People vs Galit

March 20, 1985

Facts:

On the morning of August 23, 1977, a widow Natividad Fernando was found dead in the
bedroom of her house in Montalban, Rizal with seven stab wounds on different parts of her body
and stole cash money of undetermined amount. The police authorities accused Francisco Galit of
murder and was brought to NBI for investigation headed by NBI Agent Carlos Flores. On the
following day, Galit admitted that he participated in the commission of the crime stating Juling
and Pabling Dulay as his companions. He was charged a crime of Robbery with Homicide.

Issue:

Whether or not the confession of Francisco Galit is an inadmissible evidence of lack of

Ruling:

The confession are inadmissible as evidence because they were obtained in a manner
contrary to law. The trial courts should be careful in looking into the circumstances in taking the
confession of an accused especially when he claims that he has been maltreated into giving one.
When a person is arrested it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the
reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest. He shall be informed of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel that any statement he might make could be
used against him. He shall have the right to communicate his lawyer or relative by telephone or
letter. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless there’s a presence of a counsel
engaged by the person arrested or appointed by the court upon petition by the detainee himself.
The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the
assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure laid shall be
inadmissible in evidence.
People vs Ordoo
June 29, 2000

Facts:

On August 5 1994, the body of a 15 year old girl, Shirley Victore, resident of La Union
was found among the bushes near a bridge ing Brgy. Poblacion, Santol, La Union who was
reported missing 3 days ago. A medico-legal officer of NBI revealed that she was a raped victim
who strangled to death. Pacito Ordoo and Apolonio Medina were suspected as the authors of the
crime. The police invited the two to the police station for questioning. However, for the lack of
evidence they were allowed to go home. On August 10, they returned to the police station and
acknowledged that they had committed the crime. The police thereupon conducted as
investigation and put their confessions in writing. The investigators could not have a service of a
lawyer to assist the course of the investigation. Before doing so, the accused were apprised of
their constitutional rights to remain silent and to be assisted by a counsel of their choice. But they
also understood their rights and did not require the services of counsel and the service was
conducted with the Municipal Mayor, Chief of Police, Police officer to listen and witness the
giving voluntary statements of the suspects who admitted their participation in the crime but
pleaded not guilty in arraignment.

Issue:

Whether or not the confession of Pacito Ordoo and Apolonio Medina is an inadmissible
evidence of lack of counsel to assist them during custodial investigation.

Ruling:

The Constitution states that in order for confession to be admissible evidence must satisfy
four fundamental requisites: (1) the confession must be voluntary (2) the confession must be
made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel (3) the confession must be
express and (4) the confession must be in writing. The person being interrogated must be assisted
by a counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced confessions. If there is
no counsel at the start of the custodial investigation any statements elicited from the accused is
inadmissible in evidence against him. The exclusionary rule is premised on the presumption that
the defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere through police interrogation procedure
where the compulsion is forcefully apparent.
In the case at bar, the custodial investigation began when the accused voluntarily went to
the police station to confess and the investigating officer started asking question to elicit
information. The right of the accused to counsel automatically and after informing them their
rights the police sought to provide them with counsel however, none could be furnished due to
non-availability of practicing lawyers in Santol, La Union. The police should have already
desisted from continuing with the interrogation but they persisted and gained consent of the
accused to proceed.
People vs Lugod
February 21, 2001

Facts:

On September 16, 1997 an eight year old girl, Nairube Ramos was dump in the grassy
coconut plantation area which resulted in her death due to shock secondary to vulvar laceration
commited by Clemente John Lugod who by means force intimidation with lewd design did
willful, unlawful and felonious canal knowledge against her will. The Regional Trial Court
rendered a decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with
homicide.

Issue:

Whether or not the confession made my Clemente John Lugod was admissible.

Ruling:

No. The confession made my Lugod is inadmissible. He was not informed of his right to
remain silent and to counsel. There is no evidence to indicate that he intended to waive these
rights. Even if he did, in order to be valid, the waiver must be made in writing and with the
assistance of counsel and his act of confessing to SPO Gallardo without the assistance of counsel
cannot be used against him for having transgressed rights under the Bill of Rights which cannot
be ignored or disregarded no matter how brutal the crime committed may be.
Equal inadmissible for being integral parts of the uncounseled admission are the
photographs of subsequent acts which the accused was made to do in order to obtain proof to
support such admission or confession while executing the act.
The act of the police which they brought Lugod to the police station cannot be
characterized as having been voluntarily made considering the peculiar circumstance
surrounding his detention when the whole police force was nearly 100 of the townspeople where
antagonistic towards the accused and wanted to hurt him and it was also highly intimidation and
not conducive to a spontaneous response. Amidst such coercive atmosphere he was beaten up
and maltreated by the police officers raises a very serious doubt as to the voluntariness of his
confession.
People vs Edralin Taboga
February 6, 2002

Facts:

On April 1, 1998 Edralin Taboga with intent to gain and violence against persons, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of Francisca Tubon and with treachery
and abuse of superior strength assault, attack and stab her inflicting upon mortal wounds which
caused her death. After which he feloniously take, stea, and carry away 3 finger rings and one
necklace with pendant, one vial of perfume and four gantang of rice all belonging to Tubon. He
was charged robbery with homicide.

Issue:

Whether or not extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence.

Ruling:

The extrajudicial confession is not admissible. Taboga claimed that the policemen
maltreated him by hitting him four times on the head with a chair and forced him to admit the
crimes. He failed to present convincing evidence to substantiate his claim. In considering
voluntariness of the confession, they should complain to the officers who administered the oaths,
they should institute criminal and administrative action against intimidators for maltreatment and
have appeared marks of violence on their bodies and they should examined by reputable
physician to buttress their claim.
The accused confession is replete with details on the manner in which the crimes were
committed thereby ruling out the probability that it was involuntarily made. It may be inferred
from its language that the confession exhibits not sign of suspicious circumstances to cast doubt
upon its integrity which could be supplied only by the accused. If a confession be free and
voluntary – the deliberate act of the accused with a full comprehension of its significance, there
is no impediment to its admission as evidence, and it becomes evidence of a high order; since it
is supported by the presumption – a very strong presumption – that no person of normal mind
will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be a perpetrator of a crime, especially if it be
a serious crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience.
Under Rule 133, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, an extrajudicial confession made by an
accused shall not be a sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence
ofcorpus delicti.  As defined, it means the body of the crime and, in its primary sense, means a
crime has actually been committed. Applied to a particular offense, it is the actual commission
by someone of the particular crime charged. In the case at bar, the confession made by accused-
appellant was corroborated by several items found by the authorities, to wit: the knife which was
used to kill the victim and the charred body of the victim. The court a quo did not err in
admitting in evidence accused-appellant’s taped confession.  Such confession did not form part
of custodial investigation.  It was not given to police officers but to a media man in an apparent
attempt to elicit sympathy.  The record even discloses that accused-appellant admitted to
the Barangay Captain that he clubbed and stabbed the victim even before the police started
investigating him at the police station. Besides, if he had indeed been forced into confessing, he
could have easily asked help from the newsman.  Even assuming for the nonce that the extra-
judicial confession was indeed inadmissible, this will not absolve accused-appellant from
criminal liability because there exists independent evidence to establish his authorship of the
victim’s death.  While there was no prosecution witness who positively identified accused-
appellant as the assailant of the victim, his culpability was nonetheless proven through
circumstantial evidence.
People vs Baloloy
381 scra 31

Facts:

In the evening of August 3, 1996 a dead body of an 11 year old girl, Genelyn Camacho
was found by Juanito Baloloy who claimed that he had caught sight of it while he was catching
frogs in nearby creek. Based on his extrajudicial confession with circumstantial evidence
Genelyn’s misfortunate was pinned on him. He seeks that his confession be disregarded for
having been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and his conviction on mere
circumstantial evidence be set aside.

Issue:

Whether or not Baloloy’s confession was admissible based on circumstantial evidence.

Ruling:

No. the confession of Baloloy is not admissible based on circumstantial evidence. The
constitutional provision of custodial investigation does not apply to a spontaneous statement, not
elicited through questioning by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the
suspect orally admits having committed the crime not can it apply to admissions or confessions
made by a suspect in the commission of a crime before he is placed under investigation. The
constitution bars the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. The rights
under section 12 of the Constitution are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by
the state as would lead the accused to admit something false not to prevent him from voluntarily
telling the truth.
In the case at bar, he admitted ownership of the black rose and narrated to Ceniza that he
raped Genelyn and threw her body into the ravine. This was a spontaneous answer, freely and
voluntarily given before he was arrested or placed under custody for investigation. In the claim
of Juanito’s constitutional rights during custodial investigation were violated by Jude Dicon
when he propounded him incriminating questions without informing him of his constitutional
rights. At the moment the accused voluntarily surrender, the police officer’s custodial
investigation has already started. It is true that Juanito’s extrajudicial confession before Judge
Dicon was made without the advice and assistance of counsel and hence inadmissible in
evidence, it could however be treated as a verbal admission of the accused, which could be
established through the testimonies of the persons who heard it or who conducted the
investigation of the accused. Juanito’s defense of alibi is futile because of his own admission that
he was at the scene of the crime.  Alibi is a defense that places an accused at the relevant time of
a crime in a place other than the scene involved and so removed therefrom as to render it
impossible for him to be the guilty party. Likewise, a denial that is unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence is a negative and self-serving evidence, which cannot be accorded greater
evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matter