Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People Vs Escordial
People Vs Escordial
[7]
Hence, if there is no counsel at the start of the custodial
Facts : On 5 August 1994 the decomposing body of a young girl was investigation any statement elicited from the accused is
found among the bushes near a bridge in Barangay Poblacion, inadmissible in evidence against him. This exclusionary rule is
Santol, La Union. The girl was later identified as Shirley Victore, premised on the presumption that the defendant is thrust into an
fifteen (15) years old, who three (3) days before was reported unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through menacing police
missing. Post-mortem examination conducted by the NBI, revealed interrogation procedures where the potentiality for compulsion,
that the victim was raped and strangled to death. physical and psychological, is forcefully apparent.[8]
Unidentified sources pointed to Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina
as the authors of the crime. The police thereupon invited the two Before persons can appear as substitute for counsel, two (2)
(2) suspects and brought them to the police station for questioning. conditions must be met:
However, for lack of evidence , they were allowed to go home.
On 10 August 1994 the accused Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina (a) counsel of the accused must be absent, and,
returned to the police station and acknowledged that they had (b) a valid waiver must be executed.
indeed committed the crime.The police immediately conducted an
investigation and put their confessions in writing. They however Hence, in the absence of such valid waiver, the Parish Priest of
could not at once get the services of a lawyer to assist the two (2) Santol, the Municipal Mayor, the relatives of the accused, the Chief
accused in the course of the investigation because there were no of Police and other police officers of the municipality could not stand
practicing lawyers in the Municipality. Be that as it may, the in lieu of counsel's presence. The apparent consent of the two (2)
statements of the two (2) accused where nevertheless taken.Both accused in continuing with the investigation was of no moment as a
accused were apprised in their own dialect of their constitutional waiver to be effective must be made in writing and with the
right to remain silent and to be assisted by a competent counsel of assistance of counsel.[9] Consequently, any admission obtained
their choice. They assure that they understood their rights and did from the two (2) accused emanating from such uncounselled
not require the services of counsel, hence, the investigation was interrogation would be inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding.
conducted with the Parish Priest, the Municipal Mayor, the Chief of
Police, other police officers and the suspect’s wife and mother, in Securing the assistance of the PAO lawyer five (5) to eight (8) days
attendance to listen to and witness the giving of the voluntary later does not remedy this omission either. It could not cure the
statements of the two (2) suspects who admitted their participation absence of counsel during the custodial investigation when the
in the crime. extrajudicial statements were being taken.[10]
Facts: Yes, The absence of counsel renders the extra judicial The assailant then blindfolded Michelle and began to rape her. After
confession inadmissible. The presence of the mayor, municipal satisfying his lust, the assailant conversed for a while with
judge and the family of the accused during the confession did not complainants. The accused, threatening to call his companions,
cure the defect. then, again, raped the complainant in the other orifice of the
complainant’s nether regions. Accused then warned the women not
confession to be admissible in evidence must satisfy four (4) to report or else they would be killed. After 30 mins. The
fundamental requirements: complainants told their neighbor of what happened. Then they told
the owner of the boarding house what happened who then told the
(a) the confession must be voluntary; police.
(b) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent
and independent counsel; Physical description of the assailant was given by the complainant
(c) the confession must be express; and, at the police station. Police found that the descriptions given by the
(d) the confession must be in writing.[6] complainant fit that of a worker in the Coffee Break Corner, where
the accused was employed. Heading there, the police asked of the
Among all these requirements none is accorded the greatest respect accused whereabouts which was, as they were told, watching a
than an accused's right to counsel to adequately protect him in his basketball game. The police arrested the accused (w/o warrant) and
ignorance and shield him from the otherwise condemning nature of proceeded to the police station where he saw the complainant and
a custodial investigation. The person being interrogated must be inadvertently blushed. Complainant then identified him based on the
assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false marks on the neck and matched other physical descriptions. Court
or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person of first instance ruled that accused is found guilty of robbery and
rape with no mitigating circumstances and is hereby sentenced with protection against warrantless searches applies to blood alcohol
maximum penalty of death. tests unless specific exigent circumstances exist. Because each case
must be considered based on its individual facts, there are cases in
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid? which the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood would be
considered an exigent circumstance, but there is no reason to create
HELD: NO. a categorical rule. The Court also held that the Fourth Amendment’s
protection against bodily intrusions outweighs the state’s interest in
The accused-appellant was watching a basketball game when he gaining evidence quickly.
was seized therefore he was not 1.) In flagrante delicto 2.) He was
not an escaped convict 3) the arrest was not after direct In his partial concurrence, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that
consummation of the crime. the case in question does not provide the basis for any categorical
rule on the issue of conducting a blood alcohol test without a
The question here is whether these cases fall under paragraph (b) warrant. He also wrote that the Fourth Amendment does not allow
because the police officers had personal knowledge of facts and the warrant requirement to be entirely ignored in drunk driving
circumstances that would lead them to believe that accused- arrests. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote an opinion
appellant had just committed a crime. The phrase “personal concurring in part and dissenting in part in which he argued that
knowledge” in paragraph Section 5(b) of Rule 113 has been defined there must be a categorical rule on this issue to provide appropriate
that personal knowledge of facts in arrests without a warrant must guidance to law enforcement officials. He argued that exigent
be based upon “probable cause” which means “an actual belief or circumstances exist and justify a warrantless blood test if the officer
reasonable grounds of suspicion. believes there is not sufficient time to obtain a warrant before
critical evidence is lost through natural metabolic processes. If there
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of is time to secure a warrant, the officer must do so. Justice Stephen
actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person G. Breyer and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined in the partial
to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based concurrence and partial dissent.
on actual facts. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded
on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he
officer making the arrest. argued that the body’s natural metabolization of alcohol constitutes
the destruction of evidence and represents an exigent circumstance.
Here, in question of the “Personal Knowledge”, the police were not The importance of obtaining evidence allows the police to conduct a
at the scene of the crime when it happened, therefore “Personal warrantless blood alcohol test without violating the Fourth
Knowledge” does not apply. Furthermore, there was ample time for Amendment.
police to procure a warrant and no reason for them not to obtain
one. This deficiency is, however, cured once accused-appellant
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court and not questioning
the invalidity of the arrest.
Hence, it is found that the prosecution has failed to meet the degree
of proof beyond reasonable doubt required in a criminal case.
Missouri v. McNeely
Question
Does the Fourth Amendment prevent the taking of a warrantless
blood sample under exigent circumstances?
Conclusion
Yes. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the 5-4
plurality. The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment’s