1)

Gamboa vs. Cruz [G.R No. L-56291, June 27, 1988]

Facts: Petitioner was arrested for vagrancy without a warrant. During a line-up of 5 detainees including petitioner,
he was identified by a complainant to be a companion in a robbery, thereafter he was charged. Petitioner filed a
Motion to Acquit on the ground that the conduct of theline-up, without notice and in the absence of his counsel
violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. The court denied said motion. Hearing was set,
hence the petition.
Issue: Whether or Not petitioners right to counsel and due processviolated.
Held: No. The police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, petitioner was not yet entitled, at such
stage, to counsel. He had not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. The moment there is a move or even an
urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent
or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the
right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. On the right to due process,
petitioner was not, in any way, deprived of this substantive and constitutional right, as he was duly represented by
a counsel. He was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and topresent evidence to substantiate his defense;
only that he chose not to, and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case.
What due process abhors is the absolute lack ofopportunity to be heard. WHEREFORE, the petition is
DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued on 3 March 1981 is LIFTED. The instant case is
remanded to the respondent court for further proceedings to afford the petitioner-accused the
opportunity to present evidence on his behalf.

2.) People vs. Macam [G.R. Nos. 91011-12, November 24, 1994]
Facts: On Aug 18,1987, Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro, Eugenio Cawilan Jr., Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque
went to the house of Benito Macam (uncle of Eduardo Macam) located at 43 Ferma Road QC. Upon the arrival of the
accused, Benito invited the former to have lunch. Benito asked his maid Salvacion Enrera to call the companions of
Eduardo who were waiting in a tricycle outside the house. A. Cedro, E. Cawilan and D. Roque entered the house
while E. Roque remained in the tricycle. After all the accused had taken their lunch, Eduardo Macam grabbed the
clutch bag of Benito Macam and pulled out his uncles gun then declared a hold-up. They tied up the wife (Leticia
Macam), children, maid (Salvacion) and Nilo Alcantara and brought them to the room upstairs. After a while Leticia
was brought to the bathroom and after she screamed she was stabbed and killed by A. Cedro. Benito, Nilo and
Salvacion was also stabbed but survived. The total value of the items taken was P536, 700.00.
After which, he together with all the accused, in handcuffs and bore contusions on their faces caused by blows
inflicted in their faces during investigation, was brought to the QC General Hospital before each surviving victims
and made to line-up for identification. Eugenio Cawilan was also charged with Anti-fencing Law but was acquitted
in the said case.
Issue: Whether or Not their right to counsel has been violated. WON the arrest was valid. WON the evidence from
the line-up is admissible.



Held: It is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even before trial. A police
line-up is considered a critical stage of the proceedings. Any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a
police line-up is inadmissible. HOWEVER, the prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellants

identification at the line-up. The witnesses identified the accused again in open court. Also, accused did not object
to the in-court identification as being tainted by illegal line-up.
The arrest of the appellants was without a warrant. HOWEVER, they are estopped from questioning the legality of
such arrest because they have not moved to quash the said information and therefore voluntarily submitted
themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court by entering aplea of not guilty and participating in trial. The court
believed the version of the prosecution. Ernesto Roque, while remaining outside the house served as a looked out.
Wherefore, decision of lower court is Affirmed. Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque is guilty of the crime of
robbery with homicide as co-conspirators of the other accused to suffer reclusion perpetua.

3.) People vs. Judge Ayson [G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989]
Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines, assigned at itsBaguio City station. It was
alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, the PAL management notified him of an
investigation to be conducted. That investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and
Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees'
Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. A letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle the
amount of P76,000. The findings of the Audit team were given to him, and he refuted that he misused proceeds of
tickets also stating that he was prevented from settling said amounts. He proffered a compromise however this did
not ensue. Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not guilty. Evidence by
the prosecution contained Ramos written admission and statement, to which defendants argued that the
confession was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. Respondent Judge did not admit those
stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. A motion
for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was denied. Hence this appeal.
Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as evidence the admission and
statement of accused.
Held: No. Section 20 of the 1987 constitution provides that the right against self-incrimination (only to witnesses
other than accused, unless what is asked is relating to a different crime charged- not present in case at bar). This is
accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil,
criminal, or administrative proceeding. The right is not to "be compelled to be a witness against himself. It
prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry." the right can
be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be
claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before
the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. It is a right that a witness knows or should know.
He must claim it and could be waived.

Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in miranda v. Arizona: the rights of the accused include:
1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right.
2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against
him.
3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence.
The individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. But
unless and until such rights and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, no evidence obtained as
a result of interrogation can be used against him.

4.) People vs. Pinlac [G.R. Nos.74123-24, September 26, 1988]

Facts: The accused was convicted for two separate criminal cases for robbery and robbery with homicide. He
assailed his conviction on the contention that the court erred in admitting his extrajudicial confession as evidence
which was taken by force, violence, torture, and intimidation without having appraised of his constitutional rights
and without the assistance of counsel.
Issue: Whether or not due process was observed during the custodial investigation of the accused.
Held: The court find it meritorious to declare that the constitutional rights of the accused was violated in the
failure of the authorities in making the accused understand the nature of the charges against him without
appraising him of his constitutional right to have a counsel during custodial investigation. Moreover the
prosecution merely presented the extrajudicial confession of the accused which is inadmissible as evidence and the
other evidences provided therein are merely circumstantial and subject for rebuttal. The court acquitted the
accused. WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the petitioner is hereby
ACQUITTED.

5.) People vs. Bolanos [G.R. No. 101808, July 3, 1992]
Facts: Oscar Pagdalian was murdered in Marble Supply, Balagtas Bulacan. According to Pat. Rolando Alcantara and
Francisco Dayao, deceased was with two companions on the previous night, one of whom the accused who had a
drinking spree with the deceased. When they apprehended the accused they found the firearm of the deceased on
the chair where the accused was allegedly seated. They boarded accused along with Magtibay, other accused on the
police vehicle and brought them to the police station. While in the vehicle Bolanos admitted that he killed the
deceased. RTC convicted him hence the appeal.
Issue: Whether or Not accused-appellant deprived of his constitutional right to counsel.
Held: Yes. 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, appellant should have been informed of his
Constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, more particularly par. 1 and par. 3.
WHEREFORE, finding that the Constitutional rights of the accused-appellant have been violated, the
appellant is ACQUITTED, with costs de oficio.


6.) People vs. Andan [G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997]
Andan's confessions to the media were properly admitted. The confessions were made in response to questions by
news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer. Statements spontaneously made by a suspect to
news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. The Bill of Rights
does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another individual. It governs the
relationship between the individual and the State. The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State
and its agents.

7.) Navallo vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No.97214, July 18, 1994]

Facts: Accused was the Collecting and Disbursing Officer of the Numancia National Vocational School, which school
is also located at del Carmen, Surigao del Norte. His duties included the collection of tuition fees, preparation of
vouchers for salaries of teachers and employees, and remittance of collections exceeding P500.00 to the National
Treasury. An information for malversation of public funds was filed. A warrant of arrest was issued, but accused-
petitioner could not be found. on 10 December 1978, Presidential Decree No. 1606 took effect creating the
Sandiganbayan and conferring on it original and exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by public officers
embraced in Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. On 15 November 1984, Navallo was finally arrested. He was
released on provisional liberty upon the approval of his property bail bond. When arraigned by the RTC on 18 July
1985, he pleaded not guilty. Upon motion of the prosecution, the RTC transferred the case and transmitted its
records to the Sandiganbayan. Special Prosecutor Luz L. Quiones-Marcos opined that since Navallo had already
been arraigned before the case was transferred to the Sandiganbayan, the RTC should continue taking cognizance
of the case. The matter was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman which held otherwise. The information was
then docketed with the Sandiganbayan. A new order for Navallo's arrest was issued by the Sandiganbayan. The
warrant was returned with a certification by the RTC Clerk of Court that the accused had posted a bail bond.
Navallo filed a motion to quash, contending (1) that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offense and the
person of the accused and (2) that since the accused had already been arraigned by the RTC, the attempt to
prosecute him before the Sandiganbayan would constitute double jeopardy. However this was denied and trial
ensued and he was found guilty.
Held: No. Appellant is not in custodial investigation. A person under a normal audit examination is not under
custodial investigation. An audit examiner himself can hardly be deemed to be the law enforcement officer
contemplated in the above rule. In any case, the allegation of his having been "pressured" to sign the Examination
Report prepared by Dulguime (examined cash, as ordered by Espino, the provincial auditor) appears to be belied
by his own testimony.

8.) People vs. Dy [G.R. No.74517, February 23, 1988]
Issue: Pat. Padilla reported along with Benny Dy, with caliber .38 as suspect to the shooting incident at "Benny's
Bar," at Sitio Angol, Manoc-Manoc Malay, Aklan (Boracay) situated on the Island which caused thedeath of
Christian Langel Philippe, tourist, 24 years old and a Swissnationale. He was charged with the Murder With the Use
of Unlicensedfirearms.

Held: Appellant's voluntary surrender implies no violation as "no warrant of arrest is issued for the apprehension
of the accused for the reason that he is already under police custody before the filing of the complaint." What was
told by the Accused to Pat, Padilla was a spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning, but given in
ordinary manner. No written confession was sought to be presented in evidence as a result of formal custodial
investigation.

9.) People vs. Alicando [G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995]
Facts: Appellant was charged with the crime of rape with homicide of Khazie Mae Penecilla, a minor, four years of
age, choking her with his right hand. The incident happened after appellant drank liquor. A neighbor, Leopoldo
Santiago found the victims body and the parents and police were informed. Appellant was living in his uncle's
house some five arm's length from Penecilla's house. Appellant was arrested and interrogated by PO3 Danilo Tan.
He verbally confessed his guilt without the assistance of counsel. On the basis of his uncounselled verbal confession
and follow up interrogations, the police came to know and recovered from appellant's house, Khazie Mae's green
slippers, a pair ofgold earrings, a buri mat, a stained pillow and a stained T-shirt all of which were presented as
evidence for the prosecution. He was arraigned with the assistance of Atty. Rogelio Antiquiera of the PAO.
Appellant pleaded guilty. The RTC convicted him. Hence an automatic review for the imposition of death penalty.
Held: It is not only the uncounselled confession that is condemned as inadmissible, but also evidence derived
therefrom. The pillow and the T-shirt with the alleged bloodstains were evidence derived from the uncounselled
confession illegally extracted by the police from the appellant. Again, the testimony of PO3 Tan makes this all clear.