Consti II Art3 Sec12
Consti II Art3 Sec12
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall With this information, Carino and another policeman traced the whereabouts
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and of Del Rosario and when they found him, invited him for questioning.
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the Del Rosario allegedly confessed to Carino his involvement in the crime and
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived informed the latter that the electric tester could be recovered from his
except in writing and in the presence of counsel. relatives.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate The investigation of the case centred upon Camat only after the latter was
the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, pointed to by a vendor who allegedly saw what happened. Camat was
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. arrested by policemen for acts of lasciviousness, upon the complaint of his
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall sister-in-law.
be inadmissible in evidence against him. Since Camat fitted the description given by the eyewitness, Carino fetched
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as the vendor to verift Camat’s identity. Said witness recognized and identified
well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and Camat as the one who killed Sinoy. Carino did not give the identity of the
their families. vendor-witness who was afraid of the accused.
The trial court convicted Camat and Del Rosario with the so-called special
complex crime of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide.
People v Camat Camat and Del Rosario insist that the trial court cannot rely on the
G.R. No. 112262 extrajudicial confession of Camat as a basis for their conviction because such
Regalado, J. confession was obtained during custodial investigation in violation of their
constitutional rights.
Facts: Moreover, appellants aver that the lower court also erred in making an
Sinoy and Penalver, both members of the Philippine Marines, were walking inference of guilt from the extrajudicial confession of Del Rosario wherein
along Quirino Avenue. They came back from a birthday party and were he supposedly gave to the investigating policeman the name of his relative
wearing civilian clothes. While walking, they noticed two persons trailing in possession of the electric tester.
them closely. Penalver was carrying a clutch bag containing a Sanwa electric
tester. Issue:
Del Rosario rushed to Sinoy and kicked the latter. Camat followed Del W/N Camat and Del Rosario’s extrajudicial confession is admissible – NO
Rosario and pulled out a knife and stabbed Sinoy. Penalver kicked Camat
who in turn stabbed him. Ruling:
Realizing they were at the losing end, Sinoy and Penalver ran away. With the The invoked by Camat and Del Rosario are premised upon Sec 20 Art IV of
aid of a policeman, they were brought to the hospital wherein Sinoy died the 1973 Constitution (now Art. 3, Sec. 12). The provision was interpreted in
shortly. Penalver was transferred to the AFP Medical Center and was the case of Morales v. Enrile wherein the Court laid down the procedure to
discharged days after. be followed in custodial investigations:
Camat and Del Rosario interposed the defense of alibi and denied any a) At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting
participation in the commission of the felony. Camat claimed that he was officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be
already in his house and preparing to sleep. shown the warrant of arrest, if any.He shall be informed of his
Del Rosario contended that he and his wife were at their stall selling constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any
vegetables along a sidewalk of Quirino Avenue in Baclaran and went home statement he might make could be used against him.
at 7PM. b) The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his
Camat and Del Rosario claim that they did not know each other prior to the lawyer, relative or anyone he chooses.
date of the commission of the crime and that they met each other only after c) No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the
they were arrested and brought to the police precinct. presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested or appointed by
Patrolman Odeo Cariño, to whom the case was assigned for investigation, the court.
stated that Camat orally admitted to him his participation in the killing of the d) The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid
soldier during interrogation. unless made with the assistance of counsel.
In addition, Camat also allegedly gave the names of Del Rosario and alluded These rights begin to be available where the investigation is no longer a
to him as the one who actually stabbed Sinoy. general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has began to focus on a particular
suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, and the police has prosecution, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has satisfactorily
carried out a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminating proved the guilt of both accused beyond reasonable doubt.
statements. It bears repeating that findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility
A reading of the challenged decision shows that the trial court relied upon of witnesses deserve great respect since it had the opportunity to hear and
appellants’ confessions to disaffirm their credibility and to impugn their observe their demeanor as they testified on the witness stand.
denial of complicity in the commission of the felony. Additionally, there was no ulterior motive on the part of Penalver that might
This, the lower court cannot do because absent any showing that Camat and have led him to give fabricated testimony against appellants. His positive
Del Rosario were duly advised of the mandatory guarantees under the Bill of testimony is sufficient for conviction.
Rights, their confessions made before Carino are inadmissible against them Camat and Del Rosario also contend that the failure of the prosecution to
and cannot be used in support of their conviction. present in court the police informer deprived them of their constitutional right
It is now incumbent upon the prosecution to prove during the trial that prior of confrontation. The Court reiterates that an accused’s constitutional right to
to questioning, the confessant was warned of his constitutionally protected meet the witnesses face to face is limited to proceedings before the trial court.
rights because the presumption of regularity of official acts does not apply Camat and Del Rosario’s reliance on this constitutional right is misplaced as
during in-custody investigation. the same is available to him at the trial and not during a custodial
Even if the confession is the truth, if it was made without the assistance of investigation.
counsel, it is inadmissible as evidence regardless of the absence of coercion As to their alibi, it must be noted that alibi becomes less plausible as a defense
or even if it had been voluntarily given. when it is established by the accused himself and his immediate rlatives who,
As to the implication of Del Rosario in the extrajudicial confession of Camat, as in tthis case, are appellants’ mother and mother-in-law because they would
no reliance can be placed on the imputation because it violates the rule on res naturally be expected to make statements in his favor.
inter alios acta and does not fall under its exceptions since it was made after Appellants should have been indicted only for the special complex crime of
the supposed homicidal conspiracy. robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the RPC. There is no crime of
An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide.
admissible against his co-accused. The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that
Even disregarding the extrajudicial confessions of appellants, the judgment appellants are guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide.
of conviction stands. Although there is only one eyewitness presented by the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statements without full
warnings of constitutional rights
Miranda v Arizona · Miranda v Arizona: Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a
384 US 436 June 13, 1966 Phoenix police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. Police then
Ponente: Warren, CJ. took him to "Interrogation Room No. 2" where he was questioned by two police
officers. Miranda was not advised that he had a right to have an attorney present. After
Facts: two hours, officers came out with a written confession signed by Miranda stating that
· The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases it was done voluntarily and “with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding
involving custodial interrogations any statement I make may be used against me." Miranda was found guilty of
· The constitutional issue here is: admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant kidnapping and rape
questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any o Held: Miranda was not in any way appraised of his right to consult
significant way with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation,
· In each, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting nor was his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself
attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these effectively protected in any other manner. Without these warnings,
cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of statements are inadmissible
the interrogation process o The written confession he signed saying that it is with "full
· In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed knowledge" of his "legal rights" does not approach the knowing and
statements that were admitted at trial intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights
· They all thus share salient features of:
· Vignera v New York: Vignera, was picked up by New York police in connection with warnings have been given or any effective alternative was
the robbery three days earlier of a Brooklyn dress shop. He was first taken to the 17th employed. Nor can a knowing and intelligent waiver of these rights
Detective Squad headquarters. He was then taken to the 66th Detective Squad, where be assumed on a silent record
he orally admitted the robbery and was placed under formal arrest. He was then taken o The fact that Stewart only admitted on the 9th interrogation could
to the 70th Precinct for detention, where he was questioned by an assistant district mean that he was compelled to forgo his 5th Amendment privilege
attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and
answers. At trial, the oral confession and the transcript were presented to the jury. Issue:
Vignera was found guilty of first degree robbery. WON statements by defendants questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of
o Held: Vignera was not warned of any of his rights before the his freedom of action in any significant way is admissible in evidence? (NO)
questioning by the detective and by the assistant district attorney.
Not effectively apprised of his Fifth Amendment privilege or of his Ruling:
right to have counsel present. Statements are inadmissible · In each instance, we have concluded that statements were obtained from the defendant
· Westover v US: Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect in under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the
two Kansas City robberies. Also, he was wanted on a felony charge in California. privilege
Local authorities took him to a police station and placed him in a line-up on the local · The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory,
charges. Kansas City police interrogated Westover. Local police said that the FBI can stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use
then proceed to interrogate him (since they are done). No records state that Westover of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination
was given any warning of his rights by the local police. FBI continued the · By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers
interrogation. Westover was convicted of the California robberies after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
o Held: No showing that Westover knowingly and intelligently waived action in any significant way
his right to remain silent and his right to consult with counsel prior · For procedural safeguards to be employed, the following measures are required
to the time he made the statement. The interrogation of the local o Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has:
police and that of the FBI (that followed), though these authorities § Right to remain silent
are legally distinct, made an impression to Westover that it was that § That any statement he does make may be used as evidence
of a continuous period of questioning against him
o No evidence of any warning given prior to the FBI interrogation, nor § That he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either
any evidence of a waiver of rights. Warnings came at the end of the retained or appointed. (If he cannot afford an attorney, one
interrogation process. In these circumstances, an intelligent waiver will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so
of constitutional rights cannot be assumed desires.)
o In this case, after local officers interrogated, the FBI interrogated next. o The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the
FBI benefited with the pressure from the local officers because waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently
Westover felt that they were connected. So in these circumstances, o If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process
the giving of warnings alone was not sufficient to protect the that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can
privilege be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates
· California v Stewart: In the course of investigating a series of purse-snatch robberies in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police
(where one victim died), Stewart was identified as the endorser of checks stolen in one may not question him
of the robberies. Police officers went to his house, asked for permission to search it o The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or
(which he agreed to), took robbed items and arrested Stewart (and his wife and 3 volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the
visitors). Stewart was interrogated for 9 times within 5 days, where on the 9 th day he right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has
admitted to the robbery but said that he didn’t mean to hurt the victim (who died). He consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned
was convicted of robbery and first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Supreme o Unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the
Court of California reversed, holding that Stewart should have been advised of his prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation
right to remain silent and his right to counsel can be used against him
o Held: SC decision is affirmed. With custodial interrogation, it should · When an individual is taken to custody or deprived of freedom and subjected to
not be presumed that the defendant was apprised of his rights and questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural
privilege against self-incrimination when it doesn’t show that any
safeguards must then be employed to protect this privilege unless other fully effective 2. to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
means are adopted to notify them of their rights. choice
3. be informed of the two other rights above.
In the present case, while it is undisputed that petitioner gave an uncounselled
Tanenggee v People written statement regarding an anomaly discovered in the branch he managed,
G.R. No. 179448 June 26, 2013 the following are clear: (1) the questioning was not initiated by a law
enforcement authority but merely by an internal affairs manager of the bank;
FACTS: and, (2) petitioner was neither arrested nor restrained of his liberty in any
March 27, 1998 - five Informations for estafa through falsification of commercial significant manner during the questioning. Clearly, petitioner cannot be said
documents were filed against petitioner. to be under custodial investigation and to have been deprived of the
According to the information, petitioner took advantage of his position as bank constitutional prerogative during the taking of his written statement.
manager and defrauded, thru falsification of commercial document, the Remolona v. Civil Service Commission
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. (METROBANK) by forging promissory o we declared that the right to counsel "applies only to admissions
notes in the name of Romeo Tan. made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an
The fraud was discovered when auditors conducted an audit of the branch. Thereafter, administrative investigation."
appellant was asked to report to the Head Office by the Senior VP. When appellant Carbonel v. Civil Service Commission
arrived, he was surprised to see that there were seven (7) other people present: two (2) o The right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant
senior branch officers, two (2) bank lawyers, two (2) policemen (one in uniform and to protect a suspect during custodial investigation. Thus, the
the other in plain clothes), and a representative of the Internal Affairs unit of the bank, exclusionary rule under paragraph (2), Section 12 of the Bill of
Valentino Elevado. Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation
but not to those made in an administrative investigation.
Appellant claims that the bank officials asked him to sign a paper in connection with Here, petitioner’s written statement was given during an administrative
the audit investigation; that he inquired what he was made to sign but was not offered inquiry conducted by his employer in connection with an
any explanation; that he was intimidated to sign and was threatened by the police that anomaly/irregularity he allegedly committed in the course of his
he will be brought to the precinct if he will not sign; that he was not able to consult a employment. No error can therefore be attributed to the courts below in
lawyer since he was not apprised of the purpose of the meeting; and that "just to get it admitting in evidence and in giving due consideration to petitioner’s written
over with" he signed the paper which turned out to be a confession. statement as there is no constitutional impediment to its admissibility.
Petitioner’s written statement was given voluntarily, knowingly and
The RTC found appellant guilty of the crime charged. CA affirmed RTC ruling with intelligently.
modification (added indemnification award to metrobank). "It is settled that a confession or admission is presumed voluntary until the
contrary is proved and the confessant bears the burden of proving the
ISSUE: contrary."
W/N the written statement signed by petitioner is admissible as evidence in Court –
Petitioner failed to overcome this presumption. On the contrary, his written
YES
statement was found to have been executed freely and consciously. The
RULING:
pertinent details he narrated in his statement were of such nature and quality
Petitioner’s written statement is admissible in evidence. that only a perpetrator of the crime could furnish. The details contained
The constitutional proscription against the admissibility of admission or therein attest to its voluntariness.
confession of guilt obtained in violation of Section 12, Article III of the
Constitution, as correctly observed by the CA and the OSG, is applicable only
in custodial interrogation.
Custodial interrogation means any questioning initiated by law enforcement
authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant manner.
A person under custodial investigation is guaranteed certain rights which
attach upon the commencement thereof, viz:
1. to remain silent,
People v. Sunga Issue:
GR 126029 March 27, 2003 WON Sunga’s admission can be admitted as evidence which would corroborate
Ponente: Carpio-Morales Locil’s story (NO)
Facts: Ruling:
· On July 12, 1994, the mutilated body of Jocelyn Tan, a minor and a high school student · A person under investigation for the commission of an offense is guaranteed the
of Palawan Integrated National School, (PINS), was found at a coffee plantation in following rights by the Constitution
Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. o The right to remain silent
· One of the accused Locil submitted a sworn statement which detailed how her co- o The right to have competent and independent counsel of his own
accused carried out the crime so that she can become a state witness. choice, and to be provided with one if he cannot afford the services
· The rule is that the testimony of a self-confessed accomplice or co-conspirator of counsel
imputing the blame to or implicating his co-accused cannot, by itself and without o The right to be informed of these rights
corroboration, be regarded as proof to a moral certainty that the latter committed or · Lack of competent counsel
participated in the commission of the crime. o The right to counsel was denied Sunga during his execution of Exhibit
o The testimony must be substantially corroborated in its material A – the counsel who assisted him, Atty. Agustin Rocamora, was the
points by unimpeachable testimony and strong circumstances and City Legal Officer of Puerto Princesa.This Court made it sufficiently
must be to such an extent that its trustworthiness becomes manifest clear that the independent counsel for the accused in custodial
· Another accused Sunga made 2 extrajudicial admissions which could have been used investigations cannot be a special counsel, public or private
to corroborate Locil’s testimony but SC finds Sunga’s admissions to be inadmissible prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose
in evidence against him and his co-accused. interest is admittedly adverse to the accused.
o Admissions: statements of fact that does not directly involve o A legal officer of the city, like Atty. Rocamora, provides legal aid and
acknowledgment of guilt support to the mayor and the city in carrying out the delivery of basic
o Confession: with acknowledgment of guilt services to the people. This includes maintenance of peace and order
· First extrajudicial admission and, as such, his office is akin to that of a prosecutor who
o Sunga was brought by SPO4 Pantollano and patrolman Bolos to the unquestionably cannot represent the accused during custodial
Puerto Princesa City police precinct. They asked him questions investigation due to conflict of interest
about Jocelyn’s death in a room for about 30 minutes. He was o Sunga chose him to be his counsel, even if true, did not render his
presented to SPO2 Janoras for investigation. He initially asked admission admissible. Being of a very low educational attainment,
Sunga whether he knew anything about Jocelyns death and Sunga Sunga could not have possibly known the ramifications of his choice
replied affirmatively, prompting SPO2 to inform him of his rights of a city legal officer to be his counsel.
under custodial interrogation. § The duty of law enforcers to inform him of his Constitutional
o After Sunga signified his desire to avail of the services of a lawyer, rights during custodial interrogations to their full, proper
Sunga chose Atty. Rocamora to be his counsel from the choices of and precise extent does not appear to have been
lawyers that SPO2 mentioned to him. Atty. Rocamora briefly discharged
conferred with Sunga, asking him if he wanted to give a confession o Nothing in the records shows that Atty. Rocamora exerted efforts to
and informing him of the consequences thereof. safeguard Sungas rights and interests, especially that of his right not
o Thereafter, the investigation proceeded with Sunga voluntarily giving to be a witness against himself
his answers to questions SPO2 propounded at the end of which o SPO2 Janoras which described how Atty. Rocamora assisted Sunga
investigation Sunga and Atty. Rocamora affixed their respective § Stated that Atty. Rocamora only conversed for a very short
signatures on the recorded statement. while with Sunga prior to the investigation
· Second extrajudicial admission (Exhibit I) § The only thing Atty. Rocamora did during the questioning
o This sworn statement was made by Sunga before Special Investigator was telling Sunga to just answer the questions
Reynaldo O. Abordo in the NBI Puerto Princesa office. Exhibit I o Evidently, Atty. Rocamora only acted to facilitate the admission of
had some differences in admission from Exhibit A. Exhibit I also Sunga
embodied a waiver by Sunga of his right to counsel. · Lack of counsel per se
o Before SPO2 offered Sunga’s options of lawyers, Sunga was already the in-custody interrogations by the police, for a suspect who takes part in a
questioned by SPO4 and Patrolman preliminary investigation will be subjected to no less than the States processes,
§ At the time that the first two policemen started asking him oftentimes intimidating and relentless
questions about Jocelyns death, Sunga could be considered · This Court will not admit Sungas. This makes it unnecessary to discuss and emphasize
as already being custodial investigation without the the conflict on material points of Sungas and Locils accounts of the incident. Only
assistance of a counsel Locil’s testimony can be used as evidence
o Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is o The aforementioned observations pertaining to both the weak,
no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to incomprehensible voice with which Locil gave her testimony, the
focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who improbability with which she was precisely made by appellants to
carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit be a witness to their crime, and the failure of her description of
incriminating statements Pascuas eyes to match the latters actual physical feature cannot but
o Even though Sunga declared in open court that he gave the admission engender serious doubts as to the reliability of her testimony against
so that he can also become a state witness, it doesn’t make Exhibit I all appellants.
admissible
§ Sunga was at the time still under detention at the NBI office
and had been languishing in jail since his arrest in mid-July
1994 People v Ibañez
§ His desire to regain his freedom is not difficult to understand, G.R. No. 191752 June 10, 2013
he having lost it once due to his conviction for another
crime Facts:
§ His admission which was done without the benefit of counsel July 23, 2004 - Ibañez went to Weapons System Corporation (WSC) and told
consisted of answers to questions propounded by the Henessy Auron, WSC’s Secretary and Sales Representative, that he was the
investigating agent of the NBI and not of a unilateral one who bought a gun barrel at the company’s gun show in SM Megamall.
declaration of his participation in the crime Ibañez inquired from Henessy about the schedule and the rates of WSC’s
o To this Court, these conditions are constitutive of an atmosphere firing range and the amount of the membership fee of its gun club. He also
pervading that of a custodial investigation and necessitating the asked the days when there are many people in the firing range, and whether
assistance of a competent and independent counsel of Sunga’s Henessy was WSC’s only female employee.
choice as a matter of right but which he had none 3 days later, Henessy arrived at WSC and rang the doorbell, but no one
· Even if the confession contains a grain of truth or even if it had been voluntarily given, opened the door. She went to the back of the office where the firing range
if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible was located, and called Zaldy Gabao, another employee of WSC. Zaldy
o Exhibit I: the waiver by Sunga of his right to counsel as contained in answered from inside the store but Henessy did not understand what he said.
his sworn statement-Exhibit I was not a valid waiver for, on its face, Henessy returned to the front door and called again. Zaldy replied that he
it was executed not in the presence of counsel, contrary to the could not open the door because his hands were tied. Henessy called
express requirement of the Constitution Raymundo Sian, the company’s operations manager, and informed him that
o Exhibit A: the testimony of Sunga during the preliminary Zaldy’s hands had been tied. After one hour, the police arrived; they opened
investigation before the Municipal Trial Court whereby he expressly the gate at the back using acetylene. When Henessy and the police entered
acknowledged having executed Exhibit A and affirmed the contents the premises, they saw that Zaldy had been handcuffed to the vault. Zaldy
thereof did not render his extrajudicial admission into a judicial one informed the police that the company’s gunsmith, Rex Dorimon, was inside
which could be used against him and his co-appellants. the firing range. The police entered the firing range, and saw the lifeless body
§ The right to counsel involves more than just the presence of of Rex.
a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of The NBI received an information from an asset that the group of petitioner
standard questions and objections; rather it means an Cachuela was involved in the robbery;
efficient and decisive legal assistance and not a simple The NBI, headed by Special Investigator Allan Lino, conducted an
perfunctory representation entrapment operation against suspect Cachuela during which, Melvin
· The right to counsel applies in certain pretrial proceedings that can be deemed critical Nabilgas was arrested and subsequently gave the names of the other persons
stages in the criminal process. The preliminary investigation can be no different from involved in the crime.
At the NBI Main Office, Zaldy pointed to the appellants, during a police line- line-up had been conducted; who were the persons in the line-up with the
up, as the persons responsible for the robbery at WSC and for the killing of appellants and whether the line-up was confined to persons of the same height
Rex. Nabilgas also executed a handwritten confession implicating the and built as the appellants. Lino likewise did not indicate who accompanied
appellants and Zaldy in the crime. Zaldy before and during the line-up, and whether there had been the
Upon filing of information and conclusion of the trial, the RTC found possibility of prior or contemporaneous improper insinuations on Zaldy
appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of regarding the appearance of the appellants.
robbery with homicide. (Zaldy died during trial) Lino’s failure to state relevant details surrounding the police line-up is a
glaring omission that renders unreliable Zaldy’s out-of-court identification.
Issue: No way exists for the courts to evaluate the factors used in determining the
W/N the out-of-court identification of Zaldy and extrajudicial confession of Nabilgas admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identifications, such as the level
are admissible in court. - NO of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; the length of
time between the crime and the identification; and the suggestiveness of the
Ruling: identification procedure.
Admissibility of the out-of-court identification and the extrajudicial confession The absence of an independent in-court identification by Zaldy additionally
Lino testified that Zaldy identified the appellants as the persons involved in justifies the Court’s strict treatment and assessment of Lino’s testimony.
the robbery of WSC and in the killing of Rex in a police line-up held at the The records also bear out that Nabilgas executed an extrajudicial confession
NBI Main Office on Taft Avenue, Manila. We note that Zaldy did not testify at the NBI Main Office, where he implicated the appellants and Zaldy in the
in court since he was brought to the National Center for Mental Health, and crime charged.
subsequently died during the trial. For this reason, we examine with greater After a careful examination of the evidence on hand, Court held that
scrutiny Lino’s testimony regarding Zaldy’s alleged out-of-court Nabilgas’ extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence.
identification. An extrajudicial confession, to be admissible, must satisfy the following
People v. Algarme requirements:
o the procedure for out-of-court identification and the test to o (1) the confession must be voluntary
determine its admissibility: o (2) it must be made with the assistance of a competent and
Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police thru: independent counsel, preferably of the confessant's choice
show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face- o (3) it must be express
to-face with the witness for identification o (4) it must be in writing
mug shots where photographs are shown to the Nabilgas was already under custodial investigation by the authorities when
witness to identify the suspect he executed the alleged written confession. "A custodial investigation is
line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect understood as any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after
from a group of persons lined up for the purpose a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action
o ff. factors are considered in resolving admissibility of and relying on in any significant manner. It begins when there is no longer a general inquiry
an out-of-court identification of suspects: into an unsolved crime and the investigation has started to focus on a
(1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time particular person as a suspect, i.e., when the police investigator starts
of the crime; interrogating or exacting a confession from the suspect in connection with an
(2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; alleged offense.
(3) the accuracy of any prior description, given by the In People v. Rapeza
witness; o the lawyer called to be present during custodial investigations
(4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the should, as far as reasonably possible, be the choice of the individual
identification; undergoing questioning. If the lawyer is furnished by the police for
(5) the length of time between the crime and the the accused, it is important that the lawyer should be competent,
identification; independent and prepared to fully safeguard the constitutional rights
(6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure of the accused, as distinguished from one who would merely be
In the present case, Lino merely stated that Zaldy, during a police line-up, giving a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital of the
identified the appellants as the persons involved in the robbery of WSC and individual's constitutional rights.
in the killing of Rex. Lino did not state when the line-up took place; how this
Cour rule that Nabilgas’ confession was not made with the assistance of a People v. Chavez
competent and independent counsel. The services of Atty. Melita Go, the GR 207950 September 22, 2014
lawyer who acted in Nabilgas’ behalf, were provided by the very same agency Ponente: Leonen, J.
investigating Nabilgas – the NBI itself; she was assigned the task despite
Nabilgas’ open declaration to the agency’s investigators that he already had Facts:
a lawyer in the person of Atty. Donardo Paglinawan. Atty. Paglinawan · Peñamante arrived home at around 2:45 a.m from work as a janitor in Eastwood City.
confirmed this fact when he stated that he was already representing Nabilgas He saw a person wearing ablack, long-sleeved shirt and black pants and holding
at the time his client made the alleged confession. Nabilgas also testified that something while leaving the house/parlor of Elmer Duque (Barbie) just six meters
Atty. Go did not disclose that she was a lawyer when she was called to assist across Peñamante’s house.
him; she merely represented herself to be a mere witness to the confession. · There was a light at the left side of the house/parlor of Barbie (Peñamante’s favorite
There was also nothing in the records to show that Atty. Go ascertained haircutter). He was able to see the face of Chavez and the clothes he was wearing
whether Nabilgas’ confession was made voluntarily, and whether he fully · Chavez could not close the door of Barbie’s house/parlor so he simply walked away.
understood the nature and the consequence of his extrajudicial confession and However, he dropped something that he was holding and fell down when he stepped
its impact on his constitutional rights. on it.
This is not the kind of assistance required of lawyers in a custodial · He walked away after, and Peñamante was not able to determine what Chavez was
investigation. "An ‘effective and vigilant counsel’ necessarily and holding. After 10:00 a.m., the Scene of the Crime Office (SOCO) team arrived. The
logically requires that the lawyer be present and be able to advise and team noted that the lobby and the parlor were in disarray, and they found Barbie’s dead
assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first question body inside.
asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial · At around 11:00 a.m., Peñamante’s landlady woke him up and told him that Barbie
confession." was found dead at 9:00 a.m. He then informed his landlady that he saw Chavez leaving
In addition, the extrajudicial confession of Nabilgas was not corroborated by Barbie’s house at 2:45 a.m.
a witness who was present at the time the written confession was made. · An autopsy on the body and found that the time of death was approximately 12 hours
At any rate, Nabilgas’ extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence prior to examination. There were 22 injuries on Barbie’s body — 21 were stab wounds
against the appellants in view of the res inter alios acta rule. This rule in various parts of the body caused by a sharp bladed instrument, and one incised
provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, wound was caused by a sharp object. Four (4) of the stab wounds were considered
declaration, or omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial fatal.
confession is binding only on the confessant and is not admissible against his · The next day, the police invited Peñamante to the Manila Police Station to give a
or her co-accused because it is considered as hearsay against them. statement. Peñamante described to SPO3 Casimiro the physical appearance of the
An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a person he saw leaving Barbie’s parlor.
conspirator under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. This provision · Accompanied by his mother, Chavez voluntarily surrendered on November 5, 2006 at
states that the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy, the police station. Chavez was then 22 years old. His mother told the police that she
and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator wanted to help her son who might be involved in Barbie’s death. SPO3 Casimiro
after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. informed them of the consequences in executing a written statement without the
Thus, in order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his assistance of a lawyer. However, Chavez’s mother still gave her statement, subscribed
or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that: (a) the conspiracy be first proved by Administrative Officer Alex Francisco. She also surrendered two cellular phones
by evidence other than the admission itself; (b) the admission relates to the owned by Barbie and a baseball cap owned by Chavez.
common object; and (c) it has been made while the declarant was engaged in
carrying out the conspiracy. Issue:
This exception, however, does not apply in the present case since there was WON the Miranda Rights Doctrine applies to those who voluntarily surrendered
no other piece of evidence presented, aside from the extrajudicial confession, (YES)
to prove that Nabilgas conspired with the appellants in committing the crime
charged. Conspiracy cannot be presumed and must be shown as distinctly and Ruling:
conclusively as the crime itself. Nabilgas, in fact, was acquitted by the trial · The right to counsel upon being questioned for the commission of a crime is part of
court due to insufficiency of evidence to prove his participation in the crime. the Miranda rights, which require that:
o Any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain
silent;
o Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law Hence, the instant petition.
o He has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to Issue: W/N petitioner’s right to a counsel and right to due process were violated – NO
have his counsel present when being questioned
o If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any
questioning if he so desires Ruling:
· The Miranda rights were incorporated in our Constitution but were modified to include The rights to counsel and to due process of law are two of the fundamental
the statement that any waiver of the right to counsel must be made "in writing and in rights guaranteed by the Constitution, whether it be the 1973 or 1987
the presence of counsel.” Constitution. In a democratic society, like ours, every person is entitled to the
· The invocation of these rights applies during custodial investigation, which begins full enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
"when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e. when the
but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or
starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused. At such point or
statements.” stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the
· Republic Act No. 7438 expanded the definition of custodial investigation to "include pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions
the practice of issuing an ‘invitation’ to a person who is investigated in connection from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation, for the commission of
with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of an offense.
the ‘inviting’ officer for any violation of law.” Any person under investigation must, among other things, be assisted by
o This means that even those who voluntarily surrendered before a counsel. The above-cited provisions of the Constitution are clear. They leave
police officer must be apprised of their Miranda rights. For one, the no room for equivocation. Accordingly, in several cases, this Court has
same pressures of a custodial setting exist in this scenario. consistently held that no custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it
· Chavez is also being questioned by an investigating officer in a police station. As an be in the presence of counsel, engaged by the person arrested, or by any
additional pressure, he may have been compelled to surrender by his mother who person in his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the
accompanied him to the police station. detainee himself, or by anyone in his behalf, and that, while the right may be
waived, the waiver shall not be valid unless made in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
Gamboa v. Judge Cruz As aptly observed, however, by the Solicitor General, the police line-up (at
G.R. No. L-56291, June 27, 1988 least, in this case) was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, petitioner was
not yet entitled, at such stage, to counsel. The Solicitor General states:
FACTS: o When petitioner was Identified by the complainant at the police line-
Petitioner alleges that: up, he had not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. The
On 19 July 1979, he was arrested for vagrancy, without a warrant of arrest, police line-up is not a part of the custodial inquest, hence, he was
by Patrolman Arturo Palencia. Petitioner was then brought to a precinct not yet entitled to counsel. Thus, it was held that when the process
where he was detained with several others. had not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory as when
The following day, during the lineup of 5 detainees, including petitioner, police investigation does not elicit a confession the accused may not
complainant Erlinda B. Bernal pointed to petitioner and said, "that one is a yet avail of the services of his lawyer Since petitioner in the course
companion." After the Identification, the other detainees were brought back of his Identification in the police line-up had not yet been held to
to their cell but petitioner was ordered to stay. While the complainant was answer for a criminal offense, he was, therefore, not deprived of his
being interrogated by the police investigator, petitioner was told to sit down right to be assisted by counsel because the accusatory process had
in front of her. not yet set in. The police could not have violated petitioner's right to
An information for robbery was filed against the petitioner. counsel and due process as the confrontation between the State and
On 14 July 1980, petitioner, by counsel, instead of presenting his defense, him had not begun. In fact, when he was Identified in the police line-
manifested in open court that he was filing a Motion to Acquit or Demurrer up by complainant he did not give any statement to the police. He
to Evidence. Petitioner filed said Motion predicated on the ground that the was, therefore, not interrogated at all as he was not facing a criminal
conduct of the line-up, without notice to, and in the absence of, his counsel charge. Petitioner’s right to counsel had not accrued.
violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. Under the US Constitution, the right to counsel "attaches only at or after the
Court denied the Motion to Acquit. time that adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated against him (the
accused)," under the 1973 and 1987 Philippine Constitutions, the right to · His conviction was based on the testimony of the police, not on the signed bills.
counsel attaches at the start of investigation against a respondent and, o The testimony of the police was that they caught the accused in the
therefore, even before adversary judicial proceedings against the accused act of selling marijuana.
have begun. · The Police are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.
On the right to due process, the Court finds that petitioner was not, in any · The task of apprehending persons engaged in the drug trade is hard enough without
way, deprived of this substantive and constitutional right, as he was duly legal and procedural technicalities to make it doubly so.
represented by a member of the Bar. He was accorded all the opportunities to · Linsangan was sentenced to life in prison.
be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense; only that he
chose not to, and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution
had rested its case. What due process abhors is the absolute lack of People v. Ang Chun Kit
opportunity to be heard. The case at bar is far from this situation. G.R. No. 109232, December 29, 1995
Facts:
People v. Linsangan Ang Chun Kit, a Chinese national and reputed to be a member of a Hong
GR 88589 April 16, 1991 Kong-based drug syndicate operating in Metro Manila, was collared by
Ponente: Griño-Aquino, J. NARCOM operatives in a buy-bust operation after he sold to an undercover
agent for P400,000.00 a kilo of methamphetamine hydrochloride known as
Facts: shabu. His car also yielded more of the regulated drug neatly tucked in a
· Police were informed that there was a young boy, around 20 years old and average Kleenex box.
build and height, who was selling/pushing marijuana. The police set up a buy-bust RTC found appellant guilty of violating- Sec. 15, Art. III of RA 6425.
operation so that they could catch him. Two P10 bills were marked and then given to The accused maintains his innocence and faults the trial court in not holding
the informer and Pat. Corpuz. After, they all dressed up in civilian clothes and then that the crime could not have been committed under the circumstances
left for Dinalupihan, Tondo (the designated place for the buy-bust operation). When narrated by the arresting officers and that the alleged buy-bust operation was
they arrived, the informer called Linsangan (appellant) and Linsangan then approached a frame-up and the evidence merely planted. He argues that the prosecution
them. Patrolman Corpuz and the informer (both in disguise as a civilians) said that was not able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt since every piece of
they really, really wanted to buy marijuana. They handed the two marked P10 bills to evidence presented against him is tainted with constitutional infirmities.
Linsangan who then went inside the wooden house nearby to get the marijuana. When
Linsangan came back, he handed over 10 sticks of marijuana to Corpuz and the Issue:
informer. With his right hand, Corpuz got the marijuana, and with his other hand, he W/N signing the booking sheet means an admission to the commission of the
took hold of Linsangan, making sure that Linsangan couldn’t escape. Another offense - No
undercover officer frisked Linsangan and recovered the marked bills. Linsangan was
made to sign his name on the bills. Linsangan also put his initials “C.L.” on each stick Ruling:
of marijuana. People v. Morico
· At the police station, Linsangan was being apprised of his constitutional rights when o "when an arrested person signs a Booking Sheet and Arrest Report
his uncle, the barangay chairman, arrived. Allegedly, Linsangan's uncle offered P500 at a police station he does not admit the commission of an offense
to Pat. Corpuz to let the accused go. Corpuz did not accept the money and so Linsangan nor confess to any incriminating circumstance. The Booking Sheet
was brought to trial and convicted. is merely a statement of the accused's being booked and of the date
which accompanies the fact of an arrest. It is a police report and may
Issue: be useful in charges of arbitrary detention against the police
· WON the accused’s rights under Art. 3 sec 12 were violated when the police made themselves. It is not an extra-judicial statement and cannot be the
Linsangan sign the P10 bills (NO) basis of a judgment of conviction."
But as in the cases of Mauyao and Morico, accused Ang Chun Kit's
Ruling: conformity to the questioned documents has not been a factor in his
· Although he was not assisted by counsel when he was made to sign his name on the conviction since his guilt has been adequately established by the detailed and
bills, his right against self-incrimination was not violated because possession of unshaken testimonies of the officers who apprehended him. Hence even
marked bills is not a crime; the crime was selling the marijuana sticks.
disregarding the questioned documents the Court still finds the accused guilty were marked, identified, and then introduced during the trial. That was not the proper
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. time to make the objection. "Objection to the documentary evidence must be made at
Macasiray v. People the time it formally offered, not earlier." Thus, it has been held that the identification
GR 94736 June 26, 1998 of the document before it is marked as an exhibit does not constitute the formal offer
Ponente: Mendoza, J. of the document as evidence for the party presenting it. Objection to the identification
and marking of the document is not equivalent to objection to the document when it is
Facts: formally offered in evidence. What really matters is the objection to the document at
the time it is formally offered as an exhibit.
· Petitioners Melecio Macasiray, Virgilio Gonzales, and Benedicto Gonzales were the · Objections to the admissibility of documents may be raised during trial and the court
accused in a criminal case for the murder of Johnny Villanueva. It appeared that in the may rule on them then, but, if this is not done, the party should make the objections
course of the trial of the case, the prosecution introduced in evidence an extrajudicial when the documentary evidence is formally offered at the conclusion of the
confession executed by petitioner Benedicto in which he admitted participation in the presentation of evidence for the other party. Indeed, before it was offered in evidence,
crime and implicated petitioners Melecio and Virgilio. Also presented in evidence was the confession in this case cannot even be considered as evidence to which the accused
the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation of the should object.
case before the fiscal's office. This transcript contained statements allegedly given by · Nor is it correct to say that the confession was introduced in evidence by Benedicto
Benedicto in answer to questions of the fiscal, in which he affirmed the contents of his Gonzales himself when it was his turn to present evidence for the defense. What
extrajudicial confession. happened is that despite the fact that in its order of April 14, 1988 the court sustained
· When the extrajudicial confession and transcript of the preliminary investigation the objection to the admissibility of the confession and the statements given by
proceeding were offered, petitioners objected to its admissibility on the ground that it Benedicto Gonzales at the preliminary investigation, the defense nonetheless asked
was given without the assistance of counsel. The trial court sustained the objections him question regarding his confession in reference to his denial of liability. It was thus
and declared the two documents to be inadmissible. not for the purpose of using as evidence the confession and the alleged statements in
· When it was the turn of the defense to present evidence, Benedicto was asked about the preliminary investigation but precisely for the purpose of denying their contents
his extrajudicial confession. On cross-examination, he was questioned not only about that Gonzales was asked questions. Gonzales denied he ever gave the answers
his extrajudicial confession but also about answers allegedly given by him during the attributed to him in the TSN allegedly taken during the preliminary investigation.
preliminary investigation and recorded in the transcript of the proceeding. As he · The defense did not really have to ask Gonzales questions regarding his confession
denied the contents of both documents, the prosecution presented them as rebuttal inasmuch as the court had already declared both the confession and the transcript of
evidence, allegedly to impeach the credibility of Gonzales. Petitioners once more stenographic notes to be inadmissible in evidence, but certainly the defense should not
objected and the trial court again denied admission to the documents. be penalized for exercising an abundance of caution. In fact, the defense did not mark
· Private respondent then sought the nullification of the trial court's orders and the confession as one of its exhibits, which is proof of the fact that it did not adopt it
succeeded. The Court of Appeals declared the two documents admissible in evidence as evidence. There is, therefore, no basis for the appellate courts ruling that because
and ordered the trial court to admit them. the defense adopted the confession by introducing it in evidence, the defense waived
any objection to the admission of the same in evidence.
Issue: · Private respondent justifies the use of the confession and TSN on the ground that they
· Whether the petitioners waived objection to the admissibility of the documents, either are necessary for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of Benedicto Gonzales and
by failing to object to the introduction during the trial or by using them in evidence. not for the purpose of presenting them as evidence in chief. But as already stated, there
(NO) was really no need for Gonzales to deny the contents both of the confession and the
TSN since they had already been excluded in evidence. There was therefore no use for
Ruling: impeaching his credibility.
· Objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally offered. In the case · Notes:
of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the o Extrajudicial Confession and statements before the fiscal were
offer have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It inadmissible
is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence § It was taken without the assistance of counsel.
may be made. § Petitioner Benedicto was informed of his constitutional rights
· In this case, petitioners objected to the admissibility of the documents when they were in a perfunctory (hasty) manner.
formally offered. Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, petitioners did not waive § He waived the assistance of counsel without a counsel’s
objection to admissibility of the said documents by their failure to object when these advice or assistance.