Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People of The Philippines Vs Antonio Lauga
People of The Philippines Vs Antonio Lauga
ANTONIO LAUGA
G.R. No. 186228 | March 15, 2010 | PEREZ, J.:
FACTS: The appellant was accused of the crime of QUALIFIED RAPE for having carnal
knowledge with his own daughter, a 13 years old minor.
During the trial, three (3) witnesses testified for the prosecution, namely: the victim AAA; her
brother BBB; and one Moises Boy Banting, a "bantay bayan" in the barangay.
AAA testified that BBB accompanied her to the house of their grandmother. Thereafter, they,
together with her relatives, proceeded to look for a "bantay bayan." On the other hand, BBB
testified that he brought her sister to the house of their "bantay bayan" after he learned of
the incident.
At the police outpost, appellant admitted to Moises Boy Banting that he raped AAA because
he was unable to control himself.
The RTC found him guilty of rape qualified by relationship and minority. The CA affirmed the
decision of the RTC.
Appellant contests the admissibility in evidence of his alleged confession with a "bantay
bayan" and the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution due to the alleged
inconsistencies in their testimony.
ISSUE:
(a) Whether the extrajudicial confession before a “bantay bayan” is admissible as evidence
(b) Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA and her brother BBB inevitably
concludes that the story is a lie
RULING:
(a) NO. A barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the
case of the "bantay bayan," are recognized by the local government unit to perform functions
relating to the preservation of peace and order at the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on
the legality of the actions taken by Moises Boy Banting, and the specific scope of duties and
responsibilities delegated to a "bantay bayan," particularly on the authority to conduct a
custodial investigation, any inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function and
objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for
under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is
concerned.
Therefore, the extrajudicial confession of appellant, which was taken without a counsel, is
inadmissible in evidence.
NOTE: In People vs. Malngan (G.R. No. 170470), barangay tanods, including the Barangay
Chairman, are deemed as law enforcement officers for purposes of applying Article III,
Section 12(1) and (3), of the Constitution.
(b) NO. Both testified that they sought the help of a "bantay bayan." Their respective
testimonies differ only as to when the help was sought for, which this Court could well
attribute to the nature of the testimony of BBB, a shortcut version of AAA’s testimony that
dispensed with a detailed account of the incident. The assailed inconsistency is too trivial
to affect the veracity of the testimonies. In fact, inconsistencies which refer to minor, trivial
or inconsequential circumstances even strengthen the credibility of the witnesses, as they
erase doubts that such testimonies have been coached or rehearsed.