8TH SET

TOPIC: Right of Persons Under Custodial (b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had
Investigation a long and expansive historical development, is the
essential mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees
Miranda vs. Arizona 384 US 436 to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he
FACTS: Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix due to chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own
circumstantial evidence that he had been involved in a will," during a period of custodial interrogation as well as
kidnapping and rape. He confessed to the charges in the courts or during the course of other official
following a lengthy interrogation and signed a statement investigations.
that said the confession was made knowingly and
voluntarily. Miranda never was told of his right to remain (c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478,
silent, of his right to have a lawyer, or of the fact that any stressed the need for protective devices to make the
of his statements during the interrogation could be used process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of
against him in court. He objected to the introduction of the the privilege.
written copy of his confession into evidence at trial, stating (d) In the absence of other effective measures, the
that his ignorance of his rights made the confession following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment
involuntary. privilege must be observed: the person in custody must,
In each of these cases, the defendant, while in police prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has
custody, was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a the right to remain silent, and that anything he says
prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off will be used against him in court; he must be clearly
from the outside world. None of the defendants was given informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer
a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation,
interrogation process. In all four cases, the questioning and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to
elicited oral admissions, and, in three of them, signed represent him.
statements as well, which were admitted at their trials. All (e) If the individual indicates, prior to or during
defendants were convicted, and all convictions, except in questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the
No. 584, were affirmed on appeal. interrogation must cease; if he states that he wants an
ISSUE: Whether or Not Constitutional rights of persons attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is
under custodial investigation is violated. present.

HELD: (f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the

presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy
1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the
exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to
initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has counsel.
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way, unless it (g) Where the individual answers some questions during
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to in-custody interrogation, he has not waived his privilege,
secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self- and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter.
incrimination. (h) The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in
(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to
interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating, the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or
and works to undermine the privilege against self- exculpatory, made by a defendant.
incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are 2. The limitations on the interrogation process required for
taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial the protection of the individual's constitutional rights
surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant should not cause an undue interference with a proper
can truly be the product of his free choice. system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the
 8TH SET
procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded in other (1) Any person under investigation for the
jurisdictions. commission of an offense shall have the right
to be informed of his right to remain silent and
3. In each of these cases, the statements were obtained to have competent and independent counsel
under circumstances that did not meet constitutional preferably of his own choice. If the person
standards for protection of the privilege against self- cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be
incrimination.
waived except in writing and in the presence
of counsel.
TOPIC: Custodial Investigation (2) No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
CASE# 189: PEOPLE VS LUGOD the free will shall be used against him. Secret
GR. NO. 136253 detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
FACTS:
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in
Accused Clemente John Lugod, by means force
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
and intimidation and with lewd designs, did then and there inadmissible in evidence against him.
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge with one NAIRUBE J. RAMOS, an eight-year (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil
old girl, against her will and by reason or on the same sanctions for violations of this section as well as
occasion and in order to hide the crime he just committed, compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of
dump the victim in the grassy coconut plantation area, torture or similar practices, and their families.
which resulted in her death due to shock secondary to
Records reveal that accused-appellant was not
vulvar laceration committed on her by the herein accused, informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel, and
to the damage and prejudice of the surviving heirs of the that if he cannot afford to have counsel of his choice, he
victim. would be provided with one. Moreover, there is no
evidence to indicate that he intended to waive these rights.
FLORO ESGUERRA, the Vice-Mayor of Cavinti, Besides, even if he did waive these rights, in order to be
testified that on September 19, 1997 at around 3:30 p.m., valid, the waiver must be made in writing and with the
assistance of counsel. Consequently, the accused-
he attended the funeral of Nairube. After the funeral, he
appellant's act of confessing to SPO2 Gallardo that he
visited the accused in his cell. In the course of his
raped and killed Nairube without the assistance of counsel
conversation with the accused, the accused confessed to cannot be used against him for having transgressed
the commission of the offense. accused-appellant's rights under the Bill of Rights. This is
ISSUE: a basic tenet of our Constitution which cannot be
disregarded or ignored no matter how brutal the crime
WON the constitutional rights specified in Section committed may be. In the same vein, the accused-
12, Article III of the Constitution of the accused has been appellant's act in pointing out the location of the body of
violated. Nairube was also elicited in violation of the accused-
HELD: appellant's right to remain silent. The same was an integral
There is no question that at the time of his part of the uncounseled confession and is considered a
apprehension, accused-appellant was already placed under fruit of the poisonous tree. 
arrest and was suspected of having something to do with
the disappearance of Nairube. In fact, the lower court (WHEREFORE, the Regional Trial Court in Criminal
declared that accused-appeIlant's warrantless arrest was Case No. SC-6670 finding the accused Clemente John
valid based on Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Lugod alias "HONASAN", guilty of the crime of rape with
Court. However, at the time of his arrest, the apprehending homicide is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
officers did not inform the accused-appellant and in fact
acted in a blatant and wanton disregard of his accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the crime charged
constitutional rights specified in Section 12, Article III of on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ordered
the Constitution, which provides: immediately RELEASED from confinement unless held
for some other legal cause. )
 8TH SET
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprive of
his freedom of action in any significant way. This concept
CASE# 190: People vs Del Rosario of custodial investigation has been broadened by RA 7438
42 to include "the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a
FACTS:
person who is investigated in connection with an offense
Del Rosario was accused as co-principal in the
he is suspected to have committed."
crime of Robbery with Homicide being the driver of the
getaway vehicle.
CASE# 191: People vs. Bolanos
(ACQUITTED. His claim for exemption from criminal
G.R. No. 101808 July 3, 1992
liability under Art. 12, par. 5, Revised Penal Code as he
FACTS:
acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force must be
Patrolmen Rolando Alcantara and Francisco
sustained. He was then unarmed and unable to protect
Dayao testified that they proceeded to the scene of the
himself when he was prevented at gunpoint by his co-
crime of the Marble Supply, Balagtas, Bulacan and upon
accused from leaving the crime scene during the
arrival they saw the deceased Oscar Pagdalian lying on an
perpetration of the robbery and killing, and was only
improvised bed full of blood with stab wounds. They then
forced to help them escape after the commission of the
inquired about the circumstances of the incident and were
crime.)
informed that the deceased was with two (2) companions,
He further contends that there was violation of his right to
on the previous night, one of whom was the accused who
remain silent, right to have competent and independent
had a drinking spree with the deceased and another
counsel preferably of his own choice, and right to be
companion (Claudio Magtibay) till the wee hours of the
informed of these rights as enshrined and guaranteed in the
following morning, June 23, 1990.
Bill of Rights.
The corroborating testimony of Patrolmen Francisco
Dayao, further indicated that when they apprehend the
ISSUE:
accused-appellant, they found the firearm of the deceased
WON accused was deprived of his rights during
on the chair where the accused was allegedly seated; that
custodial investigation.
they boarded Ramon Bolanos and Claudio Magtibay on
the police vehicle and brought them to the police station.
HELD: In the vehicle where the suspect was riding, "Ramon
YES. From the time he was "invited" for Bolanos accordingly admitted that he killed the deceased
questioning at the house of the barangay captain, he was Oscar Pagdalian because he was abusive."
already under effective custodial investigation, but he was
not apprised nor made aware thereof by the investigating
ISSUE:
officers. The police already knew the name of the tricycle
Whether or not the extra-judicial confession of
driver and the latter was already a suspect in the robbing
appellant while on board the police patrol jeep is
and senseless slaying of the victim. Since the prosecution
admissible in evidence.
failed to establish that del Rosario had waived his right to
remain silent, his verbal admissions on his participation in
the crime even before his actual arrest were inadmissible RULING:
against him, as the same transgressed the safeguards NO.
provided by law and the Bill of Rights. Being already under custodial investigation while on board
the police patrol jeep on the way to the Police Station
where formal investigation may have been conducted,
Custodial investigation is the stage where the police
appellant should have been informed of his Constitutional
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987
unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular
Constitution which explicitly provides:
suspect taken into custody by the police who carry out a
(1) Any person under investigation for the
process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit
commission of an offense shall have the right to remain
incriminating statements. It is well-settled that it
silent and to have competent and independent preferably of
encompasses any question initiated by law enforces after a
 8TH SET
his own choice. If the person cannot afford the service of nearby, and "God forbid one of them might find a weapon
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights with shells and they might hurt themselves." Respondent
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of interrupted the conversation, stating that the officers
counsel. should turn the car around so he could show them where
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or the gun was located.
any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used Upon returning to the scene of the arrest where a
against him. Secret detention places, solitary, search for the shotgun was in progress, respondent was
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are again advised of his Miranda rights, replied that he
prohibited. understood those rights, but that he "wanted to get the gun
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation out of the way because of the kids in the area in the
of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in school," and then led the police to the shotgun. Before trial
evidence against him. on charges of kidnaping, robbery, and murder of another
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions taxicab driver, the trial court denied respondent's motion to
for violation of this section as well as compensation and suppress the shotgun and the statement he had made to the
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices and police regarding its discovery, ruling that respondent had
their families. waived his Miranda rights, and respondent was
subsequently convicted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court
set aside the conviction and held that respondent was
Considering the clear requirements of the Constitution entitled to a new trial, concluding that respondent had
with respect to the manner by which confession can be invoked his Miranda right to counsel and that, contrary to
admissible in evidence, and the glaring fact that the alleged Miranda's mandate that, in the absence of counsel, all
confession obtained while on board the police vehicle was custodial interrogation then cease, the police officers in the
the only reason for the conviction, besides appellant's vehicle had "interrogated" respondent without a valid
conviction was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, this waiver of his right to counsel.
Court has no recourse but to reverse the subject judgment ISSUE: WON the interrogation made violated the right
under review. The appellant is ACQUITTED. under Miranda

CASE# 192: Rhode Island V. Innis

FACTS:
Shortly after a taxicab driver, who had been
HELD:
robbed by a man wielding a sawed-off shotgun, identified
a picture of respondent as that of his assailant, a Respondent was not "interrogated" in violation of
Providence, R.I., patrolman spotted respondent, who was his right under Miranda to remain silent until he had
unarmed, on the street, arrested him, and advised him of consulted with a lawyer
his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436.
(a) The Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a
When other police officers arrived at the arrest person in custody is subjected to either express questioning
scene, respondent was twice again advised of his Miranda or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term
rights, and he stated that he understood his rights and "interrogation" under Miranda refers not only to express
wanted to speak with a lawyer. Respondent was then questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of
placed in a police car to be driven to the central station in the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest
the company of three officers, who were instructed not to and custody) that the police should know are reasonably
question respondent or intimidate him in any way. likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.
The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon
While en route to the station, two of the officers
the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the
engaged in a conversation between themselves concerning
police. Pp. 446 U. S. 298-302.
the missing shotgun. One of the officers stated that there
were "a lot of handicapped children running around in this (b) Here, there was no express questioning of respondent;
area" because a school for such children was located the conversation between the two officers was, at least in
 8TH SET
form, nothing more than a dialogue between them to which
no response from respondent was invited. Moreover, When the Q & A period started, the first thing
respondent was not subjected to the "functional Atty. Viernes did was to explain to Mahinay his right to
equivalent" of questioning, since it cannot be said that the remain silent, the right of a counsel of his own choice and
officers should have known that their conversation was to be provided with one if he has no lawyer or cannot
reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from effort one, and the right to refuse to answer any question
that would incriminate him, all under the Constitution.
respondent. There is nothing in the record to suggest that
These rights were reduced in writing, and Mahinay signed
the officers were aware that respondent was peculiarly
the paper containing the rights in Viernes’s presence.
susceptible to an appeal to his conscience concerning the Regarding the waiver of rights, Atty. Viernes was also
safety of handicapped children, or that the police knew that presence when Mahinay signed the waiver. Before
respondent was unusually disoriented or upset at the time Mahinay did so, Viernes explained in Filipino the meaning
of his arrest. Nor does the record indicate that, in the of the waiver.
context of a brief conversation, the officers should have
known that respondent would suddenly be moved to make Considering the heavy penalty of death and to
a self-incriminating response. While it may be said that ensure that the evidence was obtained through lawful
respondent was subjected to "subtle compulsion," it must means, guidelines which the arresting, detaining, inviting,
also be established that a suspect's incriminating response or investigating officer must do at the time of arrest and at
was the product of words or actions on the part of the and during custodial investigation were established. The
police that they should have known were reasonably likely following are the guidelines:
to elicit an incriminating response, which was not
1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under
established here. custodial investigation must be informed in a
language known to and understood by him of
the reason for the arrest and he must be shown
CASE# 193: People vs. Mahinay, the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other
302 SCRA 455 (1999) warnings, information or communication must
be in a language known to and understood by
FACTS: One evening, appellant Larry Mahinay, the said person;
houseboy of Maria Isip, went to Norgina Rivera’s store to
buy some lugaw. Norgina noticed that Mahinay was in 2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain
deep thought and uneasy. That same night, Elvira Chan silent and that any statement he makes may be
noticed that her daughter, Maria Victoria, was missing. used as evidence against him;
Her body was found inside the septic tank the next
morning. An autopsy concluded that she was killed via 3. He must be informed that he has the right to be
strangulation and was raped. Eventually, appellant assisted at all times and have the presence of an
Mahinay was found, arrested, and taken to the police independent and competent lawyer, preferably
station. With the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes, of his own choice;
Mahinay executed an extra-judicial confession detailing
the manner of Victoria’s rape and death. In open court, 4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or
however, Mahinay claimed that two other men, Zaldy and cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will
Boyet, came to him with the cadaver of the girl. The two be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also
of them forced him to have sex with the body, but he be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may
refused. The rial court later found him guilty of Rape. be appointed by the court upon petition of the
person arrested or one acting in his behalf;
Mahinay now questions the evidence against him,
particularly that his extrajudicial confession was executed 5. That whether or not the person arrested has a
without the presence of his counsel. lawyer, he must be informed that no custodial
investigation in any form shall be conducted
ISSUE: Is the extrajudicial confession admissible? except in the presence of his counsel or after a
valid waiver has been made;
RULING: YES. The lawyer testified in court that he
assisted, warned, and explained to the appellant his 6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any
constitutionally guaranteed pre-interrogatory and custodial time, he has the right to communicate or confer
rights. by the most expedient means telephone, radio,
 8TH SET
letter or messenger with his lawyer (either About two months later, the crime of estafa was filed
retained or appointed), any member of his against him.
immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest
or minister chosen by him or by any one from By Order, Respondent Judge Ayson admitted all the
his immediate family or by his counsel, or be exhibits "as part of the testimony of the witnesses who
visited by/confer with duly accredited national testified in connection therewith except Exhibits A and K
or international non-government organization. It which appears to be the private respondent’s
shall be the responsibility of the officer to handwritten note expressing his willingness to settle the
ensure that this is accomplished; irregularities alleged against him as well as his
statement during an administrative investigation where
7. He must be informed that he has the right to he admitted to the offense. According to respondent
waive any of said rights provided it is made Judge, Exhibits A & K is "inadmissible in evidence, it
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and appearing that it is the statement of accused in an
ensure that he understood the same; investigation conducted by the Branch Manager wherein
the accused was not reminded of this constitutional
8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right rights to remain silent and to have counsel, and that
to a lawyer, he must be informed that it must be when he waived the same and gave his statement.
done in writing AND in the presence of ISSUE: Whether the statements voluntarily offered by the
counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the accused in an administrative investigation (not informed of
waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver his Miranda rights) inadmissible as evidence before the
and chooses to speak; courts
9. That the person arrested must be informed that he RULING:
may indicate in any manner at any time or stage
At the core of the controversy is Section 20, Article IV
of the process that he does not wish to be
of the 1973 Constitution, to which respondent Judge
questioned with warning that once he makes
has given a construction that is disputed by the People. It
such indication, the police may not interrogate
should at once be apparent that there are two (2) rights, or
him if the same had not yet commenced, or the
sets of rights, dealt with in the section, namely:
interrogation must ceased if it has already
begun; 1) the right against self-incrimination — i.e., the right of
a person not to be compelled to be a witness against
10. The person arrested must be informed that his himself — set out in the first sentence, which is a verbatim
initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the reproduction of Section 18, Article III of the 1935
right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar Constitution, and is similar to that accorded by the Fifth
him from invoking it at any time during the Amendment of the American Constitution, 12 and
process, regardless of whether he may have
answered some questions or volunteered some 2) the rights of a person in custodial interrogation, i.e.,
statements; the rights of every suspect "under investigation for the
commission of an offense."
11. He must also be informed that any statement or It should by now be abundantly apparent that
evidence, as the case may be, obtained in respondent Judge has misapprehended the nature and
violation of any of the foregoing, whether import of the disparate rights set forth in Section 20,
inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. In so doing, he has
shall be inadmissible in evidence. grossly erred.
It is clear from the undisputed facts of this case that
TOPIC: Administrative Investigation Felipe Ramos was not in any sense under custodial
CASE# 194: PEOPLE vs. HON. JUDGE RUBEN interrogation, as the term should be properly understood,
AYSON prior to and during the administrative inquiry into the
discovered irregularities in ticket sales in which he
FACTS: Private respondent Felipe Ramos was a ticket appeared to have had a hand. The constitutional rights of
freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines (PAL), assigned a person under custodial interrogation under Section 20,
at its Baguio City station. There were allegations that he Article IV of the 1973 Constitution did not therefore come
was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, into play, were of no relevance to the inquiry. It is also
the PAL management notified him of an administrative clear, too, that Ramos had voluntarily answered
investigation to be conducted into the matter.
 8TH SET
questions posed to him on the first day of the When asked about this, Malla said that she
administrative investigation and agreed that the deposited the money at PNB, but she withdrew it thinking
proceedings should be recorded, the record having that Dizon would demand the money. She also admitted to
thereafter been marked during the trial of the criminal giving some of the money to Lagmay and Mercado, other
action as Exhibit A, just as it is obvious that the note steno-reporters, and used some more for the hospitalization
marked as Exhibit K shows that he sent to his superiors, of her husband. The remaining balance was used for
the day before the investigation, offering to compromise personal purposes. She later executed an affidavit stating
his liability in the alleged irregularities, was a free and that only Lagmay and Mercado borrowed Php 55,000.00
even spontaneous act on his part. and Php 40,000.00, respectively. On the other hand Mallo
used only Php 100,000.00 She was charged with
Misappropriating Funds deposited by the plaintiff of the
Further, it suffices to draw attention to the specific and civil case.
peremptory requirement of the law that disciplinary
sanctions may not be imposed on any employee by his Mallo is claiming that the affidavit was signed by
employer until and unless the employee has been her under pressure before the Officer of the Court
accorded due process. The requirement entails the Administrator. This is in violation of §12, Article III of
making of statements, oral or written, by the employee the Constitution. Thus, her affidavit is inadmissible.
under such administrative investigation in his defense,
with opportunity to solicit the assistance of counsel, or his ISSUE: Is Mallo’s affidavit still admissible?
colleagues and friends. The employee may, of course,
refuse to submit any statement at the investigation, that RULING: YES. The aforementioned constitutional
is his privilege. provision may be invoked only during custodial
investigation — defined as questioning initiated by law
But if he should opt to do so, in his defense to the enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
accusation against him, it would be absurd to reject his custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
statements, whether at the administrative investigation, or ay significant way. The “law enforcement” in this
at a subsequent criminal action brought against him, definition will include the P.N.P., the N.B.I., and such
because he had not been accorded, prior to his making other police agencies in the government. Thus, the Office
and presenting them, his "Miranda rights" (to silence of the Court Administrator can hardly be deemed to be the
and to counsel and to be informed thereof, etc.) which, to law enforcement authority contemplated in the
repeat, are relevant only in custodial investigations. constitutional provision.
Indeed, it is self-evident that the employee's statements,
whether called "position paper," "answer," etc., are During her investigation, Malla repeated was she
submitted by him precisely so that they may be admitted basically stated in her affidavit. This effetely refutes
and duly considered by the investigating officer or whatever pressure and coercion she claims was employed
committee, in negation or mitigation of his liability. against her. By repeating her confession in open court,
Malla thereby converted it into a judicial confession.
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted annulling
and setting aside the Orders of the respondent Judge in
CASE# 196: People VS UY (GR NO. 157399)
Criminal Case No. 3488-R, dated August 9, 1988 and
September 14, 1988, and he is hereby ordered to admit in
evidence Exhibits "A" and "K" of the prosecution FACTS: The accused, Uy, Gamus and Ochoa, public
officers being employed by the National Power
Corporation (NAPOCOR), was charged for allegedly
CASE# 195: Office of the Court Administrator vs.
diverting and collecting funds of the National Power
Sumilang, 271 SCRA 316 (1997)
Corporation (NPC) intended for the purchase of US
FACTS: The fiscal Audit Division of the Office of the Dollars from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB)
Court Administrator conducted an on-the-spot audit for the amount of P183,805,291.25 was indicted before the
examination. It yielded several anomalous transactions. Sandiganbayan for the complex crime of Malversation
One of them involved a manager’s check deposited in the through Falsification of Commercial Documents for
name of Teodorico Dizon in connection with a civil case.
conspiring, confederating with the private co-accused
In said case, the plaintiff thereof entrusted Php 240,000.00
to Respondent Felicidad Malla, steno-reporter of the MTC, where they falsify or cause to be falsified the NPC’s
instead to the Clerk of Court. application for the managers check with the Philippine
National Bank (PNB). Sandigan Bayan rendered a decision
 8TH SET
acquitting Uy, and Ochoa being found guilty for the said NPC inquiry and should not be confused or lumped
crime and is ordered to pay the equal amount malversed together with the latter.
solidarily with Uy. Ochoa then appealed, He claims that
his conviction was based on the alleged sworn statement TOPIC: Police Lineup
and the transcript of stenographic notes of a supposed
#197: GAMBOA vs. CRUZ 162
interview with appellant NPC personnel and the report of
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Appellant Petitioner alleges that he was arrested for vagrancy,
maintains that he signed the sworn statement while without a warrant of arrest, by Patrolman Arturo Palencia.
confined at the Heart Center and upon assurance it would Thereafter, petitioner was brought to Precinct 2, Manila,
not be used against him. He was not assisted by counsel where he was booked for vagrancy and then detained
nor was he apprised of his constitutional rights when he therein together with several others. During the lineup of
executed the affidavit. five detainees, including petitioner, complainant pointed to
petitioner and said, "that one is a companion." Petitioner,
by counsel, instead of presenting his defense, manifested
in open court that he was filing a Motion to Acquit or
ISSUE: Demurrer to Evidence. Petitioner filed said Motion
Whether or not the constitutional rights of the accused predicated on the ground that the conduct of the line-up,
were violated? without notice to, and in the absence of, his counsel
violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due
RULING: process.
The decision of the Sandiganbayan is affirmed.
Considering that his statement was taken during the ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s right to counsel and to
administrative investigation of NPC’s audit team and due process was violated during the police lineup.
before he was taken into custody. As such, the inquest was
RULING: The rights to counsel and to due process of law
still a general inquiry into an unsolved offense. Neither
are indeed two (2) of the fundamental rights guaranteed by
does the constitutional provision on custodial investigation
the Constitution.
extends to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through
questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary On the right to counsel, Sec. 20, Art. IV of the Bill of
manner whereby the accused orally admits having Rights of the 1973 Constitution provides that, “No person
committed the crime, nor to a person undergoing an audit shall be compelled to be a witness against himself Any
examination because an audit examiner is not a law person under investigation for the commission of an
enforcement officer. Thus, the flaw in appellants argument offense shall have the right to remain silent and to
in this regard becomes immediately apparent via the counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force,
foregoing legal yardsticks, considering that his statement violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
was taken during the administrative investigation of NPCs vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any
audit team and before he was taken into custody. As such, confession obtained in violation of this section shall be
the inquest was still a general inquiry into an unsolved inadmissible in evidence.” The same guarantee, although
offense at the time and there was, as yet, no specific worded in a different manner, is included in the 1987
suspect. Constitution. Section 12 (1, 2 & 3), Article III thereof
provides: (1) Any person under investigation for the
Appellant cannot claim that he is in police custody because commission of an offense shall have the right to be
he was confined at the time at Heart Center and he gave informed of his right to remain silent and to have
this statement to NPC personnel, not to police authorities. competent and independent counsel preferably of his
The interview where the sworn statement is based was own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
conducted by NPC personnel for NPC’s administrative counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
investigation. Any investigation conducted by the NBI is a cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
separate proceeding, distinct and independent from the counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free
 8TH SET
will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, Whether or not the lineup conducted without notice
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of and in the absence of Wade’s counsel violated his Fifth
detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or and Sixth Amendments.
admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.” RULING: No.

The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an Neither the lineup itself nor anything shown by
investigation, i.e. when the investigating officer starts to this record that Wade was required to do in the lineup
ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or violated his privilege against self-incrimination. The
admissions from the respondent/accused. At such point or Court have only recently reaffirmed that the privilege
stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by "protects an accused only from being compelled to testify
counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false against himself, or otherwise provide the State with
or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature. . . ."
person undergoing interrogation, for the commission of an Moreover, it deserves emphasis that this case presents no
offense. Any person under investigation must, among question of the admissibility in evidence of anything Wade
other things, be assisted by counsel. Accordingly, in said or did at the lineup which implicates his privilege.
several cases, this Court has consistently held that no The Government offered no such evidence as part of its
custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in case, and what came out about the lineup proceedings on
the presence of counsel, engaged by the person arrested, or Wade's cross-examination of the bank employees involved
by any person in his behalf, or appointed by the court upon no violation of Wade's privilege.
petition either of the detainee himself, or by anyone in his The fact that the lineup involved no violation of
behalf, and that, while the right may be waived, the waiver Wade's privilege against self-incrimination does not,
shall not be valid unless made in writing and in the however, dispose of his contention that the courtroom
presence of counsel. As aptly observed, however, by the identifications should have been excluded because the
Solicitor General, the police line-up (at least, in this lineup was conducted without notice to, and in the absence
case) was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, of, his counsel. Our rejection of the right to counsel claim
petitioner was not yet entitled, at such stage, to counsel. in Schmerber rested on our conclusion in that case that
CASE# 198: UNITED STATES vs. WADE "[n]o issue of counsel's ability to assist petitioner in
respect of any rights he did possess is presented." In
Wade and two others were indicted for robbing an contrast, in this case, it is urged that the assistance of
insured bank in Texas. Wade was arrested and a counsel counsel at the lineup was indispensable to protect Wade's
was appointed to represent him. 15 days later, without a most basic right as a criminal defendant -- his right to a
notice to his counsel, an FBI agent arranged to have the fair trial at which the witnesses against him might be
two employees of said bank to observe a lineup made up meaningfully cross-examined.
of Wade and five or six other prisoners and conducted in a
courtroom of the local county courthouse. Each person in The Framers of the Bill of Rights envisaged a broader
the line wore strips of tape such as allegedly worn by the role for counsel than under the practice then prevailing in
robber, and, upon direction, each said something like "put England of merely advising his client in "matters of law,"
the money in the bag," the words allegedly uttered by the and eschewing any responsibility for "matters of fact."
robber. Both bank employees identified Wade in the lineup But his Sixth Amendment, his right to counsel, was
as the bank robber. Wade’s counsel then moved for a violated.
judgment of acquittal or, alternatively, to strike the bank
officials' courtroom identifications on the ground that The pretrial confrontation for purpose of
conduct of the lineup, without notice to and in the absence identification may take the form of a lineup, also known as
of his appointed counsel, violated his Fifth Amendment an "identification parade" or "showup," as in the present
privilege against self-incrimination and his Sixth case, or presentation of the suspect alone to the witness, as
Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. in Stovall v. Denno, supra. It is obvious that risks of
suggestion attend either form of confrontation and increase
ISSUE:
 8TH SET
the dangers inhering in eyewitness identification.  But   as both Wade and his counsel should have been notified of
is the case with secret interrogations, there is serious the impending lineup, and counsel's presence should have
difficulty in depicting what transpires at lineups and other been a requisite to conduct of the lineup, absent an
forms of identification confrontations. "Privacy results in "intelligent waiver." 
secrecy and this in turn results in a gap in our knowledge
as to what in fact goes on . . . ." For the same reasons, the #199: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs .
defense can seldom reconstruct the manner and mode of ANTHONY ESCORDIA
lineup identification for judge or jury at trial. Those Accused-appellant was found guilty of robbery with
participating in a lineup with the accused may often be rape and sentencing him to death and to pay private
police officers;  in any event, the participants' names are complainant Michelle Darunday the amounts of P3,650.00
rarely recorded or divulged at trial.  The impediments to an representing the amount taken by him, P50,000.00 as
objective observation are increased when the victim is the moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and
witness. Lineups are prevalent in rape and robbery the costs.
prosecutions and present a particular hazard that a victim's
understandable outrage may excite vengeful or spiteful Said accused, armed with a knife, took from Michelle
motives.  In any event, neither witnesses nor lineup Darunday the sums of P3,650.00 and on the occasion
participants are apt to be alert for conditions prejudicial to thereof had carnal knowledge with the complainant against
the suspect. And if they were, it would likely be of scant her will, and inside her room wherein she was temporarily
benefit to the suspect since neither witnesses nor lineup residing as a boarder and with aggravating circumstance
participants are likely to be schooled in the detection of that the said offense was committed inside the dwelling of
suggestive influences.  Improper influences may go the offended party and during nighttime the latter not
undetected by a suspect, guilty or not, who experiences the having given provocation for the offense.
emotional tension which we might expect in one being
confronted with potential accusers.  Even when he does ISSUE: Whether or not his constitutional rights were
observe abuse, if he has a criminal record he may be violated and the evidence against him were admissible.
reluctant to take the stand and open up the admission of
RULING:
prior convictions. Moreover, any protestations by the
suspect of the fairness of the lineup made at trial are likely Accused-appellant is acquitted on the ground of
to be in vain;  the jury's choice is between the accused's reasonable doubt.
unsupported version and that of the police officers
present.  In short, the accused's   inability effectively to
reconstruct at trial any unfairness that occurred at the
The cases at bar do not fall under paragraphs (a) or (c)
lineup may deprive him of his only opportunity
of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court. At the time of
meaningfully to attack the credibility of the witness'
his arrest, accused-appellant was not committing nor
courtroom identification.
attempting to commit a crime. As the arresting officers
What facts have been disclosed in specific cases about were not present when the crime was committed, they
the conduct of pretrial confrontations for identification could not have "personal knowledge of the facts and
illustrate both the potential for substantial prejudice to the circumstances of the commission of the crime" so as to
accused at that stage and the need for its revelation at trial. be justified in the belief that accused-appellant was guilty
A commentator provides some striking examples: Since it of the crime. The arresting officers had no reason for not
appears that there is grave potential for prejudice, securing a warrant.
intentional or not, in the pretrial lineup, which may not be
However, the records show that accused-appellant
capable of reconstruction at trial, and since presence of
pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged against him
counsel itself can often avert prejudice and assure a
during his arraignment without questioning his warrantless
meaningful confrontation at trial, there can be little doubt
arrest. He thus waived objection to the legality of his
that for Wade the post-indictment lineup was a critical
arrest. Nor was he an escaped prisoner whose arrest could
stage of the prosecution at which he was "as much entitled
be effected even without a warrant.
to such aid [of counsel] . . . as at the trial itself." Thus,
 8TH SET
As a rule, an accused is not entitled to the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the
assistance of counsel in a police line-up considering that offense is based on actual facts.)
such is usually not a part of the custodial inquest. An
out-of-court identification of an accused can be made in #200: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs . NIEL
various ways. In a showup, the accused alone is brought PIEDAD y CONSOLACION
face to face with the witness for identi fication, while in Accused Niel Piedad y Consolacion, Lito Garcia y
a police line-up, the suspect is identi fied by a witness Francisco and Richard Palma y Ider were charged with
from a group of persons gathered for that purpose. Murder. Accused with another person, whose true identity
During custodial investigation, these types of identification and other personal circumstances of which has as not yet
have been recognized as "critical confrontations of the been ascertained, did then and there hit Mateo Lactawan
accused by the prosecution" which necessitate the presence with an empty bottle on the head, ganging him up and
of counsel for the accused. This is because the results of mauling him, hitting him with a big stone on the head and
these pre-trial proceedings "might well settle the accused's stabbing him with a bladed weapon hitting him on the right
fate and reduce the trial itself to a mere formality." We back portion of his body, thereby inflicting upon him
have thus ruled that any identification of an uncounseled serious and grave wounds which were the direct and
accused made in a police line-up, or in a show-up for that immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice
matter, after the start of the custodial investigation is of his heirs.
inadmissible as evidence against him.
Accused-appellant Niel Piedad argues that the way
Here, accused-appellant was identified by Michelle that he was identified by prosecution witnesses was
Darunda in a show-up and by Erma Blanca, Ma. Teresa suggestive and fatally flawed. Niel claims that he should
Gellaver, Jason Joniega, and Mark Esmeralda in a police have been put in a police lineup instead of being shoveled
line-up on various dates after his arrest. Having been into a "confrontation" with the alleged witnesses and
made when accused-appellant did not have the immediately singled out by the police as suspects. He
assistance of counsel, these out-of-court identifications further claims that he was denied his right of counsel
are inadmissible in evidence against him. during the most crucial stage of the police investigation —
(*NOTE: Rule 113, §5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal that is, his identification as one of the assailants by
Procedure provides that a peace officer or a private eyewitnesses.
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person only under ISSUE:
the following circumstances: (a) When, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually Whether or not Niel’s pre-trial identification was
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) suggestive due to the absence of a police lineup.
When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of RULING:
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
No.
committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or When the accused were presented before the
place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily witnesses, they were simply asked to confirm whether they
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while were the ones responsible for the crime perpetrated. The
being transferred from one confinement to another. witnesses did not incriminate the accused simply because
they were the only ones presented by the police, rather, the
Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without a warrant
witnesses were certain they recognized the perpetrators of
under Section 5(b) of Rule 113 must be based upon
the crime.
"probable cause" which means "an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion." The grounds of There is no law which requires a police lineup
suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual before a suspect can be identified as the culprit of a
belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the crime. What is important is that the prosecution
witnesses positively identify the persons charged as the
 8TH SET
malefactors. The records show that Luz and Fidel Accused-appellants were not thus denied their right to
positively, categorically and unhesitatingly identified Niel counsel. The close relationship of a witness to the victim
as the one who struck Mateo on the head with a stone, and will not affect the former's testimony. It is basic precept
Lito as the one who stabbed Mateo on the back, thereby that relationship per se of a witness with the victim does
inflicting traumatic head injuries and a stab wound which not necessarily mean that the former is biased. On the
eventually led to Mateo's death. It must be stressed that contrary, it is more in accord with human nature for a
Luz was right beside her husband when the concrete stone friend, not to mention the wife of a victim, to have more
was struck on his head, hence, Luz could not have interest in telling the truth, for they would naturally want
mistaken the identity of the person responsible for the the real culprits brought to justice and meted their
attack. She was only a foot away from Niel before the punishment, rather than prevaricate and send an innocent
latter hit Mateo on the head. man to rot in jail. Their relationship to the victim would
even lend credence to their testimonies as their natural
Experience dictates that precisely because of the interest in securing the conviction of the guilty would deter
unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, them from implicating persons other than the culprits;
eyewitnesses can remember with a high degree of otherwise, the conviction of the innocent would thereby
reliability the identity of the criminals at any given time. grant immunity to the guilty.
Hence, the proximity and attention afforded the witnesses,
coupled with the relative illumination of the surrounding CASE# 201: Magtoto vs Manguerra
area, bolsters the credibility of identification of the
accused-appellants. FACTS:

The right to counsel accrues only after an Petitioner Clemente Magtoto contended that the confession
investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an obtained from a person under investigation for the
unsolved crime and commences an interrogation aimed commission of an offense, who has not been informed of
at a particular suspect who has been taken into custody his right (to silence and) to counsel, is inadmissible in
and to whom the police would then propound questions evidence in accordance with Article 6, section 20 of 1973
which tend to elicit incriminating statements. The Philippine Constitution. Petitioner Magtoto further
presence of counsel during such investigation is stressed that since Article 6, section 20 of 1973 Philippine
intended to prevent the slightest coercion as would lead Constitution favor the accused it should be given
the accused to admit something false. What is thus retroactive effect.
sought to be avoided is the evil of extorting from the Issue: Whether the right to counsel and to be informed in
very mouth of the person undergoing interrogation for such right, incorporated in Section 20, Article IV of the
the commission of an offense, the very evidence with 1973 Constitution, applies prospectively or retroactively.
which to prosecute and thereafter convict him. In the
case at bar, however, accused-appellants did not make any Won said confessions are inadmissible
extrajudicial confession or admission with regard to the
crime charged. While Niel and Lito may have been Held: Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution
suspects, they were certainly not interrogated by the police granted, for the first time, to a person under investigation
authorities, much less forced to confess to the crime for the commission of an offense, the right to counsel and
imputed against them. Accused-appellants were not under to be informed of such right. And the last sentence thereof
custodial investigation. which, in effect, means that any confession obtained in
violation of this right shall be inadmissible in evidence,
Moreover, the rights accorded an accused under can and should be given effect only when the right already
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution applies only existed and had been violated. Consequently, because the
against testimonial compulsion and not when the body confessions of the accused in GRs L-37201-02, 37424 and
of the accused is proposed to be examined, as was done 38929 were taken before the effectivity of the 1973
in this case — presented to the witnesses to be Constitution in accordance with the rules then in force, no
identified. right had been violated as to render them inadmissible in
evidence although they were not informed of "their right to
 8TH SET
remain silent and to counsel," "and to be informed of such allegedly received the ante mortem statement of the
right," because, no such right existed at the time. The victim, Rodolfo Tribol. Then, at the hearing on 3 June
argument that the second paragraph of Article 125 of the 1974, the prosecution presented Corporal Conrado Roca of
Revised Penal Code, which was added by Republic Act the Meycauayan Police Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 18 )
1083 enacted in 1954, which reads that "In every case, the Narratives (Berne Guerrero) Department, before whom a
person detained shall be informed of the cause of his written statement of Yupo and his alleged waiver of his
detention and shall be allowed, upon his request, to right to remain silent and to be assisted by a counsel of his
communicate and confer at anytime with his attorney or own choice was taken.
counsel," impliedly granted to a detained person the right
to counsel and to be informed of such right, is untenable. After this witness had identified the statement of Yupo
The only right granted by said paragraph to a detained and the waiver, he was questioned on the incriminating
person was to be informed of the cause of his detention. answers in such statement to the police, but there was an
But he must make a request for him to be able to claim the objection on the part of the defense counsel based on the
right to communicate and confer with counsel at any time. ground of such statement being inadmissible in evidence,
The historical background of Section 20, Article IV of the as the statement was taken by the police without any
1973 Constitution shows that the new right granted therein counsel assisting the accused in the investigation. Judge
to a detained person to counsel and to be informed of such Caguioa sustained the objection of the defense on the view
right under pain of his confession being declared that such judicial confession of the accused is inadmissible
inadmissible in evidence, has and should be given a in evidence for being unconstitutional, it appearing that the
prospective and not a retroactive effect. Furthermore, to accused was not assisted by a counsel when it was given.
give a retroactive effect to this constitutional guarantee to He likewise stated that such right could not be waived.
counsel would have a great unsettling effect on the Upon his refusal to reconsider such ruling, the petition for
administration of justice in this country. It may lead to the certiorari was filed.
acquittal of guilty individuals and thus cause injustice to ISSUE: Whether the right to remain silent and right to
the People and the offended parties in many criminal cases counsel during custodial investigation may be waived.
where confessions were obtained before the effectivity of
the 1973 Constitution and in accordance with the rules RULING: While there could be a waiver of the rights of
then in force although without assistance of counsel. The an accused, it must be intelligently waived, otherwise a
Constitutional Convention could not have intended such a court's jurisdiction starting at the beginning of the trial
disastrous consequence in the administration of justice. For may be lost in the course of the proceeding. Statements
if the cause of justice suffers when an innocent person is made during the period of custodial interrogation to be
convicted, it equally suffers when a guilty one is acquitted. admissible require a clear intelligent waiver of
constitutional rights, the suspect being warned prior to
TOPIC: Rule Under the 1973 Constitution (Voluntary, questioning that he has a right to remain silent, that any
Knowing & Intelligence Waiver)
utterance may be used against him, and that he has the
CASE# 202: People vs. Caguioa [GR L-38975, 17 right to the presence of a counsel, either retained or
January 1980] appointed. The prosecution may not use statements,
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from
FACTS: The Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed on 14 custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it
September 1973, in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to
an information for murder against Paquito Yupo y secure the privilege against self-incrimination.
Gonzales (Criminal Case 146-V-73), with the case, after
the raffle, being assigned to Branch VIII, presided by By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated
Judge Eduardo P. Caguioa. Upon arraignment on 5 by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken
October 1973, Yupo pleaded not guilty. The trial of the into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
case then proceeded, the prosecution having presented 6 action in any significant way. As for the procedural
witnesses, including the father of the deceased, Miguel safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective
Tribol, and his common-law wife, Lydia Begnotia, who means are devised to inform accused persons of their right
of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to
 8TH SET
exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to The officer of the day investigated the incident right away.
any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a In his written report submitted on the same day when the
right to remain silent, that any statement he does not make tragic occurrence transpired, he stated that, according to
may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a his on-the-spot investigation, Avila stabbed Saminado
right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or when the latter was armed in the comfort room and his
appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of those back was turned to Avila, while Tampus stabbed the
rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly victim on the chest and neck 
and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner
and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult Two days after the killing, or on January 16, another
with an attorney before speaking, there can be no prison guard investigated Tampus and Avila and obtained
questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and their extrajudicial confessions wherein they admitted that
indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be they assaulted Saminado.
interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere The trial was held at the state penitentiary at the insistence
fact that he may have answered some questions or of the Avila. The court found Tampus and Avila guilty for
volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive the murder of Saminado. 
him of the right to refrain from answering any further
inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and ISSUE:
thereafter consents to be questioned. Tested by such a clear
and unequivocal standard, the alleged waiver herein falls 1. WoN Tampus was denied to his right to public trial
far short. Yupo merely answered in a monosyllabic "Opo" because the arraignment and hearing were held at the state
to Corporal Conrado B. Roca of the Police Force of penitentiary 
Meycauayan, worded thus: "Ipinaaalam ko sa iyo na ikaw
2. WoN the confession of Tampus was taken in violation
ay sinisiyasat tungkol sa isang paglabag sa batas na iyong
of Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution (now Sec. 12,
ginawa, bago ko ipagpatuloy ang pagtatanong sa iyo, ikaw
Art. IV of the 1987 Const) 
ay may karapatan na huwag magsalita kung ayaw mo at
may karapatan ka rin na magkaroon ng abogado na iyong HELD:
gusto, at dapat mo ring mabatid na anuman ang sabihin mo
dito ay maaaring gamitin ng ayon o laban sa iyo, 1.No. The record does not show that the public was
magsasalaysay ka pa rin ba?" and that was all. actually excluded from the place where the trial was held
or that the accused was prejudiced by the holding of the
trial in the national penitentiary. 

CASE# 203: People vs Tampus Besides, there is a ruling that the fact that for the
convenience of the witnesses a case is tried in Bilibid
FACTS:
Prison without any objection on the part of the accused is
At around ten o'clock in the morning of January 14, 1976, not a ground for reversal of the judgment of conviction
Celso Saminado, a prisoner in the national penitentiary at (U.S. vs. Mercado, 4 Phil. 304). 
Muntinlupa, went to the toilet to answer a call of nature
The accused may waive his right to have a public trial as
and to fetch water.
shown in the rule that the trial court may motu propio
The accused, Jose Tampus and Rodolfo Avila, prisoners in exclude the public from the courtroom when the evidence
the same penal institution, followed Saminado to the toilet to be offered is offensive to decency or public morals. The
and, by means of their bladed weapons, assaulted him. court may also, upon request of the defendant, exclude
Saminado died upon arrival in the prison hospital. After from the trial every person except the officers of the court
emerging from the toilet, Tampus and Avila surrendered to and the attorneys for the prosecution and defense. 
a prison guard with their knives. They told the guard:
2. No. Even before the investigation for the killing was
"Surrender po kami, sir. Gumanti lang po kami." 
inititated, Tampus and Avila had already admitted it when,
after coming out of the scene of the crime, they
surrendered to the first guard whom they encountered, and
 8TH SET
they revealed to him that they had committed an act of ISSUES:
revenge. That spontaneous statement, elicited without any
interrogation, was part of the res gestae and at the same 1. WON THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF
time was a voluntary confession of guilt.  THE ACCUSED ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE
AGAINST HIM
Not only that. The two accused, by means of that statement
given freely on the spur of the moment without any urging 2. WON THE ACCUSED WAS ACCORDED WITH HIS
or suggestion, waived their right to remain silent and to CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BE INFORMED AND
have the right to counsel. That admission was confirmed TO A COMPETENT COUNSEL
by their extrajudicial confession, plea of guilty and RULING:
testimony in court. 
1. No. Section 12 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution
It should be stressed that, even without taking into account provides:
Tampus' admission of guilt, confession, plea of guilty and
testimony, the crime was proven beyond reasonable doubt Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the
by the evidence of the prosecution. commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have
CASE# 2014: People vs. Sayaboc competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
FACTS: The Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel,
Vizcaya, found appellant Benjamin Sayaboc guilty beyond he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and appellant waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
Marlon Buenviaje guilty as principal and appellants (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso guilty as this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in
accomplices in the crime of homicide for the death of evidence against him.
Joseph Galam y Antonio.
Jurisprudence provides that extrajudicial confessions
During the custodial investigation, Sayaboc was advised are presumed to be voluntary. The condition for this
by Cagungao about his constitutional rights. The police presumption, however, is that the prosecution is able to
officers brought Atty. Rodolfo Cornejo of the PAO, who show that the constitutional requirements safeguarding
then conferred with Sayaboc for a while. After Cagungao an accused’s rights during custodial investigation have
heard Sayaboc say, okay, he continued the investigation, been strictly complied with, especially when the
during which Atty. Cornejo remained silent the entire extrajudicial confession has been denounced. The
time.That night Sayaboc executed an extrajudicial rationale for this requirement is to allay any fear that the
confessionin Ilocano dialect. He therein confessed to person being investigated would succumb to coercion
killing Joseph Galam at the behest of Marlon Buenviaje while in the unfamiliar or intimidating environment that is
for the sum of P100,000. He likewise implicated Miguel inherent in custodial investigations. Therefore, even if the
Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso. The confession was also confession may appear to have been given voluntarily
signed by Atty. Cornejo and attested to by one Fiscal since the confessant did not file charges against his alleged
Melvin Tiongson. intimidators for maltreatment, the failure to properly
In his appeal, the appellant raised an error in admitting in inform a suspect of his rights during a custodial
evidence his extrajudicial confession when it was taken investigation renders the confession valueless and
without the assistance of a competent and independent inadmissible.
counsel nor by an effective and vigilant counsel. 2. No. The right to be informed requires the
On the other hand, the OSG asserts that Sayabocs transmission of meaningful information rather than
extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence against just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an
him, since it was made after he was informed of, and abstract constitutional principle. It should allow the
accorded, his constitutional rights, particularly the right to suspect to consider the effects and consequences of any
an independent counsel of his own choice. waiver he might make of these rights.
 8TH SET
He was not likewise afforded his right to a competent as directed by his investigators, purporting it to be a
counsel. The facts show through the testimonies of reenactment of the crime.
Sayaboc and prosecution witness SPO4 Cagungao that
Atty. Cornejo remained silent throughout the duration of ISSUES:
the custodial investigation. The right to a competent and 1. WON the extrajudicial confession of the accused
independent counsel means that the counsel should admissible
satisfy himself, during the conduct of the investigation,
that the suspect understands the import and 2. WON the constitutional rights of the accused were
consequences of answering the questions propounded. violated
The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial
investigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer RULING:
merely gives perfunctory advice as opposed to a
1. No. The court reiterated the correct procedure to be
meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person
followed by peace officers when making an arrest and in
undergoing questioning. If the advice given is so
conducting a custodial investigation. At the time a person
cursory as to be useless, voluntariness is impaired.
is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to
These rights were not waived by accussed, contrary to the inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be
allegations of the investigators. The waiver of a right is shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be
within the rights of a suspect. What is lacking is a showing informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent
of a faithful attempt at each stage of the investigation to and to counsel, and that any statement he might make
make Sayaboc aware of the consequences of his actions. could be used against him. The person arrested shall have
the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or
The purpose of the stringent requirements of the law is anyone he chooses by the most expedient means — by
to protect all persons, especially the innocent and the telephone if possible — or by letter or messenger.
weak, against possible indiscriminate use of the powers
of the government. Any deviation cannot be tolerated, No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be
and any fruit of such deviation shall be excluded from in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested,
evidence. by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court
upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone
CASE# 205: People vs Galit on his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the
waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance
FACTS: Accused Galit was charged with the crime of of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the
Robbery with Homicide committed against the person of procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or
Natividad Fernando. inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible
Accused was brought to the NBI where he was in evidence.
investigated by a team headed by NBI Agent Carlos There were no eyewitnesses, no property recovered from
Flores. NBI Agent Flores conducted a preliminary the accused, no state witnesses, and not even fingerprints
interview of the suspect who allegedly gave evasive of the accused at the scene of the crime. The only evidence
answers to his questions. According to the accused, during against the accused is his alleged confession.
his investigation, he had been detained and interrogated
almost continuously for five days. The investigating 2. Yes. His right to be informed of his rights was not
officers began to maul him and to torture him physically. satisfied by a long question (TAGALOG) followed by this
They covered his face with a rag and pushed his face into a monosyllabic “opo.” There should be several short and
toilet bowl full of human waste. As his body could no clear questions and every right explained in simple
longer endure the pain inflicted on him and the indignities words in a dialect or language known to the person
he had to suffer, he admitted what the investigating under investigation. Accused is from Samar and there is
officers wanted him to admit and he signed the confession no showing that he understands Tagalog. Moreover, at
they prepared. Later, against his will, he posed for pictures the time of his arrest, accused was not permitted to
communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or a friend. In
 8TH SET
fact, his sisters and other relatives did not know that he had ISSUE: Whether or Not the accused were deprived of
been brought to the NBI for investigation and it was only their constitutional right to counsel.
about two weeks after he had executed the confession that
HELD: Yes, the accused were deprived of their
his relatives were allowed to visit him. His statement does
constitutional right to counsel. From the records, it can be
not even contain any waiver of right to counsel and yet gleaned that when accused-appellant Bandula and accused
during the investigation he was not assisted by one. At Dionanao were investigated immediately after their arrest,
the supposed reenactment, again accused was not they had no counsel present. If at all, counsel came in only
assisted by counsel of his choice. These constitute gross a day after the custodial investigation with respect to
violations of his rights. accused Dionanao, and two weeks later with respect to
appellant Bandula. And, counsel who supposedly assisted
Acquitted. both accused was Atty. Ruben Zerna, the Municipal
Attorney of Tanjay. On top of this, there are telltale signs
TOPIC: Requirement of Competent and Independent that violence was used against the accused. Certainly,
Counsel these are blatant violations of Article III, section 12 of the
Constitution.
PEOPLE vs. AURELIO BANDULA y LOPEZ
G.R. No. 89223 May 27, 1994 The court held also that the right to counsel attaches upon
the start of an investigation, i.e., when the investigating
FACTS: on 27 January 1986, at around ten o'clock in the officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or
evening, six (6) armed men barged into the compound of confessions or admissions from respondent/accused. At
Polo Coconut Plantation in Tanjay, Negros Oriental. The such point or stage, the person being interrogated must be
armed men were identified by Security Guard Antonio assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of
Salva of the plantation as Aurelio Bandula, Teofilo extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from
Dionanao, Victoriano Ejan and Pantaleon Sedigo while the the lips of the person undergoing interrogation for the
two others who wore masks were simply referred to as commission of the offense." Hence, if there is no counsel
"Boy Tall" and "Boy Short." They disarmed the security at the start of the custodial investigation, any statement
guard and went up the house of Leoncio Pastrano, Chief of elicited from the accused is inadmissible in evidence
Security and General Foreman of the plantation, hog- tied against him. Custodial investigation is the stage where the
him and committed robbery. From there, the six (6) armed police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
men proceeded to the house of Atty. Juanito Garay, unsolved crime but has began to focus on a particular
Manager of the Polo Coconut Plantation. After forcing suspect who had been taken into custody by the police who
their way into the house, the masked men and Bandula carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit
ransacked the place and took with them money and other incriminating statements. It is when questions are initiated
valuables. Thereafter, the hooded men who were bringing by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken
with them Atty. Garay locked Pastrano inside his house into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
together with Salva. A few minutes later, Pastrano and action in any significant way.
Salva heard gunshots coming from the direction of the gate
of the compound. After succeeding in untying themselves, The Constitution also requires that counsel be independent.
Pastrano and Salva went to report the matter to the police. Granting that Atty. Zerna assisted accused Dionanao and
On their way, they found outside the gate the lifeless body Bandula when they executed their respective extrajudicial
of Atty. Garay. confessions, still their confessions are inadmissible in
evidence considering that Atty. Zerna does not qualify as
On 28 January 1986 accused Dionanao was "picked-up for an independent counsel. As a legal officer of the
investigation" and interrogated wherein he implicated the municipality, he provides legal assistance and support to
other accused leading to their arrest. The accused the mayor and the municipality in carrying out the delivery
contended that the extrajudicial confessions he and of basic services to the people, including the maintenance
accused Dionanao executed suffer from constitutional of peace and order. It is thus seriously doubted whether he
infirmities, hence, inadmissible in evidence considering can effectively undertake the defense of the accused
that they were extracted under duress and intimidation, and without running into conflict of interests. He is no better
were merely countersigned later by the municipal attorney than a fiscal or prosecutor who cannot represent the
who, by the nature of his position, was not entirely an accused during custodial investigations.
independent counsel nor counsel of their choice.
 8TH SET
CASE# 207: PEOPLE vs. BERNARDO QUIDATO, their statements to Patrolman Mara in the absence of
JR. counsel, although they signed the same in the presence of
G.R. No. 117401. October 1, 1998 counsel the next day.
ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt.
FACTS: BERNARDO QUIDATO, JR. allegedly
committed the crime of Parricide by assaulting and CASE# 208: People vs. Januario
stabbing his father. 267 SCRA 608 (1997)
Malita brothers confessed to their participation in FACTS: Accused-appellants Rene Januario and Efren
the crime, claimed that it was Bernardo who proposed the Canape, and their co-accused Santiago Cid, Eliseo Sarita
commission of the crime. 12 days after the incident, Malita @ Toto and Eduardo Sarinos @ Digo were charged with
brothers were interrogated by Patrolman Mara. When
violation of Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping
Mara apprised them of their right to counsel, they signified
their intent to confess even in the absence of counsel. Law). They were arrested in Camarines Sur.
Aware that the same would be useless if given in the
At the Taft Avenue head office of the NBI, Atty. Vela and
absence of counsel, Mara took down the testimony of the
two but refrained from requiring the latter to sign their Atty Toribio, NBI agents asked Atty. Carlos Saunar, who
affidavits. Instead, he escorted the Malita brothers to was "just around somewhere," to assist appellants
Davao City and presented them, along with their unsigned during the investigation as the appellants had verbally
affidavits, to a CLAO (now PAO) lawyer, Jonathan confessed to participation in a crime and that they were
Jocom. about to execute their sworn statements. Agent Arlis Vela
Atty. Jocom conferred with Reynaldo and Eddie, took the statement of appellant Januario while Supervising
again advising the two of their constitutional rights. The
Agent Toribio took that of Canape.
CLAO lawyer explained the contents of the affidavits, in
Visayan, to the Malita brothers, who affirmed the veracity
ISSUE: WON the extra-judicial confessions of the
and voluntary execution of the same. Only then did
Reynaldo and Eddie affix their signatures on the affidavits. appellants are inadmissible in evidence for having been
extracted in violation of their constitutional right to
ISSUE: counsel.
WON giving credence to the extra judicial
confession of the Malita brothers is a violation of the rights RULING: Proof of Saunar's presence during the custodial
of the accused to confront witnesses. investigation of appellants is not a guarantee that
appellants' respective confessions had been taken in
HELD: accordance with Article III, Section 12 (1) of the
YES.
Constitution which requires that a person under
In indicting accused-appellant, the prosecution
relied heavily on the affidavits executed by Reynaldo and investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
Eddie. The two brothers were, however, not presented on no less than "competent and independent counsel
the witness stand to testify on their extra-judicial preferably of his own choice." Saunar was not the choice
confessions. The failure to present the two gives these of appellant Januario as his custodial investigation counsel
affidavits the character of hearsay. It is hornbook since Saunar was just requested by Vela and Toribio
doctrine that unless the affiants themselves take the because he was present there applying for the position of
witness stand to affirm the averments in their
NBI agent.
affidavits, the affidavits must be excluded from the
judicial proceeding, being inadmissible hearsay The Ideally, a lawyer engaged for an individual facing
voluntary admissions of an accused made extrajudicially
custodial investigation (if the latter could not afford one)
are not admissible in evidence against his co-accused when
the latter had not been given an opportunity to hear him should be engaged by the accused (himself), or by the
testify and cross-examine him. latter's relative or person authorized by him to engage an
The manner by which the affidavits were obtained attorney or by the court, upon proper petition of the
by the police render the same inadmissible in evidence accused or person authorized by the accused to file such
even if they were voluntarily given. The settled rule is petition. Lawyers engaged by the police, whatever
that an uncounseled extrajudicial confession without a testimonials are given as proof of their probity and
valid waiver of the right to counsel that is, in writing
and in the presence of counsel is inadmissible in supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in many
evidence. It is undisputed that the Malita brothers gave areas, the relationship between lawyers and law
enforcement authorities can be symbiotic."
 8TH SET
If the lawyer were one furnished in the accused's behalf, it
is important that he should be competent and independent, ISSUE:
i.e., that he is willing to fully safeguard the constitutional 1. Whether or not on the charge of robbery with
homicide, the court erred in admitting in evidence
rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who
the tainted extra-judicial confession he executed in
would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and the absence of an effective and vigilant counsel.
meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional rights.
2. Whether or not Atty. Chavez provided the accused with the
Saunar might have really been around to properly apprise kind of counselling provided by the constitution.
Juanario of his constitutional right as reflected in the
written sworn statement itself. However, for Canape, he RULING:
was merely told of his constitutional rights and posthaste, Accused was acquitted.
asked whether he was willing to confess. His affirmative
answer may not, by any means, be interpreted as a waiver 1. Yes, the court erred in admitting in evidence the tainted
extra-judicial confession he executed in the absence of an
of his right to counsel of his own choice.
effective and vigilant counsel. Under Article III, Section 12
of the 1987 Constitution, the rights of persons
Saunar could not have been the independent counsel
under custodial investigation are provided as follows:
solemnly spoken of by our Constitution. He was an
applicant for a position in the NBI and therefore it can "(1)  Any person under investigation for the
never be said that his loyalty was to the confessants. He commission of an offense shall have the right to be
cannot be expected to work against the interest of a police informed of his right to remain silent and to have
agency he was hoping to join, as a few months later, he in competent and independent counsel preferably of
fact was admitted into its work force. his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. 
For this violation of their constitutional right to These rights cannot be waived except in writing
independent counsel, appellants were acquitted. and in the presence of counsel.

(3)   Any confession or admission obtained in

CASE# 209: PEOPLE v. ORLANDO LABTAN
violation of this or the preceding section shall be
GR No. 127493, Dec 08, 1999
inadmissible against him."
FACTS: Accused-Appellant Henry Feliciano, together with
In People v.Gamboa
accused Orlando Labtan and Jonelto Labtan, were convicted of
highway robbery and robbery with homicide. Feliciano was "[T]he right to counsel attaches upon the start of
convicted on the basis of a sworn statement which he repudiated an investigation, i.e. when the investigating
during the trial. The prosecution’s case was mainly anchored on the officer starts to ask questions to elicit information
three-page sworn statement executed by Feliciano, originally in and/or confessions or admissions from the
Visayan dialect, before the Cagayan de Oro City Police station. respondent/accused.  At such point or stage, the
According to the prosecution, prior to the propounding of questions to person being interrogated must be assisted by
the accused-appellant, he was informed of his constitutional rights and counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of
he even signed the confession in the presence of Atty. Pepito Chavez. extorting false or coerced admissions or
Attorney de Officio provided to the accused. confessions from the lips of the person
undergoing interrogation, for the commission of
Only Feliciano pleaded not guilty to the two charges. an offense.  The moment there is a move or even
His defense consisted of an alibi and a denial of his sworn statement. urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or
He testified that he was brought to the police station, was mauled for confessions or even plain information which may
two hours, and was forced to sign a document. He was also brought to appear innocent or inocuous at the time, from
the office of Atty. Chavez and saw the latter sign said suspect, he should then and there be assisted
the documents. He claimed that he did not know what by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the
exactly was happening at that time and likewise claimed waiver shall be made in writing and in the
that Atty. Chavez did not even talked to him before signing the presence of counsel."
document. Then he was brought back to jail. He appealed to
the higher court alleging that the court the court erred in In the case at bar, Feliciano had been denied of his right to
admitting as evidence the tainted extra-judicial confession have a competent and independent counsel when he was
he executed in the absence of an effective and vigilant counsel. questioned in the Cagayan de Oro City Police Station by
 8TH SET
SPO1 Alfonso Cuarez regarding his involvement in the Given that circumstance, it cannot be expected that the
killing of jeepney driver Florentino Bolasito, the fact counsel would give an advice to the accused that would
that he had not been apprised of his right to counsel. offend the agent conducting the investigation.  Thus,
the counsel would do no more than just to recite to the
In Navallo v. Sandiganbayan ruling: a person is accused of his constitutional rights.  The counsel will
deemed under custodial investigation where the make no independent effort in determining whether
police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into accused confessions were free and voluntary, nor how
an unsolved crime but has began to focus on a he was treated in the last 24-hours, nor  seek any of the
particular suspect who had been taken into custody accused relatives or friends to find out if he has any
by the police who carry out a process of defense which accused was not free to disclose due to
interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating his confinement.
statements.
Also, In People v. de Jesus:
2. Atty. Chavez did not provide the kind of counseling “an independent counsel cannot be a special
required by the Constitution.  He did not explain to counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of
accused-appellant the consequences of his action - that the the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest
sworn statement can be used against him and that it is is admittedly adverse to the accused”.
possible that he could be found guilty and sent to jail. The
court also found out that Atty. Chavez's independence as In the case at bar, Atty. Chavez notarized the
counsel is suspect since he is regularly engaged by the sworn statement seriously compromised his
Cagayan de Oro City Police as counsel de officio for independence.  By doing so, he vouched for the regularity
suspects who cannot avail the services of counsel.  He of the circumstances surrounding the taking of the sworn
even received money from the police as payment for his statement by the police.  He cannot serve as counsel of the
services. accused and the police at the same time. There was a
serious conflict of interest on his part.
The Supreme Court used the following
jurisprudence to expound on the meaning of Finally, in the three-page sworn statement
"competent and independent counsel": allegedly executed by Feliciano, it was observed to have
no badge of spontaneity and credibility to it. It shows signs
In People v. Deniega: In People v. Basay an accused's of what was called stereotype advice:  In People v. Jarra,
right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to stereotyped `advice' appearing in practically all
counsel `contemplates the transmission of meaningful extrajudicial confessions which are later repudiated has
information rather than just the ceremonial and assumed the nature of `legal form' or mode.  Police
perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional investigators either automatically type it together with the
principle; therefore curt `Opo' as the answer or ask the accused to sign it or
even copy it in their handwriting.  Its tired, punctilious,
“A lawyer engaged for an individual facing fixed and artificially stately style does not create an
custodial investigation (if the latter could not afford impression of voluntariness or even understanding on the
one) `should be engaged by the accused (himself), part of the accused. The showing of a spontaneous, free
or by the latter's relative or person authorized by and unconstrained giving up of a right is missing."
him to engage an attorney or by the court, upon
proper petition of the accused or person authorized
by the accused to file such petition.  Lawyers CASE# 210: People vs. Samus
engaged by the police, whatever testimonials are [G.R. Nos. 135957-58. September 17, 2002]
given as proof of their probity and supposed
independence, are generally suspect, as in many Facts: Samus was accused of murder for the deaths of
areas, the relationship between lawyers and law Dedicacion Balisi and John Ardee Balisi. Samus alleges
enforcement authorities can be symbiotic. denial and alibi as defenses. He testified that he was forced
to execute a document admitting the killing. He was forced
In People v. Sahagun, it was discussed that
independence of a counsel cannot be complied with to sign said document. He did not know Atty. Juliano and
when a lawyer has different purpose like following-up did not talk to him. The trial court found enough pieces of
a case at the NBI for instance and it just so happened circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of appellant
that he or she was asked to be the counsel of an beyond reasonable doubt. Rejecting his alibi for being
accused. First, the parties are unknown to each other.  unreliable and uncorroborated, it convicted him of
 8TH SET
homicide for the death of Dedicacion Balisi; and of he is a suspect in the killing of Jaquelyn Luchavez Tatoy,
murder, with dwelling as aggravating circumstance, for the and brought him to the house of barangay captain Atty.
death of John Ardee Balisi. Appellant claims that his Fortunato Parawan who instructed the tanods to take
alleged confession to the media while in police custody appellant to the police station. After being apprised of his
cannot be admitted in evidence. He further contends that constitutional rights, Tomaquin told the police that he was
the pair of earrings, the turnover receipt, as well as the willing to confess and asked for Atty. Parawan, the
testimonies of Pontaos and Bitos, relative thereto should barangay captain, to assist him. When Atty. Parawan
be excluded for being fruits of the poisonous tree. arrived at2:00 in the afternoon, he conferred with appellant
for around fifteen minutes. Appellant’s extra judicial
Issue: confession, was taken down completely in the Cebuano
dialect. Respondent was found by the lower Court guilty of
Whether or not the lower court gravely erred in
the crime of murder of beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner
admitting and considering evidence that were obtained in
avers that the trial Court erred when it convicted him on
violation of the accused’s constitutional rights.
the basis of his uncounseled confession.
Ruling:
ISSUE: Whether or not a barangay captain who is a
After being illegally arrested, appellant was not lawyer can be considered an independent counsel within
informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to the purview of section 12, Article III of the 1987
have competent and independent counsel. Hence, any Constitution
admission elicited from him by the law enforcers during
HELD: NO. Considering that Atty. Parawan’s role as a
custodial investigation are normally inadmissible in
barangay captain, was a peace keeping officer of his
evidence.
barangay and therefore in direct conflict with the role of
Nonetheless, even if the uncounselled admission providing competent legal assistance to appellant who was
per se may be inadmissible, under the present accused of committing a crime in his jurisdiction, Atty.
circumstances it cannot be ruled out because of appellant’s Parawan could not be considered as an independent
failure to make timely objections. Indeed, the admission is counsel of appellant, when the latter executed his extra
inadmissible in evidence under Article III, Section 12(1) judicial confession. What the Constitution requires is the
and (3) of the Constitution, because it was given under presence of an independent and competent counsel, one
custodial investigation and was made without the who will effectively undertake his client’s defense without
assistance of counsel. However, the defense failed to any intervening conflict of interest. An “effective and
object to its presentation during the trial, with the result vigilant counsel” necessarily and logically requires that the
that the defense is deemed to have waived objection to its lawyer be present and able to advise and assist his client
admissibility. from the time the confessant answers the first question
asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the
extra judicial confession. The Court cannot imagine
how Atty. Parawan could have effectively safeguarded
CASE# 211: People vs. Tomaquin,
G.R. No. 133138, July 23, 2004 appellant’s rights as an accused during the investigation
FACTS: On December 17, 1996, the Cebu City when he himself entertained the suspicion that appellant is
Prosecutor filed Information charging appellant guilty of the crime charged, and naturally, he would want
Elizar Tomaquin with murder. At around 12:00 in the appellant to admit having committed it. Clearly, Atty.
afternoon of December 15, 1996, barangay tanods Julius Parawan failed to meet the exacting standards of an
Yosores and Armando Zabate searched for Tomaquin independent and competent counsel as required by the
because of the information given by Rico Magdasal that Constitution. Thus, the extrajudicial confession executed
the shoes and tres cantos found in the scene of the crime by appellant, even if gospel truth, is deemed an
belonged to him. Together with Rico, the tanods went to uncounseled confession and therefore, inadmissible in
the house of Wilson Magdasal where appellant was evidence.
temporarily staying, and found him sleeping, wearing a
CASE# 212: People vs. Bagnate
bloodstained maong shorts. The tanods told Tomaquin that
 8TH SET
[G.R. No. 133685-86. May 20, 2004] and competent, that is, providing full protection to the
constitutional rights of the accused.

Facts: Appellant Amado Bagnate was accused and In the present case, the assistance rendered by
convicted of Murder for the killing of Aurea Broa and of Atty. Brotamonte is more than perfunctory. Before the
Rape with Homicide for the killing of Rosalie Rayala. onset of the investigation, Atty. Brotamonte privately
conferred with appellant to ascertain the voluntariness of
In the afternoon of August 7, 1997, appellant was
his confession and to make sure that no force or duress
turned over to SPO2 Junwel Ambion for custodial
was employed by the police authorities on the latter to
investigation. Appellant told SPO2 Ambion that he is
make him admit the crimes charged. He informed
willing to confess. SPO2 Ambion offered the services of
appellant of his constitutional rights and was clear in
Atty. Paterno Brotamonte, which appellant accepted. The
explaining to him the questions propounded by SPO2
appellant’s confession was typed and signed. The next day,
Ambion. Furthermore, the failure of Atty. Brotamonte to
appellant was brought before Judge Arsenio Base, Jr. of
apprise appellant of the imposable penalty of the crimes he
the Municipal Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay. Judge Base
was to admit is not a sufficient ground to strike down
requested the presence of Atty. Brotamonte and
appellant’s extrajudicial confession. There is nothing in the
subsequently examined the voluntariness and veracity of
Constitution that mandates a counsel to inform an accused
the confession as well as the authenticity of the signatures
of the possible penalty for the crime he committed. Neither
of appellant and Atty. Brotamonte. Judge Base asked him
would a presumption arise that the counsel is incompetent
to sign the confession again in the presence of Atty.
or not independent just because he failed to apprise the
Brotamonte, after which appellant affixed his signature.
accused that the imposable penalty for the crime he was
Appellant repudiated his extra-judicial confession about to admit is death. After all, the imposable penalty is
before the trial court and assailed its admissibility. The totally immaterial to the resolve of an accused to admit his
trial court found appellant’s extra-judicial confession guilt in the commission of a crime.
admissible in evidence on which basis, it convicted
TOPIC: Counsel of Choice
appellant of the crimes charged against him. Appellant CASE# 213: GR No 113684 January 25, 2000
now avers that Atty. Brotamonte was not a competent and People vs Armando Gallardo
independent counsel as he failed to advise him of the
penalty to be imposed on the crimes he was accused of Facts: Accused were arrested for the murder of one
committing; hence, he was not aware of the consequences Edmundo Orizal and were brought to Tuguegarao Police
of his admissions. Department. The accused gave confessions that they were
the ones who shot Orizal upon the promise of Cong. Tuzon
Issue: though Pat. Molina that they will be acquitted from their
present conviction while they were detained at
Whether or not the appellant’s confession is admissible.
Camalaniugan, Cagayan. They then were brought by Pat.
Ruling: Molina to Orizal and furnished them weapons and they
succeeded in killing Orizal. During the police
Yes, the taking of appellant’s confession has investigation, the accused were assisted by Atty. Rolando
conformed to the safeguards of the Constitution. Velasco where their statements were administered under
oath by Judge Pauig and signed by the accused. The trial
To be admissible in evidence, an extra-judicial
court convicted them for murder. The accused later
confession must be express and voluntarily executed in
appealed on grounds that the investigator did not informed
writing with the assistance of an independent and
them of their rights before taking their statements and did
competent counsel, and a person under custodial
not let them read the transcript after their testimony.
investigation must be continuously assisted by counsel
from the very start thereof. The presence of counsel is Issue: Whether or not the accused were not informed
intended to secure the voluntariness of the extra-judicial of their rights during the investigation.
confession, and the assistance given must be independent
Ruling:
 8TH SET
The appeal has no merit. The extra-judicial confessions of ISSUE:WON Barasina’s right to have a counsel of his
the accused were given after they were completely and own choice was violated.
clearly apprised of their Constitutional rights. A lawyer
assisted them and a judge administered their oath. In the RULING: The claim of herein appellant that he was
testimony of Atty. Velasco, he said that he appraised them assisted by counsel, not of his own choice, as he allegedly
of their rights regarding their confession and was taken hired Atty. Romeo Mendoza is belied by records. During
under oath by Judge Pauig. Although Atty. Velasco was the custodial investigation, he failed to indicate in any
provided by the State and not by the accused themselves, manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to
the accused were given an opportunity whether to accept consult with an attorney of his own preference before
or not to accept him as their lawyer. They were asked and speaking or giving any statement. Indeed, there is no
they immediately agreed to have Atty. Velasco as their showing that he manifested any resistance when he was
counsel during the investigation. There is no requirement assisted by Atty. Torres. We are thus inclined to agree with
in the Constitution that the lawyer of an accused during the Solicitor General that the hiring of Atty. Mendoza as
custodial investigation be previously known to them. The counsel by the appellant after the custodial investigation is
Constitution provides that the counsel be a competent and an afterthought.
independent counsel, who will represent the accused and
protect their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. The Court
Withal, the word "preferably" under Section 12[1], Article
was then convinced that Atty. Velasco sufficiently
3 of the 1987 Constitution does not convey the message
appraised the accused of their rights and acted properly
that the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation
according to the dictates of the Constitution.
is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and
independent attorneys from handling his defense. If the
NOTE: A confession to be admissible must satisfy all rule were otherwise, then, the tempo of a custodial
four fundamental requirements, namely: investigation will be solely in the hands of the accused
who can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of the
(1) the confession must be voluntary; interrogation by simply selecting lawyer who for one
reason or another, is not available to protect his interest.
(2) the confession must be made with the assistance of This absurd scenario could not have been contemplated by
competent and independent counsel; the framers of the charter.

(3) the confession must be express; and NOTE: Section 12(1), Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution
dealing with the rights of a person undergoing
(4) the confession must be in writing investigation reads:

CASE# 214: GR No. 109993 January 21, 1994 Any person under investigation for the commission of an
PEOPLE vs ELIAS BARASINA offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
FACTS: It was around 6:40 in the evening of July 17, afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
1988 when Fiscal Lino Mayo of Olongapo City one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and
succumbed to a single bullet on his side of his face fired in the presence of a counsel.
from an unlicensed .45 caliber firearm while he was
walking at the VIP parking lot of the Victory Liner
Compound at Caloocan City. Barasina was arrested and
was taken to the station of Caloocan City Police Force.
Cpl. Daniel del Rosario investigated the accused but
before doing so, he informed the latter of his
Constitutional rights. The accused then stated his desire to
have a lawyer. As instructed by Lt. Norberto Surara, one
private practitioner named Atty. Abelardo Torres was
fetched from the latter's office. Atty. Torres assisted
Barasina during the course of giving his statement.