Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People of The Philippines Vs Antonio Lauga

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Gabriel Soriano
    122 views1 page
    The appellant was accused of raping his 13-year old daughter. At trial, the daughter and her brother testified against the appellant. A "bantay bayan" also testified that the appellant confessed to raping his daughter because he could not control himself. The appellant contested the admissibility of his confession and the credibility of the witnesses. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the confession to the "bantay bayan" was inadmissible because "bantay bayan" have law enforcement functions and the confession was obtained without informing the appellant of his rights; and (2) the minor inconsistency between the daughter and brother's testimonies did not undermine their credibility. The Court affirmed the appellant

    Original Description:

    Admissibility of extrajudicial confession made to a bantay bayan.

    Original Title

    People of the Philippines vs Antonio Lauga

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The appellant was accused of raping his 13-year old daughter. At trial, the daughter and her brother testified against the appellant. A "bantay bayan" also testified that the appellant confessed to raping his daughter because he could not control himself. The appellant contested the admissibility of his confession and the credibility of the witnesses. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the confession to the "bantay bayan" was inadmissible because "bantay bayan" have law enforcement functions and the confession was obtained without informing the appellant of his rights; and (2) the minor inconsistency between the daughter and brother's testimonies did not undermine their credibility. The Court affirmed the appellant

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    122 views1 page

    People of The Philippines Vs Antonio Lauga

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Gabriel Soriano
    The appellant was accused of raping his 13-year old daughter. At trial, the daughter and her brother testified against the appellant. A "bantay bayan" also testified that the appellant confessed to raping his daughter because he could not control himself. The appellant contested the admissibility of his confession and the credibility of the witnesses. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the confession to the "bantay bayan" was inadmissible because "bantay bayan" have law enforcement functions and the confession was obtained without informing the appellant of his rights; and (2) the minor inconsistency between the daughter and brother's testimonies did not undermine their credibility. The Court affirmed the appellant

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

    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.

    You might also like