan admitted that he was restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission
one of the holdupppers.[17] to the custody of the person making the arrest. Melvidas
voluntarily going with Luna upon invitation was a
ISSUE: submission to Lunas custody, and Luna believed that
Melvida was a suspect in the robbery charged herein,
Fourth assignment of error is when it failed to consider hence, Melvida was being held to answer for the
the non-observance of the constitution in the investigation commission of the said offense.
with the accused by the police, as when the court says the
court, however, must express its dismay over the Since he was arrested without a warrant, the inquiry must
questionable methods by the police officers concerned now be whether a valid warrantless arrest was
mocked the constitution, which they themselves have effected. Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
sworn to honor and revere, when they did not remind the provides:
accused of their right to remain silent and to be assisted
by counsel Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful . -- A
peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
RULING arrest a person:
What was recovered from accused Melvida (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
was P9,000.00 which, he admitted, was his share of the committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
loot.[41] As to the difference between P22,526.00 commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and 12) PEOPLE VS CHAVEZ
he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it; FACTS
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has In the information dated November 8, 2006, Mark Jason
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is Chavez y Bitancor (Chavez) was charged with the crime
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his of robbery with homicide:
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred That on or about October 28, 2006, in the City of Manila,
from one confinement to another. Philippines, the said accused, did then and there wilfully,
The first and last conditions enumerated above are not unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and means
applicable in this case; and under the facts herein, neither of force, violence and intimidation upon the person of
does the second condition apply. Lunas basis for arresting ELMER DUQUE y OROS, by then and there, with intent
Melvida was the bio-data sheet with Melvidas name on it to kill, stabbing the latter repeatedly with a kitchen knife,
found at the crime scene. By no means can this indicate thereby inflicting upon him mortal stab wounds which
that Melvida committed the offense charged. It does not were the direct and immediate cause of his death
even connote that Melvida was at the crime scene for the thereafter, and on the saidoccasion or by reason thereof,
bio-data sheet could have been obtained by anyone and accused took, robbed and carried away the following:
left at the crime scene long before or after the crime was One (1) Unit Nokia Cellphone; One (1) Unit Motorola
committed. Luna, thus, had no personal knowledge of
Cellphone; Six (6) pcs. Ladies Ring; Two (2) pcs.
facts indicating Melvidas guilt; at best, he had an Necklace; One (1) pc. Bracelet All of undetermined value
unreasonable suspicion. Melvidas arrest was thus illegal. and undetermined amount of money, all belonging to said
After his unlawful arrest, Melvida underwent custodial ELMER DUQUE y OROS @ BARBIE to the damage and
investigation. The custodial investigation commenced prejudice of the said owner/or his heirs, in the said
when the police pinpointed Melvida as one of the authors undetermined amount in Philippines currency.
of the crime or had focused on him as a suspect
On October 28, 2006, Peamante arrived home at around
thereof.[46] This brought into operation paragraph (1) of 2:45 a.m., coming from work.When he was about to go
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution guaranteeing the inside his house at 1326 Tuazon Street, Sampaloc,
accuseds rights to remain silent and to counsel. And his Manila, he saw a person wearing a black, long-sleeved
right to be informed of these rights.[47] The said paragraph shirt and black pants and holding something while leaving
provides: the house/parlor of Elmer Duque (Barbie).
SEC. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the There was a light at the left side of the house/parlor of
commission of an offense shall have the right to be Barbie, his favorite haircutter, so Peamante stated that he
informed of his right to remain silent and to have was able to see the face of Chavez and the clothes he was
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own wearing.6
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel
he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be Sometime after 10:00 a.m., the Scene of the Crime Office
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (SOCO) team arrived, led by PCI Cayrel. The team noted
that the lobby and the parlor were in disarray, and they
There was no showing that Melvida was ever informed of found Barbies dead body inside.12 They took
these rights, and Luna admitted that Melvida was not photographs and collected fingerprints and other pieces of
assigned by counsel during the evidence such as the 155 pieces of hair strands found
investigation. Indisputably, the police officers concerned clutched in Barbies left hand.
flouted these constitutional rights of Melvida and
Tumangan and deliberately disregarded the rule regarding At around 11:00 a.m., Peamantes landlady woke him up
an investigators duties prior to and during custodial and told him that Barbie was found dead at 9:00 a.m. He
interrogation laid down in Morales vs. Enrile[48] and then informed his landlady that he saw Chavez leaving
reiterated in a catena of subsequent cases. Barbies house at 2:45 a.m.15
Dr. Salen conducted an autopsy on the body and found him."74 Thus, when a person has possession of a stolen
that the time of death was approximately 12 hours prior to property, hecan be disputably presumed as the author of
examination.16 There were 22 injuries on Barbies body the theft.75
21 were stab wounds in various parts of the body
caused by a sharp bladed instrument, and one incised Barbies missing cellular phones were turned over to the
wound was caused by a sharp object.17 Four (4) of the stab police by Chavezs mother, and this was never denied by
wounds were considered fatal.18 the defense.Chavez failed to explain his possession of
these cellular phones.The Court of Appeals discussed that
The next day, the police invited Peamante to the Manila "a cellular phone has become a necessary accessory, no
Police Station to give a statement. Peamante described person would part with the same for a long period of time,
to SPO3 Casimiro the physical appearance of the person especially in this case as it involves an expensive cellular
he saw leaving Barbies parlor.19 phone unit, as testified by Barbies kababayan, witness
Raymond Seno[f]a."78
Accompanied by his mother, Chavez voluntarily
surrendered to SPO3 Casimiro at the police However, with Chavez and Barbies close relationship
station.20 Chavez was then 22 years old.21 His mother told having been established, there is still a possibilitythat
the police that she wanted to help her son who might be these cellphones were lent to Chavez by Barbie.
involved in Barbies death.
The integrity of these cellphones was also compromised
SPO3 Casimiro informed them ofthe consequences in when SPO3 Casimiro testified during cross-examination
executing a written statement without the assistance of a that the police made no markings on the cellphones, and
lawyer. However, Chavezs mother still gave her their SIM cards were removed.
statement, subscribed by Administrative Officer Alex
Francisco.23She also surrendered two cellular phones The other missing items were no longer found, and no
owned by Barbie and a baseball cap owned by Chavez.24 evidence was presented to conclude that these weretaken
by Chavez. The statement of Chavezs mother mentioned
The next day, Peamante was again summoned by SPO3 that her son pawned one of Barbies necklaces is mere
Casimiro to identify from a line-up the person he saw hearsay.
leaving Barbies house/parlor that early morning of
October 28, 2006.25 Peamante immediately pointed to It is contrary to human nature for a mother to voluntarily
and identified Chavez and thereafter executed his written surrender her own son and confess that her son committed
statement.26 There were no issues raised in relation to the a heinous crime.
line-up. Chavez was 22 years old, no longer a minor, when he
On the other hand, Chavez explained that he was athome voluntarily went to the police station on November 5,
on October 27, 2006, exchanging text messages 2006 for investigation,83 and his mother accompanied
withBarbie on whether they could talk regarding their him. SPO3 Casimiro testified that the reason she
misunderstanding.27 According to Chavez, Barbie surrendered Chavez was because "she wanted to help her
suspected that he was having a relationship with Barbies son"84 and "perhaps the accused felt that [the investigating
boyfriend, Maki.28 When Barbie did not reply to his text police] are getting nearer to him.
message, Chavez decided to go to Barbies house at Chavezs mother "turned-over (2) units of Cellular-
around 1:00 a.m. of October 28, 2006.29 Barbie allowed phones and averred that her son Mark Jason told her that
him to enter the house, and he went home after. said cellphones belong[ed] to victim Barbie. . . [that]
RULING NOY was wounded in the incident and that the fatal
weapon was put in a manhole infront[sic] of their
There is a disputable presumption that "a person found in residence."87 The records are silent on whether Chavez
possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent objected to his mothers statements. The records also do
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; not show why the police proceeded to get his mothers
otherwise, thatthing which a person possesses, or testimony as opposed to getting Chavezs testimony on
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by his voluntary surrender.
At most, the lower court found thatChavezs mother was task of scrutinizing individual cases to try to determine,
informed by the investigating officer at the police station after the fact, whether particular confessions were
of the consequences in executing a written statement voluntary. Those purposes are implicated as much by in-
withoutthe assistance of a lawyer.88 She proceeded to give custody questioning of persons suspected of
her statement dated November 7, 2006 on her sons misdemeanours as they are by questioning of persons
confession of the crime despite the warning. suspected of felonies.95 (Emphasis supplied)
The booking sheet and arrest report states that "when [the Republic Act No. 743896 expanded the definition of
accused was] appraised [sic] of his constitutional rights custodial investigation to "include the practice ofissuing
and nature of charges imputed against him, accused opted an invitation to a person who is investigated in
to remain silent."91 This booking sheet and arrest report is connection with an offense he is suspected to have
also dated November 7, 2006, or two days after Chavez, committed, without prejudice to the liability of the
accompanied by his mother, had voluntarily gone to the inviting officer for any violation of law."97
police station.
This means that even those who voluntarily surrendered
The right to counsel upon being questioned for the before a police officer must be apprised of their Miranda
commission of a crime is part of the Miranda rights, which rights. For one, the same pressures of a custodial setting
require that: exist in this scenario. Chavez is also being questioned by
an investigating officer ina police station. As an additional
. . . (a) any person under custodial investigation has the pressure, he may have been compelled to surrender by his
right to remain silent; (b) anything he says can and will be mother who accompanied him to the police station.
used against him in a court of law; (c) he has the right
totalk to an attorney before being questioned and to have This court, thus, finds that the circumstantial evidence
his counsel present when being questioned; and (d) if he sufficiently proves beyond reasonable doubt that Chavez
cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any is guilty of the crime of homicide, and not the special
questioning if he so desires.92 complex crime of robbery with homicide.
The Miranda rightswere incorporated in our Constitution Finally, this court laments thatobject evidence retrieved
but were modified to include the statement thatany waiver from the scene of the crime were not properly handled,
of the right to counsel must be made "in writing and in the and no results coming from the forensic examinations
presence of counsel."93 were presented to the court. There was no examination of
the fingerprints found on the kitchen knife retrieved from
The invocation of these rights applies during custodial the manhole near the house of Chavez.100 There were no
investigation, which begins "when the police results of the DNA examination done on the hair strands
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an found with the knife and those in the clutches of the
unsolved crime but has begun tofocus on a particular victim. Neither was there a comparison made between
suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the these strands of hair and Chavezs. There was no report
interrogation and propounds questions to the person to regarding any finding of traces of blood on the kitchen
elicit incriminating statements."94 knife recovered, and no matching with the blood of the
It may appear that the Miranda rightsonly apply when one victim or Chavezs. The results of this case would have
is "taken into custody by the police," such as during an been rendered with more confidence at the trial court level
arrest. These rights are intended to protect ordinary had all these been done. In many cases, eyewitness
citizens from the pressures of a custodial setting: testimony may not be as reliable or would have been
belied had object evidence been properly handled and
The purposes of the safeguards prescribed by Miranda are presented.
to ensure that the police do not coerce or trick captive
suspects into confessing, to relieve the "inherently We deal with the life of a personhere. Everyones life
compelling pressures" "generated by the custodial setting whether it be the victims or the accuseds is valuable.
The Constitution and our laws hold these lives in high
itself," "which work to undermine the individuals will to
resist," and as much as possible to free courts from the esteem. Therefore, investigations such as these should
have been attended with greaterprofessionalism and more
dedicated attention to detail by our law enforcers. The Sorela allegedly confessed having been with
quality of every conviction depends on the evidence Deosdedit Bagon in the evening after some marketing.
gathered, analyzed, and presented before the courts. The They were met by Romulo Villarojo and Leonardo
Cademas, Sorela's co-accused, who led them to a secluded
publics confidence on our criminal justice system
place in the ricefields.
depends on the quality of the convictions we promulgate
against the accused. All those who participate in our It was then that Villarojo allegedly attacked Bagon
criminal justice system should realize this and take this to with a bolo, hacking him at several parts of the body until
heart. he, Bagon, was dead. Moments later, Sorela fled, running
into thick cogon grasses where he suffered facial and
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is bodily scratches.
MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Mark Jason Chavez y
Bitancor alias "Noy" is hereby declared GUILTYbeyond 4. The police soon picked up Villarojo and Cademas.
reasonable doubt of the separate and distinct crime of Together with Sorela, they were turned over to the
HOMICIDE. Inasmuch as the commission of the crime custody of Captain Encabo.
was not attended by any aggravating or mitigating
5. The police thereafter made the three re-enact the
circumstances, accused-appellant Chavez is hereby crime. Patrolman Dionisio Capito directed Sorela to lead
SENTENCEDto suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging them to the grounds where Deosdedit Bagon was
from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as supposed to have been buried. But it was Villarojo who
minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of escorted them to a watery spot somewhere in the
reclusion temporal, as maximum ricefields, where the sack-covered, decomposing cadaver
of Bagon lay in a shallow grave.
13) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, VS. ANACLETO Q. OLVIS, 6. The body was transported to the municipal hall
ACQUITTED, ROMULO VILLAROJO, the following day. It was displayed, morbidly, in front of
LEONARDO CADEMAS AND DOMINADOR the building where Mrs. Catalina Bagon, widow of the
SORELA deceased, and her four children viewed it. (It was
photographed)
G.R. No. 71092, September 30, 1987
7. The "ceremonies" continued in the parish church
where the body of the victim was transferred. It was laid
FACTS:
on the altar, in full public view. (It was also photographed)
1. Deosdedit Bagon had been in fact missing since
two days before. He was last seen by his wife in the 8. But it was only later on that the body itself was
afternoon on his way home. She did not, however, find uncovered from the sack that had concealed it.
him there when she arrived in the evening. Thereupon, it was readied for autopsy.
2. It was Captain Encabo himself who led a search 9. Initial findings of investigators disclosed that the
party to mount an inquiry. Captain Encabo's men chanced threesome of Solera, Villarojo, and Cademas executed
upon an unnamed volunteer, who informed them that Deosdedit Bagon on orders of Anacleto Olvis, then
Deosdedit Bagon was last seen together with Dominador municipal mayor, for a reward of P3,000.00 each.
Sorela, one of the accused. Encabo then instructed one of
his patrolmen to pick up Sorela. 10. While in custody, the three executed five separate
written confessions each.
3. Sorela bore several scratches on his face, neck, and
arms when the police found him. According to him, he The first confessions were taken on September 9,
sustained those wounds while clearing his ricefield. 1975 in the local Philippine Constabulary headquarters. -
Apparently unconvinced, Captain Encabo had Sorela take accused pointed to the then accused Anacleto Olvis as
them to the ricefield where he sustained his injuries. But principal by inducement, who allegedly promised them a
half way there, Sorela allegedly broke down, and, in what reward of P3,000.00 each.
would apparently crack the case for the police, admitted
having participated in the killing of the missing Bagon. The second were made before the Polanco police.
On September 18, 1975, the three accused reiterated appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee
the same confessions before the National Bureau of himself or by anyone on his behalf.)(people vs galit)
Investigation Dipolog City sub-office. - they categorically
denied Olvis' involvement in the killing. The defendant, may waive effectuation of those
rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily,
On September 21, 1975 and September 25, 1975, knowingly and intelligently. - No effective waiver of the
they executed two confessions more, again before the right to counsel during interrogation can be recognized
Philippine Constabulary and the police of Polanco - where unless specifically made after the warnings we here
the said accused again pointed to the then accused delineate have been given.
Anacleto Olvis as principal by inducement, who allegedly
promised them a reward of P3,000.00 each. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any
stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an
11. Based on these subsequent statements, the trial attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning.
rendered separate verdicts on the three accused on the one
hand, and Anacleto Olvis on the other. Olvis was Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in
acquitted, while the three were all sentenced to die for the any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the
crime of murder. police may not question him.
Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned This constitutional privilege has been defined as a
that protection against testimonial compulsion, but this has
since been extended to any evidence "communicative in
(1) he has a right to remain silent, nature" acquired under circumstances of duress.
Essentially, the right is meant to "avoid and prohibit
(2) that any statement he does make may be used as positively the repetition and recurrence of the certainly
evidence against him, and inhuman procedure of compelling a person, in a criminal
or any other case, to furnish the missing evidence
(3) that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, necessary for his conviction."
either retained or appointed. (presence of counsel engaged
by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or
This should be distinguished, parenthetically, from was filed, and only after they had gone to court on an
mechanical acts the accused is made to execute not meant application for habeas corpus. For if the authorities truly
to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical had a case in their hands, we are puzzled why they, the
attributes determinable by simple observation. accused, had to be made to suffer preventive
imprisonment for quite an enormous length of time.
This includes requiring the accused to submit to a test
to extract virus from his body, or compelling him to ADJUDICATION
expectorate morphine from his mouth, or making her
submit to a pregnancy test or a footprinting test, or The accused-appellants Leonardo Cademas and
requiring him to take part in a police lineup in certain Dominador Sorela are ACQUITTED on the ground of
cases. In each case, the accused does not speak his guilt. reasonable doubt. The accused-appellant Romulo
It is not a prerequisite therefore that he be provided with Villarojo is found guilty of homicide.
the guiding hand of counsel.
But a forced re-enactment is quite another thing. 14) PEOPLE VS. CAYAGO
Here, the accused is not merely required to exhibit some
physical characteristics; by and large, he is made to admit 312 SCRA 623 (1999)
criminal responsibility against his will. It is a police
procedure just as condemnable as an uncounselled
confession. FACTS:
For killing his own wife through strangulation and
Accordingly, we hold that all evidence based on such with evident premeditation, appellant was indicted for
a re-enactment to be in violation of the Constitution and parricide. He was tried and subsequently sentenced to die
hence, incompetent evidence. and ordered to pay damages to the victims heirs. The
lower court judge, after making a twelve page summary
Sorela's admission while with Captain Encabo of the testimonies of the witnesses, arrived at a conclusion
that appellant is guilty of parricide, in just one short
What is to be borne in mind is that Sorela was paragraph, which reads:
himself under custody. Any statement he might have
made thereafter is therefore subject to the Constitutional After considering the prosecution and the defense
guaranty. evidence, the Court is convinced that the version of the
defense is not credible. In his redirect examination, he
By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning admitted that his wife was reported missing as embodied
initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has in his first sworn statement, which had been marked in
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his evidence as Exhibit K. Said sworn statement is entirely
freedom of action in any significant way. wrong because his wife was not missing as mentioned by
the accused, but killed her. In the said first statement to
Chavez v. Court of Appeals tells us: the police, he merely wanted to mislead the police by
concocting a lie that his wife is missing, when in truth and
Compulsion as it is understood here does not in fact, he had killed her and left her at the comfort room
necessarily connote the use of violence; it may be the of the abandoned barangay hall, already lifeless.
product of unintentional statements. Pressure which
operates to overbear his will, disable him from making a Culled from the evidence on record are the following
free and rational choice, or impair his capacity for rational facts which was condensed in the Appellees Brief, to wit:
judgment would in our opinion be sufficient. So is moral
coercion "tending to force testimony from the unwilling At about 1:25 oclock in the afternoon of August 2,
lips of the defendant." 1995, SPO2 Belino Zinampan, Jr. was at the police
headquarters at Pasig City where he received the report of
In such a case, he should have been provided with Rolando Cayago that he saw the decomposing body of his
counsel. wife at the abandoned barangay hall of Santolan, Pasig
City.
DELAY
Zinampan, SPO2 Antonio Paulite, a police
Indeed, the three accused-appellants had languished photographer and Cayago proceeded to the said
in jail for one year and two months before the information abandoned barangay hall to verify the report.
Thereat, the group saw the dead and decomposing In his testimony, appellant claims that he embraced
body of a woman. Zinampan requested Cayago to identify his wife so tight but did not notice she had stopped
the body and on recognizing the shoes worn by the breathing due to the tightness of the embrace.
deceased, let out a loud cry and thereafter lost
consciousness for about five minutes. He admitted that in an attempt to confuse authorities
as to the true cause of his wifes death, appellant removed
Thereafter, Cayago, in answer to Zinampans all her clothing including her panty and bra to make it
question, answered that he does not know who killed his appear that she was raped. This shows the probability that
wife. Zinampan and Cayago then returned to the police the victim sustained injuries in her vaginal opening and
headquarters where the latters statement was taken by the lacerations in her uterus, as found in the autopsy report.
former.
ISSUE: W/N Appellants statement is inadmissible
At the time Cayagos statement was being taken, because it was given without affording him the right to
Police Sr. Inspector Pajota noticed Cayagos several counsel.
inconsistent statements. Pajota subsequently instructed
Zinampan, SPO2 Paulite and SPO2 Delos Reyes to RULING: NO.
further interrogate Cayago and, who, thereafter concluded
that Cayago was reluctant and inconsistent in answering Appellants contention that the statement he gave to the
our simple questions. Pajota then advised Cayago to police is inadmissible in evidence because it was given
undergo a polygraph examination at Camp Crame.
without affording him the right to counsel guaranteed by
the Constitution has no merit.
On August 3, 1995, when Cayago was about to be
brought to Camp Crame for a polygraph test, he requested
It is undisputed that appellant was not arrested because the
permission to go to the nearby church. Cayago requested
that he be accompanied by SPO2 Delos Reyes, who authorities were not yet aware of the crime. It was he
agreed. himself who reported the incident to the police after he
went to the abandoned barangay hall two days later and
Thereat, Cayago admitted to SPO2 Delos Reyes that discovered that his wifes body was still there.
he killed his wife Myra Cayago and was willing to give
his statement relative to said killing. SPO2 Delos Reyes Appellant himself admitted that since he did not know
and Cayago returned to the police station and upon such what to do after seeing his wifes relatives whom he
information, Sr. Inspector Pajota instructed Zinampan to feared for reprisal, he decided to report the matter to the
secure a lawyer to assist Cayago. Zinampan then Pasig police. The right to counsel is afforded by Section
requested Atty. Reynario Campanilla, who agreed to
12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution only to
assist Cayago. Atty. Campanilla conferred with Cayago at
the Office of the Investigation Division. person(s) under investigation for the commission of an
offense. On their way to Camp Crame, appellant asked
After apprising Cayago of his constitutional rights, that he be accompanied by an officer to the Pasig Church.
Cayago admitted that he killed his wife. Atty. Campanilla There, he volunteered information to the officer on the
then advised Cayago to personally write down his whereabouts of his wife and stated that he is willing to put
confession which Cayago did for about an hour in the his statement in writing. Custodial rights of a person are
presence of Atty. Campanilla. Thereafter, with the aid of
not available whenever he volunteers statements without
a tape recorder, requested Cayago to read his admission.
being asked. He was not investigated by the authorities.
After informing Cayago of his constitutional rights In fact, after appellant admitted to the police officer that
against self-incrimination, SPO2 Delos Reyes started
taking down Cayagos extra-judicial confession again in he killed his wife, the officer told him that he will be
the presence of Atty. Campanilla and who signed said provided with a lawyer to assist him. In any case, during
statement together with Cayago. the subsequent events the investigation in the precinct -
appellant was assisted by a lawyer, namely, Atty.
In the case at bar, it is clear that appellant Campanilla.
strangulated his wife resulting to her death. This is
supported by appellants own testimony, his confession to At the trial, the latter testified that he talked to appellant,
the police and the medical findings corroborating that she advised him of his constitutional rights and was present
died of asphyxia by strangulation. when the latter wrote his extrajudicial statement admitting
that he killed his wife. Atty. Campanilla even asked for that the victim is appellant's lawful wife and that he
appellants identification card to verify whether the strangulated her resulting to her death. The Court found
signature he will sign in his statement is his own. no merit in appellant's contention that his extrajudicial
statement was inadmissible in evidence.
WHEREFORE, appellants conviction for parricide is The right to counsel is afforded only to person(s)
AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that the under investigation for the commission of an
penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. He is also offense. Appellant volunteered the information to the
ORDERED TO PAY P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the officer as to the whereabouts of his wife. Custodial rights
children of the victim, in addition to the award of of a person are not available whenever he volunteers
P26,000.00 as actual damages. The award of moral statements without being asked.
damages is deleted for lack of evidence. The Court, however, did not agree with the
imposition of the death penalty. Parricide is punishable
with reclusion perpetua to death. The higher penalty of
death may be imposed only if there is an aggravating
SYNOPSIS (PEOPLE VS. CAYAGO) circumstance that concurs in the commission of the
crime.
The Court found no sufficient evidence to prove that
Appellant and his wife went to his aunt at about 11
appellant took advantage of nighttime and uninhabited
oclock in the evening to borrow money, but was ashamed
place to consummate the crime. Thus, pursuant to Article
to wake her up because it was already to late in the night.
63 of the revised Penal Code, when the penalty provided
Unable to get the money, his wife started pushing him
for by law are two indivisible penalties and there is neither
asking him to produce the money. He then invited her to
mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the lower
the abandoned barangay hall to talk. There she kept on
penalty shall be imposed. Forthwith, the death penalty
pushing him. He embraced her so tight that she suddenly
imposed by the court a quo was reduced to the indivisible
died.
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Two days later appellant reported the incident to the
police after he went to the abandoned barangay hall and
discovered that his wife's body was still there. When CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS;
appellant was about to be brought to Camp Crame for RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED; CUSTODIAL
polygraph test, he asked that he be accompanied by an RIGHTS; NOT AVAILABLE WHENEVER
officer to the nearby church. There, he admitted to the ACCUSED VOLUNTEERS STATEMENTS
police officer that he killed his wife and was willing to WITHOUT BEING ASKED.- Appellants contention
give his statement relative to the said killing. that the statement he gave to the police is inadmissible in
evidence because it was given without affording him the
During the investigation, appellant was assisted by
right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution has no
a lawyer who advised him of his constitutional rights. The
merit.
lawyer was present when appellant wrote his extrajudicial
statement admitting that he killed his wife. Thereafter, It is undisputed that appellant was not arrested
appellant was indicted for parricide for killing his own because the authorities were not yet aware of the crime. It
wife through strangulation and with evident was he himself who reported the incident to the police
premeditation. after he went to the abandoned barangay hall two days
later and discovered that his wifes body was still there.
He was tried and subsequently found guilty of the
crime charged.Appellant was sentenced to the penalty of Appellant himself admitted that since he did not
death and ordered to pay actual and moral damages to the know what to do after seeing his wifes relatives whom he
victim's heirs. The Solicitor General recommended the feared for reprisal, he decided to report the matter to the
affirmance of the sentence arguing that the aggravating Pasig police.
circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place
concurred in the killing. Appellant, on the other hand, The right to counsel is afforded by Section 12(1),
alleged that the statement he gave to the police was Article III of the 1987 Constitution only to person(s)
inadmissible because it was given without affording him under investigation for the commission of an offense.
the right to counsel. On their way to Camp Crame, appellant asked that
The Supreme Court affirmed appellant's conviction he be accompanied by an officer to the Pasig Church.
for parricide with modification as to the penalty imposed There, he volunteered information to the officer on the
and as to the award of damages. It was clearly established
whereabouts of his wife and stated that he is willing to put Whether the respondent judge is correct in
his statement in writing. making inadmissible as evidence the admission and
statement of accused.
Custodial rights of a person are not available
whenever he volunteers statements without being asked.
Ruling:
He was not investigated by the authorities.
In fact, after appellant admitted to the police officer NO. It is clear that Felipe Ramos was not in any sense
that he killed his wife, the officer told him that he will be under custodial interrogation, as the term should be
provided with a lawyer to assist him. In any case, during properly understood, prior to and during the
the subsequent events - the investigation in the precinct - administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in
appellant was assisted by a lawyer, namely, Atty.
ticket sales in which he appeared to have had a hand. The
Campanilla.
constitutional rights of a person under custodial
At the trial, the latter testified that he talked to interrogation under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
appellant, advised him of his constitutional rights and was Constitution did not therefore come into play, were of no
present when the latter wrote his extrajudicial statement
relevance to the inquiry. It is also clear, too, that Ramos
admitting that he killed his wife.
had voluntarily answered questions posed to him on the
Atty. Campanilla even asked for appellants first day of the administrative investigation and agreed
identification card to verify whether the signature he will that the proceedings should be recorded. The answer to
sign in his statement is his own.
the questions posed to him was a free and even
spontaneous act on his part. They may not be excluded on
the ground that the so-called "Miranda rights" had not
15) PEOPLE VS AYSON
been accorded to Ramos
Custodial interrogation means questioning
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.
Facts:
Issue:
C. COUNSEL COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT Patungan, the sister of the deceased, who testified that her
sister-in-law, the accused Marietta Patungan, had an affair
16) PEOPLE VS PATUNGAN with one of the helpers in the flower shop, who is her own
cousin Jun Acebuche. Thus, witness stated that she saw
FACTS the two eating together from the same plate and that she
At about 10:00 p.m. of May 22, 1994, Antonio caught them holding hands. One time she saw Jun kiss
Altarejos and his girlfriend Antonia Eluzon with a few Marietta. Her brother allegedly found out about the affair
other friends were having a drinking spree beside the and dismissed Jun from work but he forgave Marietta for
chapel along Laura Calderon St., Purok 2, Barangay Old the sake of their children.[8]
Balara, Quezon City. Antonio and Antonia noticed the
van of their neighbor Alejandro Patungan parked in front The mother of the victim testified to establish the amount
of the chapel and saw two men seated inside, one is the
of funeral expenses incurred at P80,000.00, which amount
accused Elmerto Pulga at the drivers seat and the other is
the accused Edgar Acebuche.[1] Sometime that the defense admitted.[9]
evening Elmerto Pulga drove the van away from the
chapel and towards a vacant lot near Commonwealth For the defense, accused Marietta Patungan admitted in
Avenue to allow another car to park right in front of the court that she was with her husband at early dawn of May
chapel. After the drinking spree, at about 3:00 to 3:30 23, 1994 and were on their way to buy flowers for their
a.m., the following morning, the lovers Antonio and flower shop but she went back to their house to get a
Antonia went to the basketball court to talk. Moments betamax tape and that her husband proceeded without
later they saw Alejandro Patungan and his wife Marietta her.[10] On August 9, 1994 she was invited by the police
come out of their house and walk toward the
for questioning and that she was in fact questioned about
road. Marietta however, went back to their house while
Alejandro proceeded without her.[2] her complicity in her husbands death at the police station
without the assistance of counsel.[11] The other accused
At about 3:45 p.m. of May 24, 1994, the Edgar Acebuche denied participation in the murder of the
decomposing body of Alejandro Patungan was found
victim and stated that sometime on August 8, 1994 he
inside his van parked along Don Quixote St. Sampaloc,
Manila. The body was bloated and in the state of went to his cousin Mariettas flower shop in Cubao to look
decomposition. The face was dark colored, eyeballs, for a job when the police mistook him for Jun Acebuche
bulging, tongue half protruding and thick upper and lower and arrested him. He was also subjected to custodial
lips. Bullae formation in the chest, abdomen and investigation without the assistance of counsel.[12]
extremities with greenish discoloration in the inguinal
regions spreading towards the abdomen. The abdomen In court, accused Elmerto Pulga repudiated his extra-
was distended with gas judicial confession and stated that he was coerced by the
On August 16, 1994 an Information was filed against police to admit participation in the murder of Alejandro
Marietta Patungan for parricide and against Elmerto Pulga Patungan and to implicate his sister Marietta as
and Edgar Acebuche for murder mastermind and cousin Edgar as co-conspirator. He
narrated that he was arrested at around 9 a.m., August 9,
In addition to the testimonies of Antonio and Antonia, the 1994 and that he was detained and tortured by
prosecution presented the extra-judicial confession of the electrocution by the police until the following day, August
accused Elmerto Pulga, the testimonies of the police 10, 1994, when he agreed to sign a prepared
officers who took the statement, of the lawyer from the document. On August 11, 1994 he was brought to the IBP
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Quezon City Chapter, office where he met Atty. Rudio who signed the prepared
Atty. Pedro Rudio, who allegedly assisted the accused extra-judicial confession as counsel for the accused.[13] A
Elmerto Pulga during the custodial investigation and of motion to withdraw the plea of not guilty to the offense
the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy. The charged to a plea of guilty to a lesser offense i.e.,
extra-judicial confession[6] of accused Elmerto Pulga homicide, was filed by counsel for the accused. The trial
dated August 11, 1994 linked Marietta to the killing of her court denied the motion and treated it instead as a motion
husband. to recall the accused Elmerto Pulga for further
testimony.[14] On recall, accused Elmerto Pulga,
To establish the alleged motive in the killing of
admitted stabbing the deceased three times until he fell
Alejandro, the prosecution also presented Adelaida
unconscious, after which he lost control of himself and
stabbed the victim some more. He found a rope and pulled start thereof[17] The presence of counsel is intended to
the victim by the neck to the back of the van. He stated secure the voluntariness of the extra-judicial
that he alone was responsible for the death of his brother- confession.[18] The presence of a lawyer alone, will not
in-law. suffice to fulfill the requirement of the constitutional
provision. The assistance of counsel must be independent
the trial court upheld the validity of the extra-judicial and competent that is, providing full protection to the
confession and rendered judgment convicting the three constitutional rights of the accused.[19] A lawyer who
accused guilty of the crime charged. simply goes through the motion of reciting the rights of
the accused, or acts as a witness to a pre-prepared
ISSUE
document containing the extra-judicial confession of the
W/N extra-judicial confession of appellant Elmerto Pulga accused or holds an interest contrary to that of the
is admissible in evidence for having been obtained accused does not qualify as independent and competent
without effective assistance of counsel counsel.[20]
A: The police operatives together Sir matagal kona sana ito ipagtapat sa iyo dahil tuwing k
with Edgardo Batocan went to the place
itay nakikita na lumoloha ka parang hindi ako maka hing
and when they came back, I did not go with
a ng sisikip and aking dibdib. Tuwing tayoy nasa simbah
them, the wrist watch was already in the
an homihinge ako ng tawad sapanginoon ang nagawa ko
possession of the Quezon City Police
ng ito nararamdaman ko na parabang hinde niya tinatang
operative, Sir.
gap.
Q: Did you actually see, Mr. Witness when the
team proceeded to the place where the Sir napakalaki ng nagawa kong kasalanan sa iyo at sana
sweetheart of bigyan mo
accused Edgardo Batocan was staying, pa ako ng isang pagkakataon pagsisihan ko lahat ang pag
give this wrist watch to the Quezon City kakasala sa iyo babagohin ko na ang buhay ko magliling
Police operatives? kod ako sa diyos.
A: I said, Sir. I did not accompany them.[26] Sir nandito ako sa likod ng bakal na rihas halos lahat ng
As for the wristwatch itself, we agree with appellant oras ng dadasal ako bigyan mo
that its seizure, if it was really taken pa ako ng isang pagkakataon patawaring mo ako.
from Batocans girlfriend, was irregular. As succinctly
explained in Batocans Brief: Sir alam ng diyos na hindi ako ang kriminal may kinala
man lang ako inamin ko na lang. Para naman magkaroon
x x x. Clearly, the watch was taken without a search ng lonas yong problima mo hindi narin ako makatiis hin
warrant and not as an incident of a valid arrest. The di pa makatolog. Lalo na nakikita kitana ng hihirap ang i
seizure was irregular. There is also no evidence on record nyong katawan lalo na ang in kalooban sana sir bigyan
that it was taken under any of the exempting mo
circumstances where a warrantless seizure is pa ako ng isang pagkakataon patawarin mo ako isa rin ak
permissible. It was not shown if the girlfriend voluntarily o na anak ng diyos na naligaw ng langdas ngayon pinags
and validly consented to the taking x x x. Lacking such isihan ko lahatang nagawa kong kasalanan sir ayaw ko p
evidence, no presumption of regularity can be assumed. ang mamatay maliliit ang aking mga anak mahal ako ng
aking asawa.
Where the search was conducted with irregularity, i.e.
without a warrant, the Court cannot appreciate consent Sir. Edgardo Batokan ang pumatay kay Sir
based merely on the presumption of regularity of the JERRY sangayon nandoon siya sa Jaro Leyte Bo.
performance of duty. (People vs. Encinada, 280 SCRA San Agostin. Sir hinde ko maggawang pomatay ng tao s
72). omama lang ako dahil baka kayo ang patayin nang doonl
ang ako sa may pito.
The wristwatch is clearly a fruit of a fruit of a poisonous Yung kapatid ko namana siya ang may baril siya and nan
tree. As such, it should not have been admitted and otok si Edgardo Batokan siya ang komoha ng pira tapos
appreciated against the accused.[27] omalis na kami ako ang ng drive ng kotse. Tapos inewan
namin sa Rictotapos ng hiwalay hiwa na kame yon tike.
Dian ng kapatid ko.
Letter
Sir patawarin mo na ako hinde naman akong masamang t These pieces of evidence sufficiently prove beyond
ao na pasama lang ako. reasonable doubt the commission of the crime of robbery
with homicide.
Sana po &
WHEREFORE, the appeal is
sir babaan mo naman ang aking sintinesia ayaw ko pang
hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED and the appealed
mamatay.
Decision MODIFIED. We AFFIRM the judgment insofar
Nerio Suela as it refers to Criminal Case Nos. Q-96-64616 and Q-96-
(signed) 65071 but REDUCE the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
Quezon City Jail The award of civil indemnities is also AFFIRMED. In
Criminal Case No. Q-96-64618 for simple robbery,
Sir. Sagotin mo naman Edgar Suela y Hembra is ACQUITTED.
itong sulat ko,
No pronouncement as to costs.
(
signed)[28] SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
This letter was properly identified. Nerio was no
C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
longer under custodial investigation when he wrote it. In
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago,
open court, he admitted having written it. Thus, contrary
De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio,
to his contention, the fact that he was not assisted by
JJ., concur.
counsel when he wrote it will not make the letter
inadmissible in evidence. Constitutional procedures on
custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous
18. PEOPLE V. JANUARIO, 276 SCRA 608 (1997)
statement, not elicited through questioning by the
authorities.[29] Hence, the letter is admissible in evidence. History:
Edgardo Batocans confession to Rosas who is not a The 1987 Constitution was crafted and ordained at a
police officer is admissible in evidence.[38] The Rules state historic time when our nation was reeling from ghastly
that the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt memories of atrocities, excesses and outright violations of
of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily our peoples rights to life, liberty and property. Hence, our
included therein, may be given in evidence against bill of rights was worded to emphasize the sanctity of
him.[39] Batocans verbal declarations are not covered by human liberty and specifically to protect persons
Sections 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the undergoing custodial investigations from ignorant,
Constitution,[40] because they were not extracted while he overzealous and/or incompetent peace officers.
was under custodial investigation.
The Constitution so dearly values freedom and
In People v. Tawat,[41] the Court declared: voluntariness that, inter alia, it unequivocally guarantees
a person undergoing investigation for the commission of
The rule is that any person, otherwise competent as a an offense not only the services of counsel, but a lawyer
witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify who is not merely (a) competent but also (b) independent
as to the substance of what he heard is he heard and and (c) preferably of his own choice as well.
understood all of it. An oral confession need not be
xxx
repeated verbatim, but in such case it must be given in its
substance. FACTS:
Proof of the contents of an oral extrajudicial confession The main evidence relied upon for the conviction of
may be made by the testimony of a person who testifies appellants were their own extrajudicial confessions which
that he was present, heard, understood, and remembers the admittedly were extracted and signed in the presence and
substance of the conversation or statement made by the with the assistance of a lawyer who was applying for work
in the NBI. Such counsel cannot in any wise be
accused.
considered independent because he cannot be expected to
work against the interest of a police agency he was hoping
to join, as a few months later, he in fact was admitted into The Courts Ruling
its work force. For this violation of their constitutional The First Issue: Order of Trial
right to independent counsel, appellants deserve
The pertinent provisions of Rule 119 of the Rules of
acquittal. After the exclusion of their tainted confessions,
Court state:
no sufficient and credible evidence remains in the Courts
records to overturn another constitutional right: the right
"Sec. 3. Order of trial.- The trial shall proceed in the
to be presumed innocent of any crime until the contrary is
following order:
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the
Judgment is hereby rendered finding accused:
charge, and in the proper case, the civil liability.
(1) RENE JANUARIO Y ROLDAN
and-
(b) The accused may present evidence to prove his
(2) EFREN CANAPE Y BAYOT
defense, and damages, if any, arising from the issuance of
any provisional remedy in the case.
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Violation of Sec. 14 last sentence of R.A. No. 6539,
(c) The parties may then respectively present rebutting
otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Law. Thus, this
evidence only, unless the court, in the furtherance of
Court hereby imposes upon the said accused, the supreme
justice, permits them to present additional evidence
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua or life imprisonment.
bearing upon the main issue.
The Issues
(d) Upon admission of the evidence, the cases shall be
deemed submitted unless the court directs the parties to
(1) The trial procedure, particularly the presentation and
argue orally or to submit memoranda.
admission of the testimony of Atty. Carlos Saunar, was
irregular and prejudicial to the appellants; and
(e) However, when the accused admits the act or omission
charged in the complaint or information but interposes a
(2) The extra-judicial confessions of the appellants are
lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified
inadmissible in evidence for having been extracted in
accordingly." (Emphasis supplied.)
violation of their constitutional right to counsel.
The trial procedure as outlined in this rule is
Insisting that his guilt had not been proven beyond
ordinarily followed to insure the orderly conduct of
reasonable doubt, appellant Januario contends that the
litigations to attain the magisterial objective of the Rules
trial court erred in admitting in evidence his sworn
of Court to protect the parties' substantive
statement before the NBI and the testimony of Atty.
rights.[40] However, strict observance of the Rules depend
Saunar as rebuttal or additional witness after the
upon the circumstances obtaining in each case at the
prosecution had rested its case, he (appellant Januario)
discretion of the trial judge. Thus, as early as 1917, this
had filed his memorandum, and the decision had been
Court explained:
scheduled for promulgation.[38]
For his part, appellant Canape also claims that his "x x x. The orderly course of proceedings
guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He requires, however, that the prosecution shall go
questions the trial court's having given "weight and forward and should present all of its proof in the first
sufficiency" to his extra-judicial confession.[39] instance; but it is competent for the judge, according
to the nature of the case, to allow a party who has
Appellant Januario contends that the trial court erred
closed his case to introduce further evidence in
in allowing the presentation of Saunar as a witness after
rebuttal. This rule, however, depends upon the
the prosecution had closed its case and offered its
particular circumstances of each particular case, and
documentary evidence. Saunar could not in any guise be
falls within the sound discretion of the judge, to be
considered as a rebuttal witness simply because there was
exercised or not as he may think proper."[41]
no defense evidence to rebut.
Hence, the court may allow the prosecutor, even after individual autonomy, an informed judgment based on the
he has rested his case or even after the defense has moved choices given to him by a competent and independent
for dismissal, to present involuntarily omitted lawyer.
evidence.[42] The primary consideration is whether the
trial court still has jurisdiction over the case. Thus Thus, the lawyer called to be present during such
investigation should be as far as reasonably possible, the
"The claim that the lower court erred in allowing the choice of the individual undergoing questioning. If the
prosecuting attorney to introduce new evidence is devoid lawyer were one furnished in the accused's behalf, it is
of any merit, for while the prosecution had rested, the trial important that he should be competent and independent,
was not yet terminated and the cause was still under the i.e., that he is willing to fully safeguard the constitutional
control and jurisdiction of the court and the latter, in the rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who
exercise of its discretion, may receive additional would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and
evidence. Sec. 3(c), Rule 119 of the Rules of Court meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional
clearly provides that, in the furtherance of justice, the rights. In People v. Basay, this Court stressed that an
court may grant either of the parties the right and accused's right to be informed of the right to remain silent
opportunity to adduce new additional evidence bearing and to counsel `contemplates the transmission of
upon the main issue in question."[43] meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial
and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
Saunars testimony was admitted in evidence before
principle.'
the trial court rendered its Decision. Undoubtedly then,
the court a quo retained its jurisdiction even though the
Ideally, therefore, a lawyer engaged for an individual
prosecution had rested its case. As to appellants, Saunar
facing custodial investigation (if the latter could not
was an additional prosecution witness, not a rebuttal
afford one) `should be engaged by the accused (himself),
witness, because the defense waived presentation of
or by the latter's relative or person authorized by him to
evidence after the prosecution had rested its
engage an attorney or by the court, upon proper petition
case.[44] Saunar was, therefore, a rebuttal witness with
of the accused or person authorized by the accused to file
respect to accused Cid.[45]
such petition. Lawyers engaged by the police, whatever
testimonials are given as proof of their probity and
supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in many
The Second Issue: Appellants Right to Counsel
areas, the relationship between lawyers and law
Proof of Saunar's presence during the custodial enforcement authorities can be symbiotic.
investigation of appellants is, however, not a guarantee
Let us for the moment grant arguendo that Saunar's
that appellants' respective confessions had been taken in
competence as a lawyer is beyond question. Under the
accordance with Article III, Section 12 (1) of the
circumstances described by the prosecution however, he
Constitution. This constitutional provision requires that a
could not have been the independent counsel solemnly
person under investigation for the commission of an
spoken of by our Constitution. He was an applicant for a
offense shall have no less than "competent and
position in the NBI and therefore it can never be said that
independent counsel preferably of his own
his loyalty was to the confessants. In fact, he was actually
choice." Elucidating on this particular constitutional
employed by the NBI a few months after. As regards
requirement, this Court has taught:
appellant Januario, Saunar might have really been around
to properly apprise appellant of his constitutional right as
It is noteworthy that the
reflected in the written sworn statement itself.
modifiers competent and independent were terms absent
in all organic laws previous to the 1987 However, the same cannot be said about appellant
Constitution. Their addition in the fundamental law of Canape. Clearly, he was not properly informed of his
1987 was meant to stress the primacy accorded to the constitutional rights. Perfunctorily informing a
voluntariness of the choice, under the uniquely stressful confessant of his constitutional rights, asking him if he
conditions of a custodial investigation, by according the wants to avail of the services of counsel and telling him
accused, deprived of normal conditions guaranteeing that he could ask for counsel if he so desires or that one
could be provided him at his request, are simply not in In People vs. Lorenzo,[56] the Court explained that in a
compliance with the constitutional mandate.[51] In this confession there is an acknowledgment of guilt while in
case, appellant Canape was merely told of his an admission the statements of fact by the accused do not
constitutional rights and posthaste, asked whether he was directly involve an acknowledgment of guilt or of the
willing to confess. His affirmative answer may not, by criminal intent to commit the offense with which the
any means, be interpreted as a waiver of his right to accused is charged.
counsel of his own choice.
Appellants verbally intimated facts relevant to the
Furthermore, the right of a person under custodial commission of the crime to the NBI agents in Naga
investigation to be informed of his rights to remain silent City. This is shown by the testimony of NBI Agent Vela
and to counsel implies a correlative obligation on the part that, based on the facts gathered from interviews of people
of the police investigator to explain and to contemplate an in that city, they "invited" and questioned appellants, thus:
effective communication that results in an understanding
Prior to the execution of the sworn statements at the
of what is conveyed.[52] Appellant Canape's sworn
NBI head office, appellants had already made verbal
statement, which reads and sounds so lifeless on paper,
admissions of complicity in the crime. Verbal
fails to reflect compliance with this requirement. Neither
admissions, however, should also be made with the
does the aforequoted testimony of NBI Agent Toribio.
assistance of counsel. Thus:
Bearing in mind that appellant Canape reached only the
fifth grade, the NBI agents should have exerted more
"The verbal admissions allegedly made by both
effort in explaining to him his constitutional rights.
appellants of their participation in the crime, at the
Moreover, there is enough reason to doubt whether time of their arrest and even before their formal
appellant Canape was in fact and in truth assisted by investigation, are inadmissible, both as violative of
counsel. Atty. Saunar affirmed on the witness stand that their constitutional rights and as hearsay
he assisted appellants on March 28, 1988.[53] However, evidence. These oral admissions, assuming they
the sworn statement itself reveals that it was taken on were in fact made, constitute uncounselled
March 27, 1988. No satisfactory explanation was made extrajudicial confessions within the meaning of
by the prosecution on this discrepancy. All that Agent Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution."[60]
Vela stated was that they conducted an oral investigation
That appellants indeed admitted participation in the
in Naga City on March 27, 1988 and that investigation at
commission of the crime in Naga City is shown by the fact
the NBI Manila head office was made in the afternoon of
that the NBI agents brought them to Manila to facilitate
March 28, 1988.[54]
apprehension of the other culprits who could be either in
The law enforcement agents' cavalier disregard of Cavite or Manila. Because their uncounselled oral
appellants' constitutional rights is shown not only by their admissions in Naga City resulted in the execution of their
failure to observe Section 12 (1) of Article III of the written confessions in Manila, the latter had become as
Constitution. They have likewise forgotten the third constitutionally infirm as the former. In People vs.
paragraph of Section 12 of the same article which Alicando,[61] this Court explained the ramifications of an
mandates that an admission of facts related to a crime irregularly counselled confession or admission:
must be obtained with the assistance of counsel otherwise
it would be inadmissible in evidence against the person so "We have not only constitutionalized the Miranda
admitting.[55] warnings in our jurisdiction. We have also adopted the
libertarian exclusionary rules known as the `fruit of the
An admission, which, under Section 26 of Rule 130
poisonous tree,' a phrase minted by Mr. Justice Felix
of the Rules of Court, is an "act, declaration or omission
Frankfurter in the celebrated case of Nardone v. United
of a party as to a relevant fact" is different from a
States. According to this rule, once the primary
confession which, in turn, is defined in Section 33 of the
source (the `tree') is shown to have been unlawfully
same Rule as the "declaration of an accused
obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any
`fruit') derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated
offense necessarily included therein." Both may be given
otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct
in evidence against the person admitting or confessing.
result of the illegal act, whereas the `fruit of the
poisonous tree' is the indirect result of the same illegal crimes would constitute needless expenditures of
act. The `fruit of the poisonous tree is at least once taxpayers money.
removed from the illegally seized evidence, but is equally
This Court values liberty and will always insist on
inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that
the observance of basic constitutional rights as a
evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used
condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative
to gain other evidence because the originally illegally
and prosecutory powers of government. The admonition
obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently
given by this Court to government officers, particularly
obtained."
those involved in law enforcement and the administration
Appellants might have indeed committed the crime of justice, in the case of People vs. Cuizon,[66]where NBI
in concert with Eliseo Sarita and Eduardo agents mishandled a drug bust operation and in so doing
Sarinos. However, what could have been their valuable violated the constitutional guarantees against unlawful
admissions and confessions as far as the prosecution was arrests and illegal searches and seizures, is again called
concerned were sullied and rendered inadmissible by the for and thus reiterated in the case at bench, to wit:
irregular manner by which the law enforcement agents
extracted such admissions and confessions from x x x In the final analysis, we in the
appellants. Without such statements, the remaining administration of justice would have no right to
prosecution evidence -- consisting mostly of hearsay expect ordinary people to be law-abiding if we do
testimony and investigation reports -- is sorely inadequate not insist on the full protection of their rights. Some
to prove appellants participation in the crime. lawmen, prosecutors and judges may still tend to
gloss over an illegal search and seizure as long as the
Notably, these law enforcers did not only defy the
law enforcers show the alleged evidence of the crime
mandate of Section 12 of the Bill of Rights but, after
regardless of the methods by which they were
making "inquiries" from appellants about the crime, they
obtained. This kind of attitude condones law-
likewise illegally detained appellants as shown by the
breaking in the name of law
admission of one of the NBI agents that appellants were
enforcement. Ironically, it only fosters the more
deprived of their liberty while in their
[62]
rapid breakdown of our system of justice, and the
custody. Appellants were even made to travel for ten
eventual denigration of society. While this Court
(10) hours[63] from Naga City to Manila just so their
appreciates and encourages the efforts of law
formal confessions could be executed in the latter
enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the peace
city. According to NBI Agent Vela, they "actually
and security of society, we nevertheless admonish
arrested" the appellants when the court issued the warrant
them to act with deliberate care and within the
for their arrest.[64] The records show however that the NBI
parameters set by the Constitution and the
turned appellants over to the Municipal Circuit Trial
law. Truly, the end never justifies the means.
Court of Silang-Amadeo in Cavite only on March 30,
1989. On the same day, the same court turned them back WHEREFORE, the questioned Decision of the
to the NBI for "detention during pendency of the case." Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 18 in Tagaytay
City, is hereby REVERSED and SET
Epilogue
ASIDE. Appellants Rene Januario and Efren Canape
The Court understands the difficulties faced by law are ACQUITTED.
enforcement agencies in apprehending violators of the
The accused-appellants are hereby ORDERED
law especially those involving syndicates. It sympathizes
RELEASED immediately unless they are being detained
with the public clamor for the bringing of criminals before
for some other legal cause.
the altar of justice. However, quick solution of crimes
and the consequent apprehension of malefactors are not SO ORDERED.
the end-all and be-all of law enforcement. Enforcers of
the law must follow the procedure mandated by the
Constitution and the law. Otherwise, their efforts would 19) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
be meaningless. And their expenses in trying to solve appellee,
vs.
REY DENIEGA y MACOY, and HOYLE DIAZ y In their defense, appellants, during the course
URNILLO, defendants-appellants. of the trial, vehemently denied the claim that
they had voluntarily executed the said
KAPUNAN, J.: confessions. 9 Appellants Daniega and Diaz went
The naked body of Marlyn Canoy was found on a to the extent of seeking the assistance of the
heap of garbage in an ill-frequented back corner National Bureau of Investigation, and there
on the left side of the Mt. Carmel Church in New executed a sworn statement to the effect that their
Manila, Quezon City. Her hands were tied behind respective confessions were coerced and
her back by a shoestring and pieces of her own obtained through torture. 10 Both testified that
clothing. The body bore thirty nine (39) stab they were subjected to electrocution and water
wounds. There was evidence that she had been treatment. They contended that they were
brutally assaulted, physically and sexually, before arrested without warrants of arrest and that
she was murdered. the confessions obtained from them
immediately thereafter were made without the
Police authorities investigating the gruesome
assistance of counsel.
crime on August 31, 1989, arrested Rey Daniega
The lower court, on August 31, 1991 rendered its
y Macoy on information that the victim was last
seen with Daniega, 1 a waiter at the Gathering Decision convicting the accused-appellants of the
Disco where Canoy used to work. Friends of crime of Rape with Homicide. In dismissing
Canoy volunteered the information that the appellant's principal defense that their
former had just broken off from a stormy confessions were obtained in violation of their
relationship with Daniega. 2The latter, it was constitutional rights, the trial court held that:
bruited, 3 desperately tried to patch up the The court finds it hard to believe that (Atty.
relationship. Sansano and Atty. Rous), both of whom are
Following the latter's arrest, and on the basis of a officers of the Legal Aid Committee of the IBP
confession obtained by police authorities from and are prominent practitioners of great integrity,
would act as the accused said they did. The two
him during custodial investigation (where he
counsels testified that they precisely segregated
allegedly admitted raping and killing
Canoy), 4 appellant Hoyle Diaz y Urnillo was the accused from their police escorts to cull out
invited by the investigators for questioning. A the truth and the accused volunteered to confess
second sworn statement, substantially similar and to the crime at bar.
corroborating many of the details of Daniega's
sworn affidavit, was later extracted from Diaz. In Issue:
the said statement, Diaz admitted his participation Whether or not the lower court erred in
in the rape of Canoy, but denied that he had convicting the appellants based on their
something to do with the victim's death. 5 extrajudicial confession.
Armed with the said extra-judicial
Held:
confessions, an Information was filed with the
The court held that under rules laid down by the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon
Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence,
City, 6 charging petitioners with the crime of
a confession to be admissible must satisfy all of
Rape with Homicide
four fundamental requirements: 1) the confession
At trial, the confessions obtained by law
must be voluntary 2) the confession must be
enforcement authorities during their (separate)
made with the assistance of competent and
custodial investigations formed the centerpiece of
independent counsel; 3) the confession must be
the prosecution's case for Rape with Homicide
express and 4) the confession must be in
against both accused. 7 These confessions
writing.
allegedly disclosed details of the killing.
The court noted that the assistance of a counsel
provided for the accused was inadequate to meet
the standard requirements of the constitution for
custodial investigation. It seems that the lawyers and Detention Center in Carmen, Cagayan de Oro
were not around throughout the custodial City where he was detained while Jonelto Labtan
investigation. Citing People vs Javar, the court has eluded arrest. The two cases were tried
reiterated that any statement obtained in violation together.
of the constitutional provision, or in part, shall be After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan
inadmissible in evidence. Even if the confession de Oro City, Branch 25 found Feliciano guilty
speaks the truth, if it was made without the beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct
assistance of counsel, it becomes inadmissible in participation in the crime of robbery with
evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or homicide
even if it had been voluntarily given. Thus, The trial court also found Feliciano guilty beyond
because of these defects in observing the proper reasonable doubt of the crime of highway robbery
procedural requirements of the constitution on The trial court convicted Feliciano on the basis of
custodial investigation the accused-appellants his sworn which he repudiated during the trial.
were acquitted.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sworn-statement executed
20) PEOPLE VS. LABTAN [GR 127493, 8 by accused Feliciano in theabsence of a
DECEMBER 1999] competent counsel of his choice, is admissible
in evidence.
FACTS: Whether the counselling of Atty. Pepito
Chavez to Feliciano cured the initial lack of
On 28 March 1993, at more or less 10:30 p.m. counsel.
while inside a motor vehicle in the national
highway at Barangay Agusan up to the road at HELD:
Camaman-an, all of Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines, Henry Feliciano y Lagura and Under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987
Orlando Labtan y Daquihon took away, through Constitution, the rights of persons under custodial
intimdation or violence, cash amounting to investigation are provided as follows:
P720.00, pioneer stereo, booster and twitters
owned by and belonging to Roman S. Mercado, (1) Any person under investigation for the
and a Seiko Diver wristwatch owned by Ismael P. commission of an offense shall have the right to
Ebon, all in all amounting to P10,800.00. be informed of his right to remain silent and to
Later on, on or about 16 April 1993, at about 2:30 have competent and independent counsel
p.m., more or less, at Buntong, Camaman-an, preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, Feliciano, afford the services of counsel, he must be
Orlando Labtan, and Jonelto Labtan robbed provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
Florentino Bolasito of P30 in cash money. In the except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
course thereof, Orlando and Jonelto Labtan
stabbed Bolasito to death. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat,
On 23 April 1993, an information was filed intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the
against Feliciano, Orlando Labtan, and Jonelto free will shall be used against him. Secret
Labtan charging them with robbery with detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
homicide (as per 16 April 1993 incident). other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Subsequently, another information dated 20 May
1993 was filed against Feliciano and Orlando (3) Any confession or admission obtained in
Labtan charging them with highway robbery (as violation of this or the preceding section shall be
per 28 March 1993 incident). Only Feliciano inadmissible against him.
pleaded not guilty to the two charges. Orlando
Labtan had escaped the Maharlika Rehabilitation
At that point, accused-appellant had been 21) PEOPLE V. BASAY
subjected to custodial investigation without a
counsel. In Navallo v. Sandiganbayan 15, we said FACTS:
that a person is deemed under custodial
investigation where the police investigation is no Teodoro Basay and Jaime Ramirez were charged with
longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime Multiple Murder with Arson in a criminal complaint filed
but has began to focus on a particular suspect who on 24 March 1986 with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
had been taken into custody by the police who (MCTC) of Pamplona-Amlan-San Jose in the Province of
carry out a process of interrogation that lends Negros Oriental.
itself to elicit incriminating statements.
The prosecution tried to establish that Atty. The spouses Zosimo and Beatrice Toting, together with
Pepito Chavez provided effective and
one of their daughters, Bombie, were hacked inside their
independent counselling to accused-appellant
Feliciano which cured the initial lack of counsel. home. In order to conceal the crime, the perpetrators also
However, this is belied by the very testimony of burned the said house. Because of the fire, the spouses
Atty. Chavez showing he performed his duty in a other daughter, Manolita, was burned to death, while one
lackadaisical fashion. of their sons, Manolo, suffered second and third degree
The right to counsel is a fundamental right and burns. Bombie survived the hacking and the burning and
contemplates not a mere presence of the lawyer was found alive around forty meters away from the dead
beside the accused.
bodies of her family members almost two days after the
Atty. Chavez did not provide the kind of
crime was committed. Upon being found, Bombie
counselling required by the Constitution. He did
not explain to accused-appellant the allegedly related to the authorities that Jaime Ramirez and
consequences of his action that the sworn Teodoro Basay killed their parents and burned their
statement can be used against him and that it is house. She died a day later while confined in the hospital.
possible that he could be found guilty and sent to
jail. After Bombie told the authorities who the perpetrators
We also find that Atty. Chavez's independence as were, they went to Jaimes house, and Jaime, upon seeing
counsel is suspect he is regularly engaged by the police, tried to run. He was then turned over to the
the Cagayan de Oro City Police as counsel de Pamplona police station and brought to the chamber of
officio for suspects who cannot avail the services
Judge Teopisto Calumpang, accompanied by Elpedio
of counsel. He even received money from the
police as payment for his services: Catacutan, a barrister and a COMELEC registrar of the
We also find the fact that Atty. Chavez notarized place, who acted as Jaimes counsel. An affidavit (Exhibit
the sworn statement seriously compromised his F), referred to as Jaimes extrajudicial confession, was
independence. By doing so, he vouched for the produced before the Judge, previously typed by a police
regularity of the circumstances surrounding the investigating officer. The Judge then made the court
taking of the sworn statement by the police. He interpreter translate the allegations of the sworn statement
cannot serve as counsel of the accused and the into the local dialect for Jaime, who did not understand
police at the same time. There was a serious
conflict of interest on his part. 22 English. Afterwards, Jaime and Catacutan signed the
On the charge of robbery with homicide, the only document in the presence of the Judge. After Teodoro was
evidence presented by the prosecution was the also apprehended by the police, he and Jaime allegedly
sworn statement which we have found executed a Joint Waiver wherein it was stated that for their
inadmissible. Thus, we are forced to absolve safety and security, they voluntarily decided to be
accused-appellant of this charge. With respect to detained and that they killed the spouses and thereafter
the charge of highway robbery, the prosecution burned the spouses house which resulted in the death of
presented the testimony of Ismael Ebon.
However, Ebon failed to identify Feliciano as the one and hospitalization of two Toting children.
perpetrator when he reported to the police
During the trial, Jaime testified that he did not read the
immediately after the incident.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the trial document that he signed before Judge Calumpang
court is SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Henry because he did not know how to read. He also did not
Feliciano is ACQUITTED on both charges of understand when it was read to him because it was in
robbery with homicide and highway robbery due English. He also stated that Catacutan was not his lawyer
to lack of evidence to sustain a conviction. and that he did not know him, but only saw him for the
first time in the Pamplona Municipal Hall while the latter remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such
was going upstairs. right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiates the free will shall be used against
The trial court disregarded the joint waiver insofar as it him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section
tended to incriminate the accused and because when they shall be inadmissible in evidence."
signed the same, they were not represented by counsel, in
violation of their rights as provided in Section 12, Article The source of this provision is Miranda v. Arizona, in
III of the 1987 Constitution. There being no other connection therewith, this Court stated in People v.
evidence against Teodoro, the court acquitted him. Caguioa that:
However, it admitted in evidence Jaimes extrajudicial
confession, considered as part of the res gestae the ". . . The landmark opinion of Miranda v. Arizona,
statement given by Bombie identifying Jaime and decided in 1966, as noted above, the source of this
Teodoro as the perpetrators of the crime, and considered constitutional provision, emphasized that statements
as flight which is indicative of guilt Jaimes running away made during the period of custodial interrogation to be
when he saw the law enforcers. It further ruled that Jaime admissible require a clear intelligent waiver of
signed the extrajudicial confession voluntarily and in the constitutional rights, the suspect being warned prior to
presence of counsel so it is therefore admissible against questioning that he has a right to remain silent, that any
him. utterance may be used against him, and that he has the
right to the presence of a counsel, either retained or
Jaime neither filed a notice of appeal, nor orally appointed. In the language of Chief Justice Warren: Our
manifested his intention to appeal. However, the lower holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the
court transmitted the records of the case to the Supreme pages which follow, but briefly stated, it is this: the
Court because in view of the penalty imposed life prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory
imprisonment the lower court ratiocinated that such or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of
decision is subject for automatic review by the Supreme the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural
Court. Although erroneous, the Supreme Court safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-
nonetheless accepted the appeal in the interest of justice. incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean
questioning 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. As for the
ISSUE:
procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully
WON the RTC erred in finding the appellant guilty as effective means are devised to inform accused persons of
charged on the basis of Exhibit F (affidavit) which was their right of silence and to assure a continuous
executed in violation of his Constitutional rights and on opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are
the basis of hearsay evidence and on the presumption of required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be
guilt. warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any
statement he does not make (sic) may be used as evidence
RULING: against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an
attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may
The Court find merit in the appeal. The Court does not
waive effectuation of those rights, provided the waiver is
hesitate to rule that this purported extra-judicial
made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If,
confession belonging to appellant Jaime Ramirez and
however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of
obtained during custodial interrogation was taken in
the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney
blatant disregard of his right to counsel, to remain silent
before speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if
and to be informed of such rights, guaranteed by Section
the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he
20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution the governing
does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not
law at that time. Said section reads:
question him. The mere fact that he may have answered
"SECTION 20. No person shall be compelled to be a some questions or volunteered some statements on his
witness against himself. Any person under investigation own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from
for the commission of an offense shall have the right to answering any further inquiries until he has consulted
with an attorney and thereafter consents to be further ensuring the right to counsel, it is not enough that
questioned." the subject is informed of such right; he should also be
asked if he wants to avail of the same and should be told
Then, in Morales v. Enrile, in the light of the said Section that he could ask for counsel if he so desired or that one
20, prescribed the procedure to be followed by peace could be provided him at his request. If he decides not to
officers when making an arrest and when conducting a retain counsel of his choice or avail of one to be provided
custodial investigation. Thus: for him and, therefore, chooses to waive his right to
"7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of counsel, such waiver, to be valid and effective, must still
the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the be made with the assistance of counsel. That counsel must
arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. be a lawyer.
He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain The foregoing pronouncements are now synthesized in
silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might paragraphs 1 and 3, Section 12, Article III of the 1987
make could be used against him. The person arrested shall Constitution, to wit:
have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative,
or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means by "SECTION 12(1). Any person under investigation for the
telephone if possible or by letter or messenger. It shall commission of an offense shall have the right to be
be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that informed of his right to remain silent and to have
this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel,
by the reason arrested, by any person on his behalf, or he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel
may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless x x x
made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, against him."
shall be inadmissible in evidence."
The adjectives competent and independent, which qualify
In People v. Nicandro, this Court declared that ones the kind of counsel an accused is entitled to during
right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to investigation, were not found in the previous Constitution.
counsel contemplates "the transmission of meaningful Their incorporation in the 1987 Constitution was thus
information rather than just the ceremonial and meant to stress the primacy of this right to counsel.
perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
principle." Thus, is not enough for the interrogator to A close scrutiny of the questioned extra-judicial
merely repeat to the person under investigation the confession in the case at bar reveals all possible violations
provisions of section 20, Article IV of the 1973 of the appellants right to remain silent, to counsel and to
Constitution, now Section 12, Article III of the 1987 be informed of such rights, and of the safeguards
Constitution; the former must also explain the effects of prescribed by this Court for the holding of custodial
such provision in practical terms e.g., what the person interrogations.
under interrogation may or may not do - and in a language
the subject fairly understands. The right "to be informed" (a) The interrogation was the conducted and the
carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of the confession was written in English a language the
police investigator to explain, and contemplates effective appellant, a farmer in a remote barangay of Pamplona,
communication which results in the subjects cannot speak and does not understand; he only finished
understanding of what is conveyed. Since it is Grade II. There is no evidence to show that the
comprehension that is sought to be attained, the degree of interrogator, who was not even presented as a witness and
explanation required will necessarily vary and depend on remains unidentified, translated the questions and the
the education, intelligence and other relevant personal answers into a dialect known and fairly understood by the
circumstances of the person undergoing investigation. In appellant.
(b) Appellant was not told that he could retain a counsel perfunctorily or in a pro-forma manner, obviously to pay
of choice and that if he cannot afford to do so, he could be mere lip service to the prescribed norms.
provided with one.
Consequently, Exhibit "F", which is indisputably an
(c) He did not sign any waiver of his right to remain silent uncounselled confession or admission, is inadmissible in
and to counsel. evidence. The trial court, therefore, committed a fatal
error in admitting it.
(d) He was not assisted by any counsel during the
investigation. Instead, a certain Elpedio Catacutan, who Hence, the appellants guilt was not established with
claimed to have appeared for him as a "friend-counsel," moral certainty. He should be acquitted.
was present only at the time that appellant was brought to
the office of Judge Catacutan for the preparation of the WHEREFORE, the challenged of the Regional Trial
jurat. Court of Negros Oriental is REVERSED and appellant
JAIME RAMIREZ alias "NEBOY" is hereby
(e) Assuming arguendo that Elpedio Catacutan may have ACQUITTED with costs de oficio.
been summoned to act as appellants counsel, he was,
nevertheless, not present during the custodial
interrogation which, by the way, was conducted exactly a
week before he appeared or more correctly, was made
to appear before Judge Calumpang. His presence
before the latter did not change the situation. As this Court
stated in People v. Burgos, the securing of counsel to help
the accused when the latter subscribed under oath to his
statement at the Fiscals Office was too late and had no
palliative effect; it did not cure the absence of counsel at
the time of the custodial investigation when the extra-
judicial statement was being taken.
RULING:
Rogelio Mararac, the security guard at the cathedral went Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of
near Estrada and told him to vacate the Bishop's chair. intelligence in committing the act. Mere abnormality of
Estrada stared intensely at the guard. Mararac then held the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. The
his nightstick and tapped twice Estrada's hand on the accused must be "so insane as to be incapable of
armrest. When Mararac was about to tap again, Estrada entertaining a criminal intent." He must be deprived of
suddenly drew a knife from his back, lunged at Mararac reason and act without the least discernment because there
and stabbed him twice, causing the death of the latter. is a complete absence of the power to discern or a total
Then Estrada got up, went to the microphone and shouted: deprivation of freedom of the will.
"Anggapuy nayan dia!" (No one can beat me here!). He
returned to the Bishop's chair and sat on it again. There is no direct proof that Estrada was afflicted with
insanity at the time he killed Mararac. The absence of
The police came and when they frisked appellant, they direct proof, nevertheless, does not entirely discount the
found a leather scabbard tucked around his waist. He was probability that appellant was not of sound mind at that
brought to the police station and placed in jail. Then Jail time. It was highly unusual for a sane person to go up to
Warden Wilfredo Valdez requested the court to allow the altar and sit in the Bishop's chair while the Bishop was
Estrada, to be treated at the Baguio General Hospital to administering the Holy Sacrament of Confirmation. It
determine whether he should remain in jail or be goes against normal and ordinary behavior for Estrada
transferred to some other institution as other prisoners without sufficient provocation from the security guard, to
were allegedly not comfortable with appellant because he stab the latter at the altar, during sacramental rites and in
had been exhibiting unusual behavior; he would shout at front of all the Catholic faithful to witness. Estrada did not
the top of his voice and cause panic among the jail inmates flee, or at least attempt to flee after the stabbing. He
and personnel; he had not been eating and sleeping; and casually approached the microphone and, over the public
his co-inmates had been complaining of not getting address system, uttered words to the faithful which the
enough sleep for fear of being attacked by him while rational person would have been made. He then returned
asleep; that once, while they were sleeping, he took out all to the Bishop's chair and sat there as if nothing happened.
his personal effects and waste matter and burned them
inside the cell which again caused panic among the Mere allegation of insanity is insufficient. There must be
inmates. evidence or circumstances that raise a "reasonable
doubt" or a "bona fide doubt" as to defendant's
Dr. Gawidan, testified that the illness of accused- competence to stand trial. Estradas plea was not an
appellant, i.e., schizophrenia, paranoid type, is a "lifetime unconditional admission of guilt because he was "not in
full possession of his mental faculties when he killed the In 1979, Olaguer and some others were detained by
victim;" and thereby ordered that he be subjected to the military personnel and they were placed in Camp Bagong
necessary medical examination to determine his degree of Diwa. Logauer and his group are all civilians. They were
insanity at the time of commission of the crime. charged with (1) unlawful possession of explosives and
incendiary devices; (2) conspiracy to assassinate
President and Mrs. Marcos; (3) conspiracy to assassinate
cabinet members Juan Ponce Enrile, Francisco Tatad and
2) ISIDRO T. HILDAWA vs. ENRILE Vicente Paterno; (4) conspiracy to assassinate Messrs.
Arturo Tangco, Jose Roo and Onofre Corpus; (5) arson
of nine buildings; (6) attempted murder of Messrs.
FACTS: Leonardo Perez, Teodoro Valencia and Generals Romeo
Espino and Fabian Ver; and (7) conspiracy and proposal
Petitioners Isidro T. Hildawa and Ricardo C. to commit rebellion, and inciting to rebellion. On August
Valmonte in these Special Civil Actions pray that a 19, 1980, the petitioners went to the SC and filed the
"preliminary injunction issue directing respondents to instant Petition for prohibition and habeas corpus.
recall the crimebusters and restraining them from fielding ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for habeas corpus be
police teams or any of this sort with authority/license to granted.
kill and after hearing, declaring the order of respondents
HELD: The petition for habeas corpus has become moot
fielding crimebusters null and void and making the
and academic because by the time the case reached the SC
injunction permanent." They alleged that the formation
Olaguer and his companions were already released from
and fielding of secret marshals and/or crimebusters with
military confinement. When the release of the persons in
absolute authority to kill thieves, holduppers, robbers,
whose behalf the application for a writ of habeas corpus
pickpockets and slashers are violative of the provisions of
was filed is effected, the Petition for the issuance of the
the New Constitution under Sections 1, 17,19, 20 and 21
writ becomes moot and academic. 18 Inasmuch as the
of Article III (Bill of Rights).
herein petitioners have been released from their
confinement in military detention centers, the instant
ISSUE: Petitions for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus should
be dismissed for having become moot and academic. But
Whether or not the creation and deployment of the military court created to try the case of Olaguer (and
special operations team to counter the resurgence of the decision it rendered) still continues to subsist.
criminality is violative of the provisions of the
Constitution. ISSUE2: The issue is then shifted to: Whether or not a
military tribunal has the jurisdiction to try civilians while
HELD: the civil courts are open and functioning.
HELD: The SC nullified for lack of jurisdiction all
The Supreme held that there is nothing wrong in decisions rendered by the military courts or tribunals
the creation and deployment of special operation teams to during the period of martial law in all cases involving
counter the resurgence of criminality, as there is nothing civilian defendants. A military commission or tribunal
wrong in the formation by the police of special cannot try and exercise jurisdiction, even during the
teams/squads to prevent the proliferation of vices, period of martial law, over civilians for offenses allegedly
prostitution, drug addiction, pornography and the like. committed by them as long as the civil courts are open and
That is the basic job of the police. It is the alleged use of functioning, and that any judgment rendered by such body
violence in the implementation of the objectives of the relating to a civilian is null and void for lack of
special squads that the court is concerned about. It is our jurisdiction on the part of the military tribunal concerned.
way of life that a man is entitled to due process which
simply means that before he can be deprived of his life,
liberty or property, he must be given an opportunity to
2ND VERSION: OLAGUER V. MILITARY
defend himself. Due process of law requires that the
accused must be heard in court of competent jurisdiction, COMMISSION
proceeded against under the orderly process of law, and
Olaguer v Military Commission No. 34
only punished after inquiry and investigation, upon notice
GR No. L-54558 May 22, 1987
to him, with an opportunity to be heard, and a judgment
awarded within the authority of a constitutional law.
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-
3) OLAGUER VS. MILITARY COMMISSION Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever
it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces June 13. 1980 -the respondent Chief of Staff of the
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or Armed Forces of the Philippines 3 created the respondent
Military Commission No 34 to try criminal case filed
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public
against the petitioners.
safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty July 30, 1980 - an amended charge sheet was filed for
days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas seven (7) offenses, namely:
corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under (1) Unlawful possession of explosives and incendiary
martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the devices;
(2) Conspiracy to assassinate President, and Mrs. Marcos;
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
(3) Conspiracy to assassinate cabinet members Juan
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall Ponce Enrile, Francisco Tatad and Vicente Paterno;
submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. (4) Conspiracy to assassinate Messrs. Arturo Tangco, Jose
The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a Roo and Onofre Corpus;
majority of all its Members in regular or special session, (5) Arson of nine buildings;
may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which (6) Attempted murder of Messrs. Leonardo Perez,
Teodoro Valencia and Generals Romeo Espino and
revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon Fabian Ver; and
the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the (7) Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, and
same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for inciting to rebellion.
a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion December 4, 1984 - pending the resolution of the
or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires Petition, the respondent Military Commission No. 34
passed sentence convicting the petitioners and imposed
it.cralaw
upon them the penalty of death by electrocution.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four The thrust of petitioners arguments is that military
hours following such proclamation or suspension, commissions have no jurisdiction to try civilians for
convene in accordance with its rules without need of a offenses alleged to have been committed during the
call.cralaw period of martial law. They also maintain that the
proceedings before the respondent Military Commission
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
No. 34 are in gross violation of their constitutional right
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the to due process of law.
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or ISSUE:
the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision Whether or not a military tribunal has the jurisdiction to
thereon within thirty days from its filing.cralaw try civilians while the civil courts are open and
functioning
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of
the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil HELD:
courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the WHEREFORE,
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies
over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor DISMISSED - the Petitions for habeas corpus are for
having become moot and academic.
automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
GRANTED - The Petitions for certiorari and prohibition.
corpus.cralaw DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL - The creation of
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas the respondent Military Commission No. 34 to try
corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for civilians like the petitioners is hereby declared
rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected unconstitutional and all its proceedings are deemed null
with, invasion.cralaw and void. The temporary restraining order issued against
the respondents enjoining them from executing the
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ Decision of the respondent Military Commission No. 34
of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained is hereby made permanent and the said respondents are
shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he permanently prohibited from further pursuing Criminal
shall be released.cralaw Case No. MC-34-1 against the petitioners. The sentence
rendered by the respondent Military Commission No. 34
GANCAYCO, J: imposing the death penalty on the petitioners is hereby
vacated for being null and void, and all the items or
FACTS:
properties taken from the petitioners in relation to the said "The military tribunals created pursuant thereto are
criminal case should be returned to them immediately. hereby dissolved upon final determination of case's
pending therein which may not be transferred to the civil
RATIO: courts without irreparable prejudice to the state in view of
(1) Military commissions or tribunals have no jurisdiction the rules on double jeopardy, or other circumstances
to try civilians for alleged offenses when the civil courts which render prosecution of the cases difficult, if not
are open and functioning. Due process of law demands impossible."
that in all criminal prosecutions (where the accused stands
to lose either his life or his liberty), the accused shall be
entitled to, among others, a trial. Civilians like (the) (6) Certainly, the rule of stare decisis is entitled to respect
petitioner placed on trial for civil offenses under general because stability in jurisprudence is desirable.
law are entitled to trial by judicial process, not by Nonetheless, reverence for precedent, simply as
executive or military process. precedent, cannot prevail when constitutionalism and the
(2) Judicial power exists only in the courts, which have public interest demand otherwise. Thus, a doctrine which
"exclusive power to hear and determine those matters should be abandoned or modified should be abandoned or
which affect the life or liberty or property of a citizen. In modified accordingly. After all, more important than
Toth v. Quarles, 40 the U.S. Supreme Court further anything else is that this Court should be right.
stressed that the assertion of military authority over
civilians cannot rest on the President's power as
Commander-in-Chief or on any theory of martial law. 4) GALMAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN
(3) Following the principle of separation of powers
underlying the existing constitutional organization of the FACTS: Assassination of former Senator Benigno
Government of the Philippines, the power and the duty of "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. He was killed from his plane that had
interpreting the laws as when an individual should be just landed at the Manila International Airport. His brain
considered to have violated the law) is primarily a was smashed by a bullet fired point-blank into the back of
function of the judiciary. It is not, and it cannot be the
his head by an assassin. The military investigators
function of the Executive Department, through the
military authorities. And as long as the civil courts in the reported within a span of three hours that the man who
land remain open and are regularly functioning, as they do shot Aquino (whose identity was then supposed to be
so today and as they did during the period of martial law unknown and was revealed only days later as Rolando
in the country, military tribunals cannot try and exercise Galman) was a communist-hired gunman, and that the
jurisdiction over civilians for offenses committed by them military escorts gunned him down in turn.
and which are properly cognizable by the civil courts.
(4) Respondent Military Commission No. 34 appears to President was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board
have been rendered too hastily to the prejudice to the to investigate due to large masses of people who joined in
petitioners, and in complete disregard of their
the ten-day period of national mourning yearning for the
constitutional right to adduce evidence on their behalf.
Thus, even assuming arguendo that the respondent truth, justice and freedom.
Military Commission No. 34 does have the jurisdiction to
The fact is that both majority and minority reports were
try the petitioners, the Commission should be deemed
ousted of its jurisdiction when, as observed by the one in rejecting the military version stating that "the
Solicitor General, the said tribunal acted in disregard of evidence shows to the contrary that Rolando Galman had
the constitutional rights of the accused. Indeed, it is well- no subversive affiliations. Only the soldiers in the
settled that once a deprivation of a constitutional right is staircase with Sen. Aquino could have shot him; that
shown to exist, the tribunal that rendered the judgment in Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military
question is deemed ousted of jurisdiction.
conspiracy, not a communist plot. Only difference
(5) Proclamation No. 2045 (dated January 17, 1981)
officially lifting martial law in the Philippines and between the two reports is that the majority report found
abolishing all military tribunals created pursuant to the all the twenty-six private respondents above-named in the
national emergency effectively divests the respondent title of the case involved in the military conspiracy; "
Military Commission No. 34 (and all military tribunals for while the chairman's minority report would exclude
that matter) of its supposed authority to try civilians, nineteen Of them.
including the herein petitioners. The said proclamation
states: Then Pres. Marcos stated that evidence shows that
Galman was the killer.
Petitioners pray for issuance of a TRO enjoining Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera (made his expose 15
respondent court from rendering a decision in the two months later when former Pres. was no longer around)
criminal cases before it, the Court resolved by nine-to-two affirmed the allegations in the second motion for
votes 11 to issue the restraining order prayed for. The reconsideration that he revealed that the Sandiganbayan
Court also granted petitioners a five-day period to file a Justices and Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by
reply to respondents' separate comments and respondent Marcos to whitewash the Aquino-Galman murder case.
Tanod bayan a three-day period to submit a copy of his Malacaang wanted dismissal to the extent that a prepared
84-page memorandum for the prosecution. resolution was sent to the Investigating Panel.
Malacaang Conference planned a scenario of trial where
But ten days later, the Court by the same nine-to-two-vote the former President ordered then that the resolution be
ratio in reverse, resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift revised by categorizing the participation of each
the TRO issued ten days earlier enjoining the respondent; decided that the presiding justice, Justice
Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision. The same Pamaran, (First Division) would personally handle the
Court majority denied petitioners' motion for a new 5-day trial. A conference was held in an inner room of the
period counted from receipt of respondent Tanodbayan's Palace. Only the First Lady and Presidential Legal
memorandum for the prosecution (which apparently was Assistant Justice Lazaro were with the President. The
not served on them). conferees were told to take the back door in going to the
Thus, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, room where the meeting was held, presumably to escape
alleging that the dismissal did not indicate the legal notice by the visitors in the reception hall waiting to see
ground for such action and urging that the case be set for the President. During the conference, and after an
agreement was reached, Pres. Marcos told them 'Okay,
a full hearing on the merits that the people are entitled to
due process. mag moro-moro na lamang kayo;' and that on their way
out of the room Pres. Marcos expressed his thanks to the
However, respondent Sandiganbayan issued its decision group and uttered 'I know how to reciprocate'.
acquitting all the accused of the crime charged, declaring
them innocent and totally absolving them of any civil
liability. Respondents submitted that with the The Court then said that the then President (code-named
Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal, the instant case had Olympus) had stage-managed in and from Malacaang
become moot and academic. Thereafter, same Court Palace "a scripted and predetermined manner of handling
majority denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for and disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder case;" and
lack of merit. that "the prosecution in the Aquino-Galman case and the
Justices who tried and decided the same acted under the
Hence, petitioners filed their motion to admit their second
motion for reconsideration alleging that respondents compulsion of some pressure which proved to be beyond
committed serious irregularities constituting mistrial and their capacity to resist.
resulting in miscarriage of justice and gross violation of Also predetermined the final outcome of the case" of total
the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the absolution of the twenty-six respondents-accused of all
sovereign people of the Philippines to due process of law. criminal and civil liability. Pres. Marcos came up with a
public statement aired over television that Senator Aquino
ISSUES:
was killed not by his military escorts, but by a communist
(1) Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as hired gun. It was, therefore, not a source of wonder that
an accused. President Marcos would want the case disposed of in a
manner consistent with his announced theory thereof
(2) Whether or not there was a violation of the double which, at the same time, would clear his name and his
jeopardy clause. administration of any suspected guilty participation in the
assassination.
RULING: Petitioners' second motion for reconsideration
is granted and ordering a re-trial of the said cases which such a procedure would be a better arrangement because,
should be conducted with deliberate dispatch and with if the accused are charged in court and subsequently
careful regard for the requirements of due process.
acquitted, they may claim the benefit of the doctrine of There was no double jeopardy. Courts' Resolution of
double jeopardy and thereby avoid another prosecution if acquittal was a void judgment for having been issued
some other witnesses shall appear when President Marcos without jurisdiction. No double jeopardy attaches,
is no longer in office. therefore. A void judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment
at all. By it no rights are divested. It neither binds nor bars
More so was there suppression of vital evidence and anyone. All acts and all claims flowing out of it are void.
harassment of witnesses. The disappearance of witnesses
two weeks after Ninoy's assassination. According to J.
Herrera, "nobody was looking for these persons because
they said Marcos was in power. The assignment of the Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been resolved
case to Presiding Justice Pamaran; no evidence at all that ahead. In this case, petitioners' motion for reconsideration
the assignment was indeed by virtue of a regular raffle, of the abrupt dismissal of their petition and lifting of the
except the uncorroborated testimony of Justice Pamaran TRO enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its
himself. decision had been taken cognizance of by the Court which
had required the respondents', including the
The custody of the accused and their confinement in a Sandiganbayan's, comments.
military camp, instead of in a civilian jail. The monitoring
of proceedings and developments from Malacaang and Although no restraining order was issued anew,
by Malacaang personnel. The partiality of respondent Sandiganbayan should not have precipitately
Sandiganbayan betrayed by its decision: That President issued its decision of total absolution of all the accused
Marcos had wanted all of the twenty-six accused to be pending the final action of this Court. All of the acts of
acquitted may not be denied. In rendering its decision, the the respondent judge manifest grave abuse of discretion
Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential on his part amounting to lack of jurisdiction which
directive. Its bias and partiality in favor of the accused substantively prejudiced the petitioner.
was clearly obvious. The evidence presented by the With the declaration of nullity of the proceedings, the
prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. cases must now be tried before an impartial court with an
The record shows that the then President misused the unbiased prosecutor. Respondents accused must now face
overwhelming resources of the government and his trial for the crimes charged against them before an
authoritarian powers to corrupt and make a mockery of impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor with all due
the judicial process in the Aquino-Galman murder cases. process.
"This is the evil of one-man rule at its very worst." Our The function of the appointing authority with the mandate
Penal Code penalizes "any executive officer who shall of the people, under our system of government, is to fill
address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority the public posts. Justices and judges must ever realize that
with respect to any case or business coming within the they have no constituency, serve no majority nor minority
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice." but serve only the public interest as they see it in
Impartial court is the very essence of due process of law. accordance with their oath of office, guided only the
This criminal collusion as to the handling and treatment Constitution and their own conscience and honor.
of the cases by public respondents at the secret
Malacaang conference (and revealed only after fifteen
months by Justice Manuel Herrera) completely 5. SALAZAR VS. PEOPLE
disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan and voided ab
initio its verdict. The courts would have no reason to exist FACTS:
if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of injustice,
Petitioner, Anamer E. Salazar and one Nena
deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth.
Jaucian Timario were charged with estafa before the
More so, in the case at bar where the people and the world
Legazpi City Regional Trial Court. Said estafa case
are entitled to know the truth, and the integrity of our
stemmed from the payment of a check worth 214,000
judicial system is at stake.
php to private respondent, J.Y Brothers Marketing
Corporation through their representative, Jerson Yao for
the purchase of 300 cavans of rice. The check was drawn In a case where the accused files a demurrer to
against Prudential Bank by Nena Jaucian Timario and was evidence without leave of court, he thereby waives his
dishonored as it was drawn against a closed account. right to present evidence and submits the case for decision
Salazar replaced the check with a new one which was on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution. On the
drawn against Solid Bank and it was again dishonored for other hand, if the accused is granted leave to file a
being drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD) which demurrer to evidence, he has the right to adduce evidence
in banking parlance means means that the account had not only on the criminal aspect but also on the civil aspect
sufficient funds but was still restricted because the of the case if his demurrer is denied by the court.
deposit, usually a check, had not yet been cleared.
If demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the
After the prosecution rested its case, the court, the accused has the right to adduce evidence on the
petitioner filed a Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of civil aspect of the case unless the court also declares that
Court. The trial court granted. the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise
did not exist. If the trial court issues an order or renders
On November 19, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment judgment not only granting the demurrer to evidence of
acquitting the petitioner of the crime charged but ordering the accused and acquitting him but also on the civil
her to remit to the private complainant the amount of the liability of the accused to the private offended party, said
check as payment for her purchase. The trial court ruled judgment on the civil aspect of the case would be a nullity
that the evidence for the prosecution did not establish the for the reason that the constitutional right of the accused
existence of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt between to due process is thereby violated.
the petitioner and the issuer of the check, her co-accused
Nena Jaucian Timario, for the purpose of defrauding the When the accused files a demurrer to evidence,
private complainant. In fact, the private complainant, the accused has not yet adduced evidence both on the
Jerson Yao, admitted that he had never met Nena Jaucian criminal and civil aspects of the case. The only evidence
Timario who remained at large. As a mere indorser of the on record is the evidence for the prosecution. What the
check, the petitioners breach of the warranty that the trial court should do is to issue an order or partial
check was a good one is not synonymous with the judgment granting the demurrer to evidence and
fraudulent act of falsely pretending to possess credit under acquitting the accused; and set the case for continuation
Article 315(2)(d) RPC. of trial for the petitioner to adduce evidence on the civil
aspect of the case.
Salazar filed a motion for reconsideration on the
civil aspect of the decision with a plea to be allowed to This is where the trial court, in this case, erred by
present evidence. Trial Court denied MFR. Hence, rendering acquittal of Salazar and at the same time,
petition for review on certiorari before SC alleging she ordering her to pay for the purchases even before the
was denied due process as the trial court did not give her petitioner could adduce evidence in a proper civil case,
opportunity to adduce evidence to controvert her civil thereby denying her of due process.
liability.
Section 14, paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article III
ISSUE: WON Salazar was denied due process of the Constitution which are elementary and deeply
imbedded in our own criminal justice system, are
RULING: mandatory and indispensable. The principles find
YES. Petitioner should have been given by the universal acceptance and are tersely expressed in the oft-
trial court the opportunity to present evidence as regards quoted statement that procedural due process cannot
to the civil aspect of the case. Under the Revised Rules of possibly be met without a law which hears before it
Criminal Procedure, the Court explained the demurrer to condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial
evidence partakes of a motion to dismiss the case for
failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused Section 14, paragraphs (1) and (2), of Article III, of the
beyond reasonable doubt. Constitution
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
6. PEOPLE VS. VALDEZ & SANDIGANBAYAN Due to the issuance and release of a warrant of
arrest, Valdez subsequently filed an Urgent Supplemental
FACTS: Motion to the Motion to Set Aside No Bail
Recommendation and to Fix the Amount of Bail with
Respondent, Valdez was charged with eight cases
Additional Prayer to Recall/Lift Warrant of Arrest.
four of which (SB-14-CRM-0317 to 0320) were for
Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, while Public respondent (Sandiganbayan) granted the
the remaining half (SB-14-CRM-0321 to 0324) were for motions of Valdez. It recalled the arrest order issued in
the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru Criminal Case Nos. SB-14-CRM-0321, 0322 and 0324. In
Falsification of Official/Public Documents under Articles lieu thereof, a new arrest order was issued, fixing the bail
217 and 171 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal for each offense charged in said cases in the amount of
Code (RPC). Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00).
Based on the post-audit of the disbursement Without filing a motion for reconsideration,
vouchers (D.V.) of the Bacolod City Government where petitioner elevated the matter before SC to resolve the
among the subjects thereof were the reimbursements of lone issue of whether an accused indicted for the complex
expenses of private respondent Luzviminda S. Valdez a crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification
former mayor of Bacolod City, it was alleged that the cash of Official/Public Documents involving an amount that
slips were altered/falsified to enable Valdez to exceeds P22,000.00 is entitled to bail as a matter of right.
claim/receive reimbursement from the Government the
total amount of P279,150.00 instead of only P4,843.25; ISSUE: WON accused is entitled to bail as a matter of
thus, an aggregate overclaim of P274,306.75. right
RULING:
The purpose of the bail is to guarantee the appearance of 8) LEVISTE VS. COURT OF APPEALS
the accused at the trial. FACTS:
It is the Philippines responsibility in the international Charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas, petitioner
community under the Universal Declaration of Human Jose Antonio Leviste was convicted by the Regional Trial
Rights .of protecting and promoting the right of every Court of Makati City for the lesser crime of homicide and
person to liberty and due processunder the obligation to sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six years
make available to every person under detention such and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and
remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
liberty. These remedies include the right to be admitted to
bail. He appealed his conviction to the Court of
Appeals. Pending appeal, he filed an urgent application
Enrile is not a flight risk because of his social and political for admission to bail pending appeal, citing his advanced
standing and his having immediately surrendered to the age and health condition, and claiming the absence of any
authorities upon being charged in court. risk or possibility of flight on his part.
The currently fragile state of Enriles health is a The Court of Appeals denied petitioners
compelling justification for his admission to bail. application for bail. It invoked the bedrock principle in the
(Chronic hypertension, diffuse atherosclerotic matter of bail pending appeal, that the discretion to extend
cardiovascular disease, Atrial and Ventricular bail during the course of appeal should be exercised with
Arrhythmia, etc.) grave caution and only for strong reasons.
Prosecutions Version:
The following morning, January 22, 1994, complainant BREAST: Slightly globular with brown colored areola
went home to her parents' house at Ipilan, Brooke's Point. and nipple.
She likewise did not tell her parents about the incident for
EXTERNAL EXAM.: Numerous pubic hair, fairly
fear that appellant might make good his threat. At around developed labia majora and minora, hymenal opening
3:00 P.M. of that same day, appellant arrived at the house stellate in shape, presence of laceration superficial,
of her parents and asked permission from the latter if longitudinal at the fossa navicularis, approximately 1/2
complainant could accompany him to solicit funds cm. length.
because she was a candidate for "Miss PNS Pulot." When
her parents agreed, she was constrained to go with INTERNAL EXAM.: Hymenal opening, stellate in shape,
appellant because she did not want her parents to get into laceration noted, hymenal opening admits 2 fingers with
trouble. slight resistance, prominent vaginal rugae, cervix closed.
Appellant and complainant then left the house and they CONCLUSION: Hymenal opening admits easily 2
walked in silence, with Mia following behind appellant, fingers with slight resistance, presence of laceration,
towards the highway where appellant hailed a passenger longitudinal at the fossa navicularis approximately 1/2
jeep which was empty except for the driver and the cm. length. Hymenal opening can admit an average size
conductor. She was forced to ride the jeep because penis in erection with laceration. 4
appellant threatened to kill her if she would not board the
vehicle. The jeep proceeded to the Sunset Garden at the Dr. Divinagracia further testified that the hymenal
poblacion, Brooke's Point where they alighted. opening was in stellate shape and that there was a
laceration, which shows that complainant had participated
At the Sunset Garden, appellant checked in and brought in sexual intercourse. On the basis of the inflicted
her to a room where they staye d for three days. During laceration which was downward at 6 o'clock position, he
the entire duration of their stay at the Sunset Garden, could not say that there was force applied because there
complainant was not allowed to leave the room which was were no scratches or bruises, but only a week-old
always kept locked. She was continuously guarded and laceration. He also examined the patient bodily but found
constantly raped by appellant. She was, however, never no sign of bruises or injuries. The patient told him that she
drunk or unconscious. Nonetheless, she was forced to was raped.
have sex with appellant because the latter was always
carrying a knife with him. During the cross-examination, complainant denied that
she wrote the letters marked as Exhibits "1" and "2"; that
In the early morning of January 25, 1994, appellant she never loved appellant but, on the contrary, she hated
brought her to the house of his friend at Edward's him because of what he did to her; and that she did not
Subdivision where she was raped by him three times. She notice if there were people near the boarding house of her
was likewise detained and locked inside the room and cousin. She narrated that when appellant started to remove
tightly guarded by appellant. After two days, or on her panty, she was already lying down, and that even as
January 27, 1994, they left the place because appellant appellant was doing this she could not shout because she
came to know that complainant had been reported and was afraid. She could not remember with which hand
indicated as a missing person in the police blotter. They appellant held the knife. She was completely silent from
the time she was made to lie down, while her panty was Brooke's Point. He further conveyed appellant's
being removed, and even until appellant was able to rape willingness to become a Muslim so he could marry Mia
her. and thus settle the case. Helen Taha readily acceded
because she wanted to see her daughter.
When appellant went to their house the following day, she
did not know if he was armed but there was no threat made In the morning of January 27, 1994, she went to the house
on her or her parents. On the contrary, appellant even of Naem who sent somebody to fetch complainant. She
courteously asked permission from them in her behalf and testified that when Mia arrived, she was crying as she
so they left the house with appellant walking ahead of her. reported that she was raped by appellant, and that the
When she was brought to the Sunset Garden, she could latter threatened to kill her if she did not return within an
not refuse because she was afraid. However, she admitted hour. Because of this, she immediately brought Mia to the
that at that time, appellant was not pointing a knife at her. hospital where the latter was examined and then they
She only saw the cashier of the Sunset Garden but she did proceeded to the municipal hall to file a complaint for rape
not notice if there were other people inside. She likewise and kidnapping. Both Mia and Helen Taha executed
did not ask the appellant why he brought her there. separate sworn statements before the PNP at Brooke's
Point.
Complainant described the lock in their room as an
ordinary doorknob, similar to that on the door of the Later, Fruit Godoy, the wife of appellant, went to their
courtroom which, even if locked, could still be opened house and offered P50,000.00 for the settlement of the
from the inside, and she added that there was a sliding case. On their part, her husband insisted that they just
lock inside the room. According to her, they stayed at settle, hence all three of them, Adjeril, Helen and Mia
Sunset Garden for three days and three nights but she Taha, went to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
never noticed if appellant ever slept because everytime where they met with the mother of appellant who gave
she woke up, appellant was always beside her. She never them P30,000.00. Adjeril and Helen Taha subsequently
saw him close his eyes. executed an affidavit of desistance in Criminal Case No.
7687 for kidnapping pending in the prosecutor's office,
Helen Taha, the mother of complainant, testified that which was sworn to before Prosecutor II Chito S.
when the latter arrived at their house in the morning of Meregillano. Helen Taha testified that she agreed to the
January 22, 1994, she noticed that Mia appeared weak and settlement because that was what her husband wanted.
her eyes were swollen. When she asked her daughter if Mia Taha was dropped from the school and was not
there was anything wrong, the latter merely kept silent. allowed to graduate. Her father died two months later,
That afternoon, she allowed Mia to go with appellant supposedly because of what happened.
because she knew he was her teacher. However, when
Mia and appellant failed to come home at the expected Issue:
time, she and her husband, Adjeril, went to look for them
at Ipilan. When they could not find them there, she went Can Godoy be convicted of rape and kidnapping with
to the house of appellant because she was already illegal detention?
suspecting that something was wrong, but appellant's wife
told her that he did not come home.
Ruling:
Early the next morning, she and her husband went to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) station at Pulot, No. They were in fact lovers.
Brooke's Point and had the incident recorded in the police
blotter. The following day, they went to the office of the This notwithstanding, the basic rule remains that in all
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) at Puerto Princess criminal prosecutions without regard to the nature of the
City, then to the police station near the NBI, and finally to defense which the accused may raise, the burden of proof
the radio station airing the Radyo ng Bayan program remains at all times upon the prosecution to establish his
where she made an appeal to appellant to return her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the accused raises a
daughter. When she returned home, a certain Naem was sufficient doubt as to any material element, and the
waiting there and he informed her that Mia was at prosecution is then unable to overcome this evidence, the
prosecution has failed to carry its burden of proof of the
guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and the prosecution's evidence thereon and cast serious doubts on
accused must be acquitted. the guilt of appellant.
There are three well-known principles that guide an The Court takes judicial cognizance of the fact that in
appellate court in reviewing the evidence presented in a rural areas in the Philippines, young ladies are strictly
prosecution for the crime of rape. These are: (1)while rape required to act with circumspection and prudence. Great
is a most detestable crime, and ought to be severely and caution is observed so that their reputations shall remain
impartially punished, it must be borne in mind that it is an untainted. Any breath of scandal which brings dishonor to
accusation easy to be made, hard to be proved, but harder their character humiliates their entire families.80 It could
to be defended by the party accused, though precisely be that complainant's mother wanted to save
innocent;(2) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the face in the community where everybody knows
crime of rape where only two persons are usually everybody else, and in an effort to conceal her daughter's
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be indiscretion and escape the wagging tongues of their
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) that the small rural community, she had to weave the scenario of
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own this rape drama.
merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense.
In the case at bar, several circumstances exist which 12. RE: CONVICTION OF JUDGE ADORACION G.
amply demonstrate and ineluctably convince this Court ANGELES [FOR CHILD ABUSE]- A.M. NO. 06-9-
that there was no rape committed on the alleged date and 545-RTC, JANUARY 31, 2008
place, and that the charge of rape was the contrivance of
Facts:
an afterthought, rather than a truthful plaint for redress of
an actual wrong. Respondent was convicted for violation of RA 7610.
Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco (SSP
The challenged decision definitely leaves much to be Velasco) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote a
desired. The court below made no serious effort to
letter to then CJ Panganiban inquiring whether it is
dispassionately or impartially consider the totality of the possible to order the immediate suspension of the
evidence for the prosecution in spite of the teaching in respondent. The matter was referred to the OCA for
various rulings that in rape cases, the testimony of the comment and recommendation where they recommended
offended party must not be accepted with precipitate that respondent be indefinitely suspended. The Court's
credulity. In finding that the crime of rape was committed, Second Division approved all of these recommendations,
the lower court took into account only that portion of the thus, suspending respondent from performing her judicial
testimony of complainant regarding the incident and functions while awaiting the final resolution of her
conveniently deleted the rest. Taken singly, there would criminal cases. Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for
be reason to believe that she was indeed raped. But if we Reconsideration; he claimed that the suspension order
are to consider the other portions of her testimony was wielded against her without affording her the
concerning the events which transpired thereafter, which opportunity to be heard since she was not furnished copies
unfortunately the court a quo wittingly or unwittingly of SSP Velasco's letter and OCA's Administrative
failed or declined to appreciate, the actual truth could have Complaint. Thus, respondent submitted that her
been readily exposed. suspension is essentially unjust. Moreover, respondent
It is basic that for kidnapping to exist, there must be manifested that the two criminal cases against her are on
indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactor appeal before the CA and have, therefore, not yet attained
was to deprive the offended party of her liberty. In the finality. As such, respondent still enjoys the constitutional
present charge for that crime, such intent has not at all presumption of innocence and her suspension clashes
been established by the prosecution. Prescinding from the with this presumption and is tantamount to a prejudgment
fact that the Taha spouses desisted from pursuing this of her guilt. SSP Velasco filed an Urgent
charge which they themselves instituted, several grave Appeal/Manifestation manifesting that respondent
and irreconcilable inconsistencies bedevil the continuously defied the courts Resolution. Velasco
reiterated that due to her conviction on two counts of child
abuse, respondent no longer enjoys the constitutional argument that there is no urgency in imposing preventive
presumption of innocence and should remain suspended suspension as the criminal cases are now before the CA,
in order to erase any suspicion that she is using her and that she cannot, by using her present position as an
RTC Judge, do anything to influence the CA to render a
influence to obtain a favorable decision and in order to
decision in her favor. The issue of preventive suspension
maintain and reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of has also been rendered moot as the Court opted to resolve
the judiciary. this administrative case.
Held: No, In essence, the right to be heard by counsel In the evening of March 2, 1991, "M/T Tabangao," a
simply refers to the right to be assisted by counsel for the cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and Transport
purpose of ensuring that an accused is not denied the Corporation,loaded with barrels of kerosene, regular
collateral right to due process, a fundamental right which gasoline, and diesel oil, was boarded by 7 fully armed
cannot be waived by an accused. The underlying basis for pirates. The pirates includingthe accused Roger P. Tulin,
due process is the concept of fairness, without which there Virgilio Loyola, and Andres Infante Jr. detained the crew
can be no justice. In other words, there can be no due and completely took over the vessel.The vessel was
process accorded an accused if he is not given the right to directed to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes were
be heard through counsel or assisted by counsel. It follows unloaded transferred and sold under the directsupervision
that in order to be heard, and therefore be accorded due of accused Cheong San Hiong. Thereafter, the captive
process, the assistance given by counsel must be effective vessel returned to the Philippines.
as implied in the rationale of Article III, Section 14 (2). In A series of arrests was thereafter effected and all
this sense, this Court subscribes to American the accused were charged with qualified piracy or
jurisprudence when it held that [t]he right of an accused violation of PresidentialDecree No. 532 (Piracy in
to counsel is beyond question a fundamental right. Philippine Waters). They were subsequently convicted of
Without counsel, the right to a fair trial itself would be of the crime charged. Hence, this appeal.Meanwhile accused
little consequence, for it is through counsel that the Cheong argues that
the trial court erred in convicting and punishing him as an information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as
accomplice when theacts allegedly committed by him likewise inadmissible in evidence against them.
were done or executed outside of Philippine waters and
territory, stripping the Philippinecourts of jurisdiction to
hold him for trial, to convict, and sentence.
ISSUE:
Are disbursement vouchers commercial documents 19) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ABULON
(negotiable instruments)?
FACTS:
HELD:
NO. It appears that the public prosecutor erroneously In three (3) separate Informations for Criminal Cases No.
characterized the disbursement voucher as a commercial SC-7422, SC-7423 and SC-7424 all dated 16 June 1999,
document so that he designated the offense as estafa appellant was indicted before the RTC for three (3) counts
through falsification of commercial document in the of qualified rape against his minor daughter AAA.
preamble of the information. However, as correctly ruled
by the trial court, the subject voucher is a private AAA is the oldest of five (5) legitimate children born to
document only; it is not a commercial document because appellant and BBB. On 14, 15, and 16 March 1999,
it is not a document used by merchants or businessmen to appellant raped AAA. The first rape incident occurred at
promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions nor is it around 1:30 in the morning of 14 March 1999. AAA was
defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other home, fast asleep next to her brother and sister when she
commercial law. Rather, it is a private document, which suddenly woke up to the noise created by her father who
has been defined as a deed or instrument executed by a arrived drunk, but who likewise soon thereafter returned
private person without the intervention of a public notary to the wedding festivities he was attending. Abiding by
or of other person legally authorized, by which some their fathers instructions, AAA and her siblings went back
disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth, to sleep.
because it acted as the authorization for the release of the
P21,000.00 finders fee to Guilas and as the receipt AAA was next awakened by the weight of her father lying
evidencing the payment of this finders fee. naked on top of her. Appellant had removed her
The information in the case at bar is valid, however, underwear while she slept. He poked a knife on AAAs
there is a variance between the allegation in the waist and threatened to kill her and her siblings if she
information and proof adduced during trial with reported the incident to anyone. She begged him to stop
respect to the third essential element of falsification of but he proceeded to kiss her mouth, vagina, and breast,
private document, i.e., the falsification caused damage and to have carnal knowledge of her. Although they
or was committed with intent to cause damage to a third witnessed the ongoing ordeal, AAAs siblings could do
party. nothing but cry as appellant likewise poked the knife on
To reiterate, petitioner was charged in the information them.The following morning, AAA found a whitish
with causing damage to AFPSLAI in the amount of substance and blood stains on her panty.
P21,000.00 because he caused it to appear in the
disbursement voucher that Guilas was entitled to a On 15 March 1999, at around 10:30 in the evening, AAA
P21,000.00 finders fee when in truth and in fact and her siblings were awakened as appellant came home
AFPSLAI owed no such amount to Guilas. drunk. As in the previous evening, appellant roused AAA
However, he was convicted by the trial court of falsifying in mid-sleep. This time, she woke up with her father
the voucher with criminal intent to cause damage to the holding her hand, covering her mouth and lying on top of
government because the trial court found that petitioners her. He undressed AAA, then mounted her. Repeatedly,
acts were designed to lower the tax base of Hernandez and he inserted his penis into her vagina, and AAA felt pain
aid the latter in evading payment of taxes on the finders in her private parts. Appellant also kissed and fondled
fee. AAA on different parts of her body.
Again, AAAs siblings could only cry as they saw second rape charge, appellant testified that on 15 March
appellant rape their sister. AAAs sister, however, took a 1999, he attended a wedding ceremony in Sityo Kalayaan,
pen and wrote her a note which read: Ate, let us tell what San Antonio, Kalayaan, Laguna. He went home drunk at
father was doing to the police officer. After appellant had 6:00 that evening and promptly went to sleep. Similarly,
raped AAA, the latters sister asked their father why he had at 3:00 in the morning of 16 March 1999, appellant
done such to AAA. In response, appellant spanked AAAs claimed to have been asleep with his children and could
sister and threatened to kill all of them should they report not have thus committed the rape as charged.
the incidents to the police.The sisters nonetheless related
to their relatives AAAs misfortune, but the relatives did RTC found him guilty of 2 counts of qualified rape and 1
not take heed as they regarded appellant to be a kind man. count of acts of lasciviousness
FACTS: RULING:
1. Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the
There are two counts of rape. CA with modifications. The Supreme Court pointed
The first rape incident happened on May 27, 2001 at out the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the
around 10:00pm. RPC and that such elements were present in the case
AAA, an 11 year old girl was watching TV at a market namely: (1) the offender was a man, in this case
in Naval, when shewent out, the appellant summoned her, Delfin; (2) the offender had carnal knowledge of a
she tried to run away, however, Delfin threatened her, thus woman; and lastly, (3) the act was accomplished by
she approached him. When she was near Delfin, he use of force or intimidation. The testimonies
grabbed her arm and dragged her to the second floor of a established that Delfin had carnal knowledge of
newly constructed building near the market. Under threat, AAA, which was proven by the medical
Delfin was able to rapenAAA. Delfin then gave her examinations, and that he used force and intimidation
money and told her not to tell anyone of the incident or in approaching her.
her family will be harmed.
The second rape incident happened on June 30, 2001 at 2. No, the inconsistencies in AAAs statements are
around 11:00 pm. AAA was sleeping at a parked trivial matters. The Court reiterated the ruling of CA, that
jeepney outside a billiard hall. She was awakened by such inconsistencies are only minor and collateral
Delfin when he flashed a flashlight towards her. He went matters. It has been stated that such inconsistencies were
inside the jeepney and raped AAA. not an essential element of the crime, and that it has no
bearing on the essential facts. It is a well-settled rule that
factual findings of trial courts in regard of the credibility
of witnesses are given great weight ad respect most
especially since it has been affirmed by the CA.