Compiled by EJC
117. Ho Wai Pang vs People of the Philippines
GR No. 176229
Del Castillo, J.
October 19, 2011
Doctrine: Rights of Suspects; Infraction of the rights of
an accused during custodial investigation or the so-
called Miranda Rights render inadmissible only the
extrajudicial confession or admission made during such
investigation."The admissibility of other evidence,
provided they are relevant to the issue and is not
otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected even
if obtained or taken in the course of custodial
investigation."
Facts:
 13 Hongkong nationals came to the Philippines
via UAE Flight which arrived at NAIA. The group
leader, Sonny Wong, presented a Baggage
Declaration Form to Customs Examiner Cinco.
In the first bag, she saw few personal
belongings such as used clothing, shoes and
chocolate boxes which she pressed. In the
second bag, Cinco noticed chocolate boxes
which were almost of the same size as those in
the first bag. Becoming suspicious, she took
out 4 of the chocolate boxes and opened one
of them. She saw a white crystalline substance
inside contained in a white transparent plastic.
She called the attention of her immediate
superiors Duty Collector Alalo and Customs
Appraiser Sancho, who advised her to call the
Narcotics Command (NARCOM) and the police.
She guided the tourists to the Intensive
Counting Unit (ICU) while bringing with her the
4 boxes earlier discovered.
 At the ICU, Cinco checked Pang's bag and only
found personal effects, but recalled that 2 of
the chocolate boes discovered earlier at the
express lane belonged to him. Cinco called the
other tourists and examined their bags and
found a total of 18 chocolate boxes.
 NARCOM Agent de Castro corroborated the
testimony of Cinco. He conducted a test on the
white crystalline substance using the
Mandelline Re-Agent Test. The substance was
found positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu). The chocolate boxes
were bundled together with tape, placed inside
a plastic bag and brought to the Inbond
Section.
 The 13 tourists were brought to NBI for further
questioning. The confiscated substance were
turned over to the Forensic Chemist who
weighed and examined them, and found them
positive as shabu. Out of the 13 tourists, the
NBI found evidence for violation of RA 6425
only against petitioner Pang and his 5 co-
accused.
 Six separate informations were filed. Petitioner
Pang filed a Motion for Reinvestigation, which
was granted by the trial court. The
reinvestigation gave way to a finding of
conspiracy among the accused and this
resulted to the filing of a single Amended
Information. They plead guilty, and invoked
denial as their defense. They claimed to have
no knowledge about the transportation of
illegal substance taken from their traveling
bags which provided by the travel agency.
 RTC found them guilty. All the accused
appealed to the SC, but later on, all accused
except for petitioner Pang withdrew their
appeal. SC granted the withdrawal. Petitioner
Pang's appeal was referred to the CA for proper
disposition and determination.
 CA denied the appeal, and affirmed the RTC
decision. While conceding that petitioner’s
constitutional right to counsel during the
custodial investigation was indeed violated, it
nevertheless went on to hold that there were
other evidence sufficient to warrant his
conviction. The CA also rebuked petitioner’s
claim that he was deprived of his constitutional
and statutory right to confront the witnesses
against him. The CA gave credence to the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and
quoted with favor the trial court’s ratiocination
regarding the existence of conspiracy among
the accused.
Petitioner:
 He was not assisted by a competent and
independent lawyer during the custodial
investigation. He was not duly informed of his
rights to remain silent and to have competent
counsel of his choice. CA should have excluded
the evidence taken during such investigation.
 He was deprived of his right to know and
understand what the witnesses testified to.
Only a full understanding of what the witnesses
would testify to would enable an accused to
comprehend the evidence being offered
against him and to refute it by cross-
examination or by his own countervailing
evidence
Respondent (OSG):
1
Compiled by EJC
 Nothing mentioned in full text on contention
regarding violation of rights during custodial
investigation (part in outline)
 Petitioner was given the opportunity to
confront his accusers and/or witnesses of the
prosecution when his counsel cross-examined
them. It is petitioner’s call to hire an
interpreter to understand the proceedings
before him and if he could not do so, he should
have manifested it before the court. Petitioner
was nevertheless able to cross-examine the
prosecution witnesses and that such
examination suffices as compliance with
petitioner’s right to confront the witnesses
against him.
Issue:
Whether he was duly informed of his (constitutional)
right to remain silent and to have competent counsel
during custodial investigation, in accordance with
Section 12, Article 3 of the Constitution
Held:
Constitutional right was violated, but substance
discovered during inspection at NAIA still admissible as
evidence.
 Section 12, Article 3:
 Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation
for the commission of an 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 afford the services of counsel,
he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
 Petitioner Pang was subjected to all the rituals
of a custodial questioning by the custom
authorities and the NBI in violation of his
constitutional right. However, the Constitution
only prohibits as evidence confession and
admissions of the accused as against himself.
 "Infractions of the so-called Miranda rights
render inadmissible ‘only the extrajudicial
confession or admission made during custodial
investigation.’ The admissibility of other
evidence, provided they are relevant to the
issue and are not otherwise excluded by law or
rules, are not affected even if obtained or
taken in the course of custodial investigation.”
- Aquino vs Paiste
 Petitioner Pang did not make any confession or
admission during his custodial investigation.
The prosecution did not present any
extrajudicial confession extracted from his as
evidence of his guilt. No statement was taken
from him during his detention and
subsequently used in evidence against him.
The determination of his guilt was based on the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and
on the existence of the confiscated shabu.
 “Any allegation of violation of rights during
custodial investigation is relevant and material
only to cases in which an extrajudicial
admission or confession extracted from the
accused becomes the basis of their
conviction.” - People vs. Buluran
 Petitioner's conviction was on the strength of
his having been caught in flagrante delicto
transporting shabu into the country and not on
the basis of any confession or admission.
Cinco's testimony was found to be direct,
positive and credible by the trial court; it need
not be corroborated. She witnesses the entire
incident and provided direct evidence as
eyewitness to the very act of the commission
of the crime.
Other issue:
Whether he was denied of his right to cross-examine
 SC agrees with OSG.
 Petitioner did not register any objection to the
presentation of the prosecution's evidence,
particularly on the testimony of Cinco despite
the absence of an interpreter. It has not been
shown that the lack of an interpreter greatly
prejudiced him. Petitioner, through counsel,
was able to fully cross-examine Cinco and the
other witnesses and test their credibility. The
right to confrontation is essentially a guarantee
that a defendant may cross-examine the
witnesses of the prosecution. Petitioner's
constitutional right to confront witnesses
against him was not impaired.
Conspiracy among the accused was duly established
 Conspiracy is the common design to commit a
felony. It need not entail a close personal
association or at least an acquaintance
between or among the participants to a crime.
It need not be shown that the parties actually
came together and agreed in express terms to
enter into and pursue a common design. The
assent of the minds may be and, from the
secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from
proof of facts and circumstances which, taken
together, indicate that they are parts of some
complete whole.
 It can be deduced from petitioner and his co-
accused's collective conduct, viewed in its
totality, that there was a common design,
2
Compiled by EJC
concerted action and concurrence of
sentiments in bringing about the crime
committed.
Guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt
 Cinco's first testimony declared that she did
not see any chocolate boxes in petitioner's bag.
But she clarified in her succeeding testimony
that she recalls taking 2 chocolate boxes from
his bag when they were still at the counter. This
sufficiently explained why Cinco did not find
any chocolate boxes from petitioner’s bag
when they were at the ICU. This slight clash in
Cinco’s statements neither dilute her
credibility nor the veracity of her testimony.
 Jurisprudence teaches that in assessing the
credibility of a witness, his testimony must be
considered in its entirety instead of in
truncated parts. The technique in deciphering
a testimony is not to consider only its isolated
parts and anchor a conclusion on the basis of
said parts. “In ascertaining the facts
established by a witness, everything stated by
him on direct, cross and redirect examinations
must be calibrated and considered.”
 There is nothing in the records which would
show a motive or reason on the part of the
witness to falsely implicate the accused.
Petitioner presented no evidence or anything
to indicate that the principal witness for the
prosecution was moved by any improper
motive.
 Verily, the evidence adduced against petitioner
is so overwhelming that this Court is convinced
that his guilt has been established beyond
reasonable doubt. Nothing else can speak so
eloquently of his culpability than the
unassailable fact that he was caught red-
handed in the very act of transporting, along
with his co-accused, shabu into the country. In
stark contrast, the evidence for the defense
consists mainly of denials.
RODEL LUZ y ONG, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
SERENO, J.:
FACTS:
PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza testified that he saw the
accused driving a motorcycle without a helmet
and this prompted him to flag down the accused
for violating a municipal ordinance which
requires all motorcycle drivers to wear helmet
while driving said motor vehicle. He invited the
accused to come inside their sub-station since
the place where he flagged down the accused is
almost in front of the sub-station to where he is
assigned as a traffic enforcer. While he and SPO1
Rayford Brillante were issuing a citation ticket for
violation of municipal ordinance, he noticed that
the accused was uneasy and kept on getting
something from his jacket. He was alerted and
so, he told the accused to take out the contents
of the pocket of his jacket as the latter may have
a weapon inside it. The accused obliged and
slowly put out the contents of the pocket of his
jacket which included two (2) plastic sachets of
suspected shabu. The RTC convicted petitioner
of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It found
the prosecution evidence sufficient to show that
he had been lawfully arrested for a traffic
violation and then subjected to a valid search,
which led to the discovery on his person of two
plastic sachets later found to contain shabu.
Upon review, the CA affirmed the RTCs Decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure of
the alleged subject shabu was incident to a
lawful arrest.
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is reversed.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: search and seizure
incident to a lawful arrest
There was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he
was flagged down for committing a traffic
violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely for
this reason, arrested.
3
Compiled by EJC

complied with. At the time a person is arrested,

it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in
inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and
order that he or she may be bound to answer for
must show that person the warrant of arrest, if
the commission of an offense. It is effected by an
any. Persons shall be informed of their
actual restraint of the person to be arrested or
constitutional rights to remain silent and to
by that persons voluntary submission to the
counsel, and that any statement they might
custody of the one making the arrest. Neither
make could be used against them. It may also be
the application of actual force, manual touching
noted that in this case, these constitutional
of the body, or physical restraint, nor a formal
requirements were complied with by the police
declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough
officers only after petitioner had been arrested
that there be an intention on the part of one of
for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
the parties to arrest the other, and that there be
an intent on the part of the other to submit,
under the belief and impression that submission
GRANTED.
is necessary. Under R.A. 4136, or the Land
Transportation and Traffic Code, the general
procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is
not the arrest of the offender, but the PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
confiscation of the drivers license of the latter. ENRIQUE L. LOCSIN AND MANUEL D. ANDAL,
Petitioners, v. SENATE OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC
At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to
ENTERPRISES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
write his citation ticket, petitioner could not be
SERVICES, HON. SEN. RICHARD GORDON AND
said to have been under arrest. There was no
HON. SEN. JUAN PONCE ENRILE,Respondents.
intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to arrest him,
deprive him of his liberty, or take him into
custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the
period during which petitioner was at the police PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
station may be characterized merely as waiting
time. In fact, as found by the trial court, PO3
Alteza himself testified that the only reason they FACTS:
went to the police sub-station was that
petitioner had been flagged down almost in
front of that place. Hence, it was only for the PHILCOMSAT is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
sake of convenience that they were waiting Philippine Overseas Telecommunications
there. There was no intention to take petitioner Corporation (POTC), a government-sequestered
into custody. organization in which the Republic of the
Philippines holds a 35% interest in shares of
stocks. For the period from 1986 to 1996, the
Even if one were to work under the assumption government, through the Presidential
that petitioner was deemed arrested upon being Commission on Good Government (PCGG),
flagged down for a traffic violation and while regularly received cash dividends from POTC.
awaiting the issuance of his ticket, then the However, POTC suffered its first loss.
requirements for a valid arrest were not

4
Compiled by EJC
In view of the losses that the government
continued to incur and in order to protect its
interests in POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC,
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, during the
Second Regular Session of the Thirteenth
Congress of the Philippines, introduced
Proposed Senate Resolution (PSR) No. 455
directing the conduct of an inquiry, in aid of
legislation, on the anomalous losses incurred by
POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC and the
mismanagement committed by their respective
board of directors.
Respondents Senate Committees submitted the
assailed Committee Report No. 312, where it
noted the need to examine the role of the PCGG
in the management of POTC, PHILCOMSAT and
PHC. After due proceedings, the respondents
Senate Committees found overwhelming
mismanagement by the PCGG and its nominees
over POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC, and that
PCGG was negligent in performing its mandate
to preserve the government's interests in the
said corporations. In sum, Committee Report No.
312 recommended, inter alia, the privatization
and transfer of the jurisdiction over the shares of
the government in POTC and PHILCOMSAT to the
Privatization Management Office (PMO) under
the Department of Finance (DOF) and the
replacement of government nominees as
directors of POTC and PHILCOMSAT.
Petitioners filed the instant petition before the
Court, questioning, in particular, the haste with
which the respondent Senate approved the
challenged Committee Report No. 312.
ISSUE: Whether or not Committee Resolution
No. 312 should be nullified, having proposed no
piece of legislation and having been hastily
approved by the respondent Senate?
HELD: Committee Report No. 312 is sustained.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: senate's power of
inquiry
The respondents Senate Committees' power of
inquiry relative to PSR No. 455 has been passed
upon and upheld in the consolidated cases of In
the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of
Camilo L. Sabio, which cited Article VI, Section 21
of the Constitution, as follows:
"The Senate or the House of Representatives or
any of its respective committees may conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with
its duly published rules of procedure. The rights
of persons appearing in or affected by such
inquiries shall be respected."
The Court explained that such conferral of the
legislative power of inquiry upon any committee
of Congress, in this case the respondents Senate
Committees, must carry with it all powers
necessary and proper for its effective discharge.
On this score, the respondents Senate
Committees cannot be said to have acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
excess of jurisdiction when it submitted
Committee Resolution No. 312, given its
constitutional mandate to conduct legislative
inquiries. Nor can the respondent Senate be
faulted for doing so on the very same day that
the assailed resolution was submitted. The wide
latitude given to Congress with respect to these
5
Compiled by EJC
legislative inquiries has long been settled,
otherwise, Article VI, Section 21 would be
rendered pointless.
accessory penalties prescribed by law.
• that his conviction was attended with moral
Rejected Lara's defense of alibi as follows
because Enrique Sumulong positively identified
accused Arturo Lara asthe person who carted
away the payroll money of San Sebastian Allied
Services, and the one who shot JoselitoBautista
which caused his instantaneous death on the
same day. Also, it is not impossible for him to be
at the place
ARGUMENTS:
• suggest the existence of bias or impairtheir
On appeal, Lara pointed out several errors that
supposedly attended his conviction. First, that he
was arrested without a warrant under
circumstances that do not justify a warrantless
arrest rendered void all proceedings including
those thatled to his conviction.
• imposed was reclusion perpetua
Second, he was not assisted by counsel when the
police placed him in a line-up to be identified by
the witnesses for theprosecution in violation of
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution. The
police line-up is part of custodial
investigationand his right to counsel had already
attached.
• the assistance of counsel? (NO, identification not
Third, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the
prosecution failed to present a witness who
actually saw him commit the alleged acts.
Sumulong merely presumed that he was the one
who shotBautista and who took the bag of
money from him. The physical description of
Lara that Sumulong gave to the police was
different from the one he gave during the trial,
indicating that he did not have a fair glimpse of
the perpetrator.Moreover, this gives rise to the
possibility that it was his unidentified companion
who shot Bautista and took possessionof the
money. Hence, it cannot be reasonably claimed
certainty.
•
Fourth, the trial court erred in discounting the
testimony of his witnesses. Without any showing
that they were impelledby improper motives in
testifying in his favor, their testimonies should
have been given the credence they
deserve.While his two (2) witnesses were his
sister and neighbor, this does not by itself
credibility.
CA:
AFFIRMED conviction.
•
AUTOMATIC APPEAL TO SC as the penalty
ISSUES:
1. Whether Lara's supposedly illegal arrest may
be raised for the first time on appeal for the
purpose of nullifying hisconviction? (YES)2.
Whether the identification made by Sumulong,
Atie and Manacob in the police line-up is
inadmissible because Lara stoodtherein without
custodial investigation)3. Whether there is
sufficient evidence to convict Lara? (YES)4.
Whether Lara's alibi can be given credence so as
to exonerate him from the crime charged? (NO)
6
Compiled by EJC
HELD:
DENY appeal.1. YES. That Lara was supposedly
arrested without a warrant may not serve as a
ground to invalidate the proceedingsleading to
his conviction considering its belated invocation.
Any objections to the legality of the warrantless
arrest shouldhave been raised in a motion to
quash duly filed before the accused enters his
plea; otherwise, it is deemed waived.Further,
that the accused was illegally arrested is not a
ground to set aside conviction duly arrived at
and based on evidencethat sufficiently
establishes culpability:
•
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused may
be acquired through compulsory process such as
a warrant of arrest orthrough his voluntary
appearance, such as when he surrenders to the
police or to the court.
•
Any objection to the arrest or acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused must
be made before he entershis plea, otherwise the
objection is deemed waived. An accused submits
to the jurisdiction of the trial court uponentering
a plea and participating actively in the trial and
this precludes him invoking any irregularities
that may haveattended his arrest. In voluntarily
submitting himself to the court by entering a
plea, instead of filing a motion to quashthe
information for lack of jurisdiction over his
person, accused-appellant is deemed to have
waived his right to assailthe legality of his arrest.
•
Furthermore, the illegal arrest of an accused is
not a sufficient ground to reverse and set aside a
conviction that wasarrived upon a complaint
duly filed and a trial conducted without error.
The warrantless arrest, even if illegal,
cannotrender void all other proceedings
including those leading to the conviction of the
appellants and his co-accused, nor canthe state
be deprived of its right to convict the guilty when
all the facts on record point to their culpability.
•
As Section 9, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides: Sec. 9. Failure to
move to quash or toallege any ground therefor.
— The failure of the accused to assert any
ground of a motion to quash before he pleads
tothe complaint or information, either because
he did not file a motion to quash or failed to
allege the same in said motion,shall be deemed
a waiver of any objections except those based on
the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b),
(g)and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule.2. NO. There
was no legal compulsion to afford him a counsel
during a police line-up since the latter is not part
of custodialinvestigation and this does not
constitute a violation of his right to counsel
•
That he stood at the police line-up without the
assistance of counsel did not render Sumulong's
identification of Larainadmissible.
The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at
the precise moment custodial
investigationbegins and being made to stand in a
police line-up is not the starting point or a part
of custodialinvestigation.
•
People v. Amestuzo: The guarantees of Sec. 12
(1), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, or the so-
called Miranda rights,may be invoked only by a
person while he is under custodial investigation.
Custodial investigation starts when thepolice
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into
an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a
7
Compiled by EJC
particularsuspect taken into custody by the
police who starts the interrogation and
propounds questions to the person to
elicitincriminating statements.
• extrajudicial admission or confession extracted
Police line-up is not part of the custodial
investigation; hence, the right to counsel
guaranteed by theConstitution cannot yet be
invoked at this stage.
• assertion, prosecution witness Sumulong
The right to be assisted by counsel attaches only
during custodial investigation and cannot be
claimed by theaccused during identification in a
police line-up because it is not part of the
custodial investigation process.
This isbecause during a police line-up, the
process has not yet shifted from the
investigatory to the accusatoryand it is usually
the witness or the complainant who is
interrogated and who gives a statement in
thecourse of the line-up.
•
An exception to this rule is when the accused had
been the focus of police attention at the start of
theinvestigation.
In the case at bench, appellant was identified in
a police line-up by prosecution witnesses from
agroup of persons gathered for the purpose.
However, there was no proof that appellant was
interrogated at all orthat a statement or
confession was extracted from him. During the
police line-up, the accusatory process had notyet
commenced.
•
Assuming there was interrogation, any allegation
of violation of rights during custodial
investigation is
relevant andmaterial only to cases in which an
from the accusedbecomes the basis of their
conviction.
Here, appellant was convicted based on the
testimony of a prosecution witness and not on
his alleged uncounseled confession or
admission.3. YES. Contrary to appellant's
actually saw him shoot Bautista, the victim. Also,
itis apparent from the assailed decision of the CA
that the finding of guilt against Lara is
based on circumstantial evidence.
•
Not only direct evidence but also circumstantial
evidence can overcome the presumption of
innocence. Directevidence of the commission of
the crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial
court may draw its conclusion andfinding of
guilt. Even in the absence of direct evidence,
conviction can be had if the established
circumstancesconstitute an unbroken chain,
consistent with each other and to the hypothesis
that the accused is guilty,to the exclusion of all
other hypothesis that he is not.
•
REQUISITES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules
on CriminalProcedure, circumstantial evidence
sufficed to convict upon the concurrence of the
following
requisites
: (a) there ismore than one circumstance; (b) the
facts from which the inferences are derived are
8
Compiled by EJC
proven; and (c) thecombination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
•
It is not only by direct evidence that an accused
may be convicted of the crime for which he is
charged. Resort tocircumstantial evidence is
essential since to insist on direct testimony
would, in many cases, result in setting felonsfree
and denying proper protection to the
community.
•
Here, the following circumstantial evidence are
tellingly sufficient to prove the guilt of appellant:
o
While the vehicle was at the intersection of
Mercedes and Market Avenues, Pasig City,
appellant suddenly
emerged and pointed a gun at prosecution
witness Sumulong, demanding from him to
produce the bagcontaining the money.
o
Prosecution witness Sumulong threw the bag to
the victim who was then seated at the backseat
of thevehicle.
o normally accepted.
The victim alighted from vehicle carrying the bag
o o
Appellant chased and fired several shots at the
victim.
o him, however perjurious, such a serious charge.
The victim sustained several gunshot wounds.
o faith and credit and should not bedisturbed. If an
The police officers recovered from the scene of
the crime six deformed empty shells.
•
Indeed, in cases of robbery with homicide, the
taking of personal property with intent to gain
must itself beestablished beyond reasonable
doubt. The mere presence of the accused at the
crime scene is not enough toimplicate him. It is
essential to prove the intent to rob and the use
of violence was necessary to realize such intent.
o
In this case, Lara's intent to gain is proven by
Sumulong's positive narration that it was Lara
who pointedthe gun at him and demanded that
the bag containing the money be turned over to
him. That Lara resortedto violence in order to
actualize his intent to gain is proven by
Sumulong's testimony that he saw Lara firethe
gun at the direction of Bautista, who was running
away from the pick-up in order to prevent Lara
fromtaking possession of the money.
o
Notably, the incident took place in broad
daylight and in the middle of a street.
Thus, whereconsiderations of visibility are
favorable and the witness does not appear to be
biased against theaccused, his or her assertions
as to the identity of the malefactor should be
Lara did not allege, much less, convincingly
demonstrate that Sumulong was impelled by
improper ormalicious motives to impute upon
Thus, his testimony, which the trial court found
to be forthright and credible, is worthy of full
accused had nothing to do with the crime, it is
9
Compiled by EJC

against the natural order of events and ofhuman DISPOSITIVE:

nature and against the presumption of good
CA AFFIRMED
faith that a prosecution witness would falsely
testifyagainst the former.4. NO. In view of
Sumulong's positive identification of Lara, the CA
was correct in denying Lara's alibi outright. It is
well-settled People v. Ribadajo 142 SCRA 637 (1986)
that positive identification prevails over alibi,
which is inherently a weak defense. Such is the
rule, for as a defense, alibi is easy to concoct, and F: On Nov. 20, 1971, the appellants confessed
difficult to disapprove participation in the slaying of a fellow inmate,
Bernardo Catamora, at the New Bilibid Prison.
. On the basis of their confession, they were found
• guilty of murder. On appeal, they claimed that
their extrajudicial confessions had been
In order for the defense of alibi to prosper, it obtained by force.
must be demonstrated that:

o
that he was present at another place at the time
of the perpetration of the crime
o
he was so far away that it was not possible for
him to have been physically present at the place
of the crimeor its immediate vicinity at the time
of its commission.
Physical impossibility "refers to the distance
between the place where the accused was when
thecrime transpired and the place where it was
committed, as well as the facility of access
betweenthe two places.
HELD: The proscription against the admissibility
of confessions obtained from an accused during
the period of custodial investigation, in violation
of procedural safeguards, applies to confessions
obtained after the effectivity of the 1973 Const.
No law gives the accused the right to be so
informed before the enactment of the 1973
Const., even of presented after Jan. 17, 1973.
That Constitutional guaranty relative to
confessions obtained during custodial
investigation does not have any retroactive
effect. VV.
Filoteo Jr. v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. 79543

• Ponente: Panganiban, J.

Proximity of Lara's house at the scene of the Petition for certiorari or review on certiorari of
crime wholly negates his alibi. He himself Sandiganbayan decision
admitted that his house was just a stone's throw
(about three minutes away) from the crime
scene. Lara and his witnesses failed to prove that Facts:
itis well-nigh impossible for him to be at the
scene of the crime.

10
Compiled by EJC
• Petitioner Jose Filoteo Jr., a police
investigator of the Western Police District, was
accused of being the mastermind of the armed
hijacking of a postal delivery van.
o 3 May 1982 in Meycauayan, Bulacan, the
Postal Delivery Truck of the Bureau of Postal
(driven by Miranda, Bautista and Tagudar) was
stopped, and the suspects (later identified as
Frias, Liwanag, Mendoza and Saguindel) took
with them the truck, SSS Medicare checks and
vouchers, SSS Pension checks and vouchers,
treasury warrants, and several mail matters from
abroad.
o The van was recovered at La Loma,
Quezon City the following day, although some
checks and warrants were missing.
• The Special Operations Group (SOG) of
the Philippine Constabulary received a tip from a
civilian that two persons were looking for buyers
of stolen checks. The SOG, led by Capt. Ferrer
and Lt. Pagdilao arranged a meeting with the
persons and confronted them regarding the
investigation, assuring Frias that his penalty will
be mitigated if he cooperated. He then led Ferrer
to Perez and Mendoza, who also pointed to
Liwanag and Mateo. Liwanag, Mateo, Perez and
Mendoza all pointed to the petitioner as
mastermind.
• Filoteo admitted involvement in the
crime and pointed to three other soldiers as
confederates (Saguindel, Relator and
Miravalles). The petitioner executed 2
documents on May 30, 1982, (1) that he was
apprised of his constitutional rights under
Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution,
and his waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of
the Revised Penal Code (including his right to
counsel) and (2) that he voluntarily surrendered
the checks and vouchers to the SOG. In a sworn
statement in Tagalog (without any counsel), he
admitted to full knowledge and participation in
the crime.
• However, in his own defense, he stated
that he only knew Mateo (and not the others)
because Mateo was an informer who was paid
from time to time by the police intelligence. He
said he was in Lakan Beer House for a friend’s
birthday on May 3, 1982 from 3:30-5 and then 6-
8 (the friend and beer house owner also testified
seeing him there). He also said that the SOG
refused to give any reason when they arrested
him on May 29, and that nobody apprised him of
his constitutional rights. He claimed that he was
repeatedly coaxed to admit his participation in
the hijacking and was made to sign the sworn
statement under duress (he was allegedly
electrocuted and “water cured”).
• The Respondent Court found Filoteo
guilty for brigandage (PD 532) and sentenced to
twelve years and one day to thirteen years, one
month and eleven days of reclusion temporal. He
filed a motion for reconsideration but was
denied. He made an instant alternative petition
for certiorari charging the Sandiganbayan with
having abused its discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction and with reversible error.
Issues:
• Whether the SC is appropriate for this
matter, which is technically over a QUESTION OF
FACT rather than a QUESTION OF LAW (since
what is being contested is Sandiganbayan’s
misapprehension of facts in arriving at its
decision).
• Whether the written statements,
particularly the extrajudicial confession
executed by the accused without the presence of
his lawyer, admissible in evidence against him
because it was done without counsel.
o The 1973 Constitution, Art. IV Section 20
allows for rights to be waived whereas the 1987
Constitution, Art. III Section 12 does not allow
11
Compiled by EJC
any right to be waived except in the presence of
counsel
• Whether the petitioner’s arrest was
illegal.
• Whether Art III, Section 12 of the 1987
Constitution can be applied retroactively.
Held:
• Yes. Although under Rule 45 in Rules of
Court, the SC will only review Sandiganbayan
decisions that raise pure questions of law, under
exceptional circumstances the Court will also
recognize questions of fact in order to resolve
legal issues if it seems like grave errors were
committed by the lower court. And in all criminal
cases, a person’s life and liberty are at stake
• Yes. It is admissible in evidence because
his sworn statement and waiver was made on
May 20, 1982 when the 1973 Constitution was
still in effect. Also, the petitioner’s claim of being
tortured to sign the statement was invalid
because it was negated by the medical reports
and that his consistency in handwriting showed
that his signatures were written voluntarily or
not under torture. His alibi (birthday in Lakan
Beer House) did not prove anything as Lakan
Beer House was a 30 minute drive to the scene
of the crime and he could easily have moved
from one place to the other.
• No. The claim was belatedly made. He
should have questioned the validity of his arrest
before he entered his plea in the trial court,
otherwise his objection is deemed waived.
• No. Article 4 of the Civil Code (“laws shall
have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is
provided”) and Article 22 of the RPC (“penal laws
shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they
favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a
habitual criminal”) cannot be applied in this case
because Article III, Section 12 is not a penal
statute.
Final Ruling of SC
• Petitioner is found guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. However, he is found guilty
not of brigandage but of robbery (an isolated
case of theft rather than an organized banding
for “several indiscriminate thefts” along
highways), reducing his punishment to four
years and two months of of prison correccional
to ten years of prison mayor. (The other accused
found guilty are still guilty of brigandage, as they
did not appeal the Sandiganbayan decision.)
Santos vs. Sandiganbayan – No digest
People vs. Baloloy
381 SCRA 31
Facts:
At Barangay Inagasan, Aurora,
Zamboanga del Sur, on the evening of August 3
1996, the body of 11 years old Genelyn Camacho
was found at the waterfalls at the said barangay.
Autopsy report found the Genelyn was raped
before she was drowned. The one who caused its
discovery was accused-appellant Juanito Baloloy
himself, Who claimed that he had caught sight of
it while he was catching frogs in the nearby
creek. While in the wake of Genelyn, Juanito
confessed to the barangay captain that he only
wanted to frighten the girl but ended up raping
and throwing her body in the ravine. While in the
custody of authorities, he was asked
incriminating questions by Judge Dicon who
justified his actions saying that Juanito was not
12
Compiled by EJC

yet in custodial investigation. Based on his place under custody for investigation in
alleged extrajudicial confession, coupled with connection with the commission of the offense.
circumstantial evidence, the trail court violated Moreover, Juanito did not offer any evidence of
Section 12 (1) of Article III of the barangay improper or ulterior motive on the party of
captain Ceniza and Judge Dicon. According to Ceniza, which could have compelled her testify
him, the two failed to inform him of his falsely against him.
Constitutional rights before they took it upon
themselves to elicit from him the incriminatory
information. It is of no moment that Ceniza and
Dicon are not police investigators, for as public
officials it was incumbent upon them to observe Jesalva vs People – No digest
the express mandate of the Constitution. While
these rights may be waiver executed in the
presence of counsel. He concludes that his People vs Tin Lan Uy – No digest
extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in
evidence.
Astudillo vs People – No Digest

Issue:
Dela Torre vs CA – No digest
Whether or not Juanitos extrajudicial
confession before the barangay captain was
amissible.

PEOPLE VS. EDUARDO PAVILLARE

Ruling:
Yes, as to his confession with the
barangay captain Ceniza, it has been held that
the constitutional provision on custodial
investigation does not apply to a spontaneous
statement, not elicited through questioning by
the authorities but given in an ordinary manner
whereby the suspect orally admits having
committed the crime. Neither can it apply to
admissions or confessions made by a suspect in
the commission of a crime before he is placed
under investigation. What the Constitution bars
is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating
facts or confessions. In the instant case, Juanito
voluntarily narrated to Ceniza that he rapes
Genelyn and thereafter threw her body into the
ravine. This narration was spontaneous answer,
freely and voluntarily given in an ordinaty
manner. It was given before he was arrested or
G.R. NO. 129970 (2000)
Facts: A, without the assistance of counsel, was
identified by the complainant in a police-line up
as one of the kidnappers. He was subsequently
found guilty with kidnapping for ransom.
Issue: Whether the identification made by the
complainant in the police line-up is inadmissible
because A stood up at the line-up without the
assistance of counsel.
Held: No. The Constitution prohibits custodial
investigation conducted without the assistance
of counsel. Any evidence obtained in violation of
the constitutional mandate is inadmissible in

13
Compiled by EJC
evidence. The prohibition however, does not
extend to a person in a police line-up because
that stage of an investigation is not yet a part of
custodial investigation. Custodial investigation
commences when a person is taken into custody
and is singled out as a suspect in the commission
of the crime under investigation and the police
officers begin to ask questions on the suspect’s
participation therein and which tend to elicit an
admission. The stage of the investigation
wherein a person is asked to stand in a police
line-up is outside the mantle of protection of the
right to counsel because it involves a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime and is purely
investigatory in nature.
People V. Casimiro Legal Research
G.R. No. 146277, June 20, 2002 2011
Facts
The accused-appellant appeals from the decision
of the RTC, Branch 5, Baguio City, guilty of
violating Republic Act No. 6425 otherwise known
as the Dangerous Drugs Act.
The accused-appellant, did willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously sell and/or deliver to posing
buyer, SPO2 DOROTHEO SUPA of the 14th
Regional Field Office, Narcotics Unit, about nine
hundred fifty (950) grams of marijuana dried
leaves in brick form, and knowing fully well that
the article is a prohibited drug, in violation of the
aforecited provision of law.
However, the witnesses testified for the
prosecution: PO2 Dorotheo Supa, Alma
Margarita D. Villasenor, and PO2 Juan Piggangay,
Jr. admitted to have forgotten the affixing of
their initials upon receipt of the marijuana,
thereby deviating from narcotics field test
standard operating procedure. PO2 Supa
testified that he no longer gave the marked
money to accused-appellant because he placed
the latter under arrest. He recited to him his
rights but failed to include a crucial part of the
Miranda Rights, if accused-appellant could not
afford counsel, one would be assigned to him.
The officers also admitted to have made the
accused affix his signature on the receipt of
property seized without the assistance of a
counsel, as well as whether or not he was
waiving his rights to remain silent at all.
Issue
Is deviation from standard operating procedures
a violation of the constitutional rights of the
accused?
Held
First. With respect to the receipt of property
seized from accused-appellant, the fact that
there was a receipt of property seized issued by
the police which was signed by the accused does
not affect the liability of the accused.
Second. Nor is there other credible evidence
against accused-appellant. As he points out, he
could not have been so careless as to call the
telephone number of the 14th Regional
Narcotics Office and offer marijuana to the
policemen there. Neither would he blatantly sell
illegal drugs to known police officers nor would
he transact these illegal sales over the
14
Compiled by EJC
telephone, because these acts are usually done
face to face.
Third. The prosecution failed to establish the
identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes
the corpus delicti of the offense, an essential
requirement in a drug-related case. In this case,
the prosecution failed to prove the crucial first
link in the chain of custody, they did not write
their initials on the brick of marijuana
immediately after allegedly seizing it.
According to PO3 Piggangay, the bag that he saw
was colored gray or blue, the same color as that
of the bag sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory
Service for laboratory examination. Whereas
PO2 Supa stated, however, that the bag of
marijuana which he saw was colored brown. The
discrepancy in the testimony of these two police
officers casts additional doubt on the identity of
the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus
delicti.
Indeed, there is failure in this case to observe
standard operating procedure for a buy-bust
operation. It is precisely when the government’s
purposes are beneficent that we should be most
on our guard to protect these rights. Our desire
to stamp out criminality cannot be achieved at
the expense of constitutional rights. For these
reasons, we cannot uphold the conviction of
accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 6, Baguio City is REVERSED and
accused-appellant Albert Casimiro is ACQUITTED
on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Consequently, he is ordered forthwith released
from custody, unless he is being lawfully held for
another crime.
CASE NO. 41
Rule 130 Rules of Admissibility | C. Testimonial
Evidence | 3. Admissions and Confessions
* Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confession of the
Accused
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENJAMIN
SAYABOC y SEGUBA, PATRICIO ESCORPISO y
VALDEZ, MARLON BUENVIAJE y PINEDA, and
MIGUEL BUENVIAJE y FLORES
G.R. No. 147201 (419 SCRA 659); January 15,
2004
FACTS
In its decision, the trial court found Benjamin
Sayaboc guilty of the crime of murder, with
treachery as the qualifying circumstance and
craft and price or reward as aggravating
circumstances. It then sentenced him to the
maximum penalty of death. As for the other
accused, the court held that the treachery
employed by Sayaboc could not be taken against
them and, therefore, declared them guilty of the
crime of homicide only, with the first as principal
and the two others as accomplices. From this
decision, accused appealed.
Anent the third assignment of error, appellants
contend that the extrajudicial confession of
Sayaboc may not be admitted in evidence
against him because Atty. Cornejo, the PAO
lawyer who was his counsel during the custodial
investigation, was not a competent,
independent, vigilant, and effective counsel. He
was ineffective because he remained silent
during the entire proceedings. He was not
15
Compiled by EJC
independent, as he was formerly a judge in the
National Police Commission, which was holding
court inside the PNP Command of Bayombong,
Nueva Vizcaya.
ISSUE: Whether the extrajudicial confession of
Sayaboc is not admissible in evidence.
HELD: YES.
Jurisprudence provides that extrajudicial
confessions are presumed to be voluntary. The
condition for this presumption, however, is that
the prosecution is able to show that the
constitutional requirements safeguarding an
accused’s rights during custodial investigation
have been strictly complied with, especially
when the extrajudicial confession has been
denounced. The rationale for this requirement is
to allay any fear that the person being
investigated would succumb to coercion while in
the unfamiliar or intimidating environment that
is inherent in custodial investigations. Therefore,
even if the confession may appear to have been
given voluntarily since the confessant did not file
charges against his alleged intimidators for
maltreatment, the failure to properly inform a
suspect of his rights during a custodial
investigation renders the confession valueless
and inadmissible.
Apart from the absence of an express waiver of
his rights, the confession contains the passing of
information of the kind held to be in violation of
the right to be informed under Section 12, Article
III of the Constitution. The right to be informed
requires “the transmission of meaningful
information rather than just the ceremonial and
perfunctory recitation of an abstract
constitutional principle.”27 It should allow the
suspect to consider the effects and
consequences of any waiver he might make of
these rights. More so when the suspect is one
like Sayaboc, who has an educational attainment
of Grade IV, was a stranger in Nueva Vizcaya, and
had already been under the control of the police
officers for two days previous to the
investigation, albeit for another offense.
People vs Bagnate – No case digest
People Vs. Galit
March 20, 1985
FACTS:
The accused was arrested for
killing the victim oil the occasion of a robbery. He
had been detained and interrogated almost
continuously for five days, to no avail. He
consistently maintained his innocence. There
was no evidence to link him to the crime.
Obviously, something drastic had to be done. A
confession was absolutely necessary. So the
investigating officers began to maul him and to
torture him physically. Still the prisoner insisted
on his innocence. His will have to be broken. A
confession must be obtained. So they continued
to maltreat and beat him. They covered his face
with a rag and pushed his face into toilet bowl
full of human waste. The prisoner could not take
it anymore. His body could no longer endure the
pain inflicted on him and the indignities he had
to suffer. He admitted what the investigating
officers wanted him to admit and he signed the
confession they prepared. Later, against his will,
he posed for pictures as directed by his
investigators, purporting it to be a reenactment
ISSUE:
16
Compiled by EJC
Whether or not the accused was
informed of his constitutional rights to remain
silent and to counsel, and that any statement he
might make could be used against him.
HELD:
The accused was acquitted.
Such a long question followed by monosyllabic
answer does not satisfy the requirements of the
law that the accused be informed of his rights
under the Constitution and our laws. Instead
there should be several short and clear questions
and every right in simple words, in a dialect or
language known to the person under
investigation. The accused is from Samar and no
showing that he understands Tagalog.
Moreover, at the time of his arrest, accused was
not permitted to communicate with his lawyers,
a relative, or a friend. In fact, his sisters another
relatives did not know that he been brought to
the NBI for the investigation and it was only two
weeks after he had executed the statement that
his relatives were allowed to visit him. His
statement does not even contain any waiver of
right to counsel and yet during the investigation
one did not assist him. At the supposed
reenactment, again counsel of his choice did not
assist accused. These constitute gross violations
of his rights.
People vs. Andan [GR 116437, 3 March 1997] En
Banc, Per Curiam: 15 concur
Facts: On 19 February 1994 at about 4:00 P.M.,
in Concepcion Subdivision, Baliuag, Bulacan,
Marianne Guevarra, 20 years of age and a
second-year student at the Fatima School of
Nursing, left her home for her school dormitory
in Valenzuela, Metro Manila. She was to prepare
for her final examinations on 21 February 1994.
Marianne wore a striped blouse and faded
denim pants and brought with her two bags
containing her school uniforms, some personal
effects and more than P2,000.00 in cash.
Marianne was walking along the subdivision
when Pablito Andan y Hernandez invited her
inside his house. He used the pretext that the
blood pressure of his wife's grandmother should
be taken. Marianne agreed to take her blood
pressure as the old woman was her distant
relative. She did not know that nobody was
inside the house. Andan then punched her in the
abdomen, brought her to the kitchen and raped
her. His lust sated, Andan dragged the
unconscious girl
to an old toilet at the back of the house and left
her there until dark. Night came and Andan
pulled Marianne, who was still unconscious, to
their backyard. The yard had a pigpen bordered
on one side by a 6-foot high concrete fence. On
the other side was a vacant lot. Andan stood on
a bench beside the pigpen and then lifted and
draped the girl's body over the fence to transfer
it to the vacant lot. When the girl moved, he hit
her head with a piece of concrete block. He
heard her moan and hit her again on the face.
After silence reigned, he pulled her body to the
other side of the fence, dragged it towards a
shallow portion of the lot and abandoned it. At
11:00 a.m. of the following day, the body of
Marianne was discovered. She was naked from
the chest down with her brassiere and T-shirt
pulled toward her neck. Nearby was found a
panty with a sanitary napkin. Marianne's
gruesome death drew public attention and
prompted Mayor Cornelio Trinidad of Baliuag to
form a crack team of police officers to look for
the criminal. Searching the place where
Marianne's body was found, the policemen
recovered a broken piece of concrete block
stained with what appeared to be blood. They
also found a pair of denim pants and a pair of
shoes which were identified as Marianne's.
17
Compiled by EJC
Andan's nearby house was also searched by the
police who found bloodstains on the wall of the
pigpen in the backyard. They interviewed the
occupants of the house and learned from
Romano Calma, the stepbrother of Andan's wife,
that Andan also lived there but that he, his wife
and son left without a word. Calma surrendered
to the police several articles consisting of
pornographic pictures, a pair of wet short pants
with some reddish brown stain, a towel also with
the stain, and a wet T-shirt. The clothes were
found in the laundry hamper inside the house
and allegedly belonged to Andan. The police
tried to locate Andan and learned that his
parents live in Barangay Tangos, Baliuag,
Bulacan. On February 24 at 11:00 P.M., a police
team led by Mayor Trinidad traced Andan in his
parents' house. They took him aboard the patrol
jeep and brought him to the police headquarters
where he was interrogated. Initially, Andan
denied any knowledge of Marianne's death.
However, when the police confronted him with
the concrete block, the victim's clothes and the
bloodstains found in the pigpen, Andan relented
and said that his neighbors, Gilbert Larin and
Reynaldo Dizon, killed Marianne and that he was
merely a lookout. He also said that he knew
where Larin and Dizon hid the two bags of
Marianne. Immediately, the police took Andan
to his house. Larin and Dizon, who were rounded
up earlier, were likewise brought there by the
police. Andan went to an old toilet at the back of
the house, leaned over a flower pot and
retrieved from a canal under the pot, two bags
which were later identified as belonging to
Marianne. Thereafter, photographs were taken
of Andan and the two other suspects holding the
bags. By this time, people and media
representatives were already gathered at the
police headquarters awaiting the results of the
investigation. Mayor Trinidad arrived and
proceeded to the investigation room. Upon
seeing the mayor, Andan approached him and
whispered a request that they talk privately. The
mayor led Andan to the office of the Chief of
Police and there, Andan broke down and said
"Mayor, patawarin mo ako! I will tell you the
truth. I am the one who killed Marianne." The
mayor opened the door of the room to let the
public and media representatives witness the
confession. The mayor first asked for a lawyer to
assist Andan but since no lawyer was available
he ordered the proceedings photographed and
videotaped. In the presence of the mayor, the
police, representatives of the media and Andan's
own wife and son, Andan confessed his guilt. He
disclosed how he killed Marianne and
volunteered to show them the place where he
hid her bags. He asked for forgiveness from Larin
and Dizon whom he falsely implicated saying he
did it because of ill-feelings against them. He also
said that the devil entered his mind because of
the pornographic magazines and tabloid he read
almost everyday. After his confession, Andan
hugged his wife and son and asked the mayor to
help him. His confession was captured on
videotape and covered by the media nationwide.
Andan was detained at the police headquarters.
The next two days, February 26 and 27, more
newspaper, radio and television reporters came.
Andan was again interviewed and he affirmed his
confession to the mayor and reenacted the
crime. Pablito Andan y Hernandez alias "Bobby"
was charged with rape with homicide. On
arraignment, however, Andan entered a plea of
"not guilty." In a decision dated 4 August 1994,
the trial court convicted Andan and sentenced
him to death pursuant to Republic Act 7659. The
trial court also ordered Andan to pay the victim's
heirs P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P71,000.00
as actual burial expenses and P100,000.00 as
moral damages. Hence, the automatic review.
Issue: Whether Andan’s confession to the police,
the mayor, and the newsmen may be admitted
as evidence against Andan.
Held: Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right (1)
18
Compiled by EJC
to remain silent; (2) to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own
choice; and (3) to be informed of such rights.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel. Any confession
or admission obtained in violation of this
provision is inadmissible in evidence against him.
The exclusionary rule is premised on the
presumption that the defendant is thrust into an
unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through
menacing police interrogation procedures where
the potentiality for compulsion, physical and
psychological, is forcefully apparent. The
incommunicado character of custodial
interrogation or investigation also obscures a
later judicial determination of what really
transpired. When the police arrested Andan,
they were no longer engaged in a general inquiry
about the death of Marianne. Indeed, Andan was
already a prime suspect even before the police
found him at his parents' house. Andan was
already under custodial investigation when he
confessed to the police. It is admitted that the
police failed to inform appellant of his
constitutional rights when he was investigated
and interrogated. His confession is therefore
inadmissible in evidence. So too were the two
bags recovered from Andan's house. The victim's
bags were the fruits of Andan's uncounselled
confession to the police. They are tainted
evidence, hence also inadmissible.
On the other hand, however, Andan's confession
to the mayor was not made in response to any
interrogation by the latter. In fact, the mayor did
not question Andan at all. No police authority
ordered Andan to talk to the mayor. It was
Andan himself who spontaneously, freely and
voluntarily sought the mayor for a private
meeting. The mayor did not know that Andan
was going to confess his guilt to him. When
Andan talked with the mayor as a confidant and
not as a law enforcement officer, his
uncounselled confession to him did not violate
his constitutional rights.
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 records show that Alex Marcelino,
a television reporter for "Eye to Eye" on Channel
7, interviewed Andan on 27 February 1994. The
interview was recorded on video and showed
that Andan made his confession willingly, openly
and publicly in the presence of his wife, child and
other relatives. Orlan Mauricio, a reporter for
"Tell the People" on Channel 9 also interviewed
appellant on 25 February 1994. Andan's
confessions to the news reporters were given
free from any undue influence from the police
authorities. The news reporters acted as news
reporters when they interviewed Andan. They
were not acting under the direction and control
of the police. They were there to check Andan's
confession to the mayor. They did not force
Andan to grant them an interview and reenact
the commission of the crime. In fact, they asked
his permission before interviewing him. They
interviewed him on separate days not once did
Andan protest his innocence. Instead, he
repeatedly confessed his guilt to them. He even
supplied all the details in the commission of the
crime, and consented to its reenactment. All his
confessions to the news reporters were
witnessed by his family and other relatives.
There was no coercive atmosphere in the
interview of Andan by the news reporters. Thus,
Andan's verbal confessions to the newsmen are
not covered by Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III
of the Constitution. 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.
They confirm that certain rights of the individual
19
Compiled by EJC
exist without need of any governmental grant,
rights that may not be taken away by
government, rights that government has the
duty to protect. Governmental power is not
unlimited and the Bill of Rights lays down these
limitations to protect the individual against
aggression and unwarranted interference by any
department of government and its agencies.
Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division) [GR
109242, 26 January 1999] Second Division,
Mendoza (J): 4 concur
Facts: On 10 February 1989, Jacinto Merete, a
letter carrier in the Makati Central Post Office,
disclosed to his chief, Projecto Tumagan, the
existence of a group responsible for the pilferage
of mail matter in the post office. Among those
mentioned by Merete were Arnold Pasicolan, an
emergency laborer assigned as a bag opener in
the Printed Matters Section, and Redentor
Aguinaldo, a mail sorter of the Makati Post
Office. Merete likewise described the modus
operandi of the group. For this reason, Tumagan
sought the aid of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) in apprehending the group
responsible for mail pilferage in the Makati Post
Office. On 17 February 1989, NBI Director
Salvador Ranin dispatched NBI agents to Legaspi
Village following a report that the group would
stage a theft of mail matter on that day.
Tumagan accompanied a team of NBI agents
composed of Senior Agent Arles Vela and two
other agents in a private car. They arrived at
Legaspi Village at about 1:00 p.m. They stayed at
the corner of Adelantado and Gamboa Streets,
while two other teams of NBI agents waited at
Amorsolo Street, near the Esquerra Building. At
2:00 p.m., a postal delivery jeep, driven by one
Henry Orindai, was parked in front of the
Esguerra Building on Adelantado Street. The
passengers of the postal delivery jeep were
Arnold Pasicolan, Jacinto Merete, and the driver,
Henry Orindai. Pasicolan alighted from the jeep
bringing with him a mail bag. Merete stayed
inside the jeep. Pasicolan then passed through
an alley between Esguerra and Montepino
Buildings going towards Amorsolo St. Upon
reaching Amorsolo St., Pasicolan gave the mail
bag to two persons, who were later identified as
Ronnie Romero and Lito Marcelo. The latter
transferred the contents of the mail bag (i.e.,
assorted mail matter) to a travelling bag. The
two then secured the bag to the back of their
motorcycle. Meanwhile, the NBI team led by
agent Vela, upon seeing Pasicolan going towards
Amorsolo St., moved their car and started
towards Amorsolo St. They were just in time to
see Pasicolan handing over the mail bag to
Marcelo and Romero. At that point, Atty.
Sacaguing and Arles Vela arrested Marcelo and
Romero. Unaware of the arrest of Romero and
Marcelo, Pasicolan went back to the postal
delivery jeep and proceeded toward Pasay Road.
The NBI agents followed the postal delivery jeep,
overtook it, and arrested Pasicolan. The NBI
agents brought Pasicolan, Marcelo, and Romero
to their headquarters. They also brought along
with them the motorcycle of Romero and
Marcelo and the bag of unsorted mail found in
their possession. On their way to the NBI
headquarters, they passed by the Makati Central
Post Office, intending to arrest another suspect,
Redentor Aguinaldo. However, they were not
able to find him there. The unsorted mail seized
from Marcelo
and Romero consisted of 622 letters. The names
of the addressees were listed. They were
subsequently notified by the Bureau of Posts to
claim their letters. Many of them, after proper
identification, were able to claim their letters.
Some letters contained money. Romero,
Marcelo, and Pasicolan were asked to affix their
signatures on the envelopes of the letters. They
did so in the presence of the members of the NBI
Administrative and Investigative Staff and the
people transacting business with the NBI at that
time. According to Director Ranin, they required
20
Compiled by EJC
the accused to do this in order to identify the
letters as the very same letters confiscated from
them. Arnold Pasicolan y Mabazza, Ronnie
Romero y Santos, and Lito Marcelo y Cruz were
charged with infidelity in the custody of
documents. The case was later withdrawn and
another information for qualified theft was filed
before the Sandiganbayan. On 8 March 1993, the
Sandiganbayan found all the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the
crime of qualified theft. The Sandiganbayan
sentenced Pasiclon the penalty ranging from 8
years, 8 months, and 1 day of Prision mayor, as
minimum, to 13 years, 1 month, and 11 days of
reclusion temporal, as maximum; Romero and
Marcelo, the penalty ranging from 7 YEARS, 4
months, and 1 day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to 11 years, 6 months, and 21 days of
prision mayor, as maximum, each. Marcelo filed
the petition for review on certiorari with the
Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the exclusion of the admission,
made through the signatures on the envelopes,
extend to the exclusion from evidence of the
letters themselves.
Held: The purpose for securing the signature of
Marcelo, et. al. on the envelopes was to
authenticate the envelopes as the ones seized
from him and Ronnie Romero. This purpose and
their signatures on the envelope, when coupled
with the testimony of prosecution witnesses that
the envelopes seized from Marcelo were those
given to him and Romero, undoubtedly help
establish the guilt of Marcelo. Since these
signatures are actually evidence of admission
obtained from Marcelo and his co-accused under
circumstances contemplated in Art. III. §§12(1)
and 17 of the Constitution, they should be
excluded. For indeed, Marcelo and his co-
accused signed following their arrest. Hence,
they were at the time under custodial
investigation, defined as questioning initiated by
law enforcement officers after a person has been
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in a significant way. Under the
Constitution, among the rights of a person under
custodial investigation is the right to have
competent and independent counsel preferably
of his own choice and if the person cannot afford
the services of counsel, that he must be provided
with one. However, the letters are themselves
not inadmissible in evidence. The letters were
validly seized from Marcelo and Romero as an
incident of a valid arrest. A ruling that Marcelo's
admission that the letters in question were those
seized from him and his companion on 17
February 1989 is inadmissible in evidence does
not extend to the exclusion from evidence of the
letters themselves. The letters can stand on their
own, being the fruits of a crime validly seized
during a lawful arrest. That these letters were
the ones found in the possession of Marcelo and
his companion and seized from them was shown
by the testimonies of Vela and Tumagan. Indeed,
Marcelo and his co-accused were not convicted
solely on the basis of the signatures found on the
letters but on other evidence, notably the
testimonies of NBI agents and other prosecution
witnesses.
People vs Janson
Ponente: Quisumbing
Topic: Uncounseled confession inadmissible

Facts:
Respondent, Janson was convicted of the crime
rape. The prosecution presented witnesses for the
crime allegedly committed by the respondent
(Rape): Teresa Alcantara, Marites Alcantara,
Dante Alcantara, Cesario Alcantara, Dr.
Cesar Manuel, Atty. Jorge Zerrudo, and
police officers Pedro Idpan, Jr. and Ortello
Achas.
21
Compiled by EJC
The mother of the accused, Teresa Alcantara,
testified that on March 24, 1986 at about 10:00 in
the evening, the accused with 6 other companions
asked for when but when she told them to come
back the following day they threatened to strafe
and burn the house if they are not let in. They
entered the house and asked for 1000.00 after
such she went to her daughter’s room and saw her
totally naked.Her daughter told here that she was
rape. She gave an additional 1000.00 to the
accused together with 2 Seiko watches.
The victim, Martes Alcantara corroborated the
testimony of her mother, Someone poked a gun at
her. Then Ricky Pinantao, who had an amputated
right hand; Joel Janson, and Abdul Jona raped
her. In open court she identified appellants
Pinantao and Janson as two of her abusers,
claiming that they were previously known to
her. She claimed that she knew Ricky because
he was their neighbor and that he often went
to their house to buy bananas, while she knew
Joel because he often went to their barangay
to visit his relatives. The prosecution also
presented DR. CESAR MANUEL. He testified
that the physical examination he conducted on
Marites Alcantara a day after the incident
revealed that there were lacerations between the
labia majora, labia minora, and the prepuce
caused by a sharp instrument. There was also the
presence of seminal fluid in the vagina of the
victim indicating that there was actual sexual
contact.
ATTY. JORGE ZERRUDO testified that he
only assisted appellant Janson in waiving his
right to counsel, and that the sworn statement
was already prepared when he signed it.
Nevertheless, he asked appellant Janson if the
contents of the statement were true, and
whether he wished to be assisted by counsel.
For the defense, they also presented witnesses.
DATU AMADO PINANTAO testified that he is
an uncle of Ricky Pinantao He admitted that they
lived near the house of Cesario Alcantara. He said
that on March 24, 1986, Pinantao was in their
house and that it was impossible for him to be
elsewhere because earlier, in 1985, Pinantao was
hacked by one Bernardo Agio resulting in the
amputation of Pinantao’s hand. He averred that
Pinantao could not go out of their house because
at the time of the incident, the wound he sustained
was not yet completely healed.
ATTY. FRANCIS PALMONES, JR., testified
that he notarized the sworn, statement of the
appellant Janson on April 3, 1987 and that Janson
affirmed and understood the contents of said
affidavit because it was translated to him in the
Visayan vernacular.
JOEL JANSON, for his own defense, declared
that he was assisted by a lawyer when he was
investigated and made to sign a sworn
statement before the police on June 26, 1986.
But he denied the accusation against him and
claimed that he was not assisted by counsel
during the custodial investigation. He claimed
that he did not know how to read or write, and
that he was made to execute a sworn statement
before a certain policeman named Ulep. Only
after the investigation did Atty. Zerrudo sign the
document. On cross-examination, he said that he
was put in jail for another crime, robbery.
Issue: W/N the uncounseled confession
inadmissible?
Held: No, It is well- settled that the Constitution
abhors an uncounselled confession or admission
and whatever information is derived therefrom
shall be regarded as inadmissible in evidence
against the confessant.—Clearly, the alleged
extrajudicial confession of appellant Joel Janson
cannot be admitted in evidence. The manner by
which it was obtained violated constitutional
right to counsel. It is well-settled that the
Constitution abhors an uncounselled confession
or admission and whatever information is derived
therefrom shall be regarded as inadmissible in
evidence against the confessant.
22
Compiled by EJC

Under the Constitution and existing law as well Constitution. As pointed out in People v.
as jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible Deniega, if the lawyer’s role is reduced to being
must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it that of a mere witness to the signing of a priory
must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with prepared document albeit indicating therein
the assistance of competent and independent compliance with the accused’s constitutional
counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must rights, the constitutional standard is not met.

be in writing. The purpose of providing
counsel to a person under custodial
investigation is to curb the uncivilized practice
of extracting confession by coercion no matter
how slight, as would lead the accused to admit
something false. What is sought to be avoided is
the evil of extorting from the very mouth of the
person undergoing interrogation for the
commission of an offense, the very evidence with
which to prosecute and thereafter convict him.
These constitutional guarantees have been made
available to protect him from the inherently
coercive psychological, if not physical,
atmosphere of such investigation.

It is also important to mention that the

investigating officers already had a prepared
statement when they went to the lawyer who is
supposed to assist appellant Janson in waiving his
right to counsel. This is not what is contemplated
by law. In People v. Quidato, Jr., where the
police officers already prepared the affidavits of
the accused when they were brought to the CLAO
(now PAO) lawyer, and the latter explained the
contents of the affidavits in Visayan to the
accused who affirmed the

veracity and voluntary execution of the same, the

court held that the affidavits are inadmissible in
evidence even if they were voluntarily given. As
also ruled in People v. Compil the belated arrival
of the CLAO lawyer the following day, even if
prior to the actual signing of the uncounseled
confession, does not cure the defect of lack of
counsel for the investigators were already able to
extract incriminatory statements from the
accused therein. Thus, in People v. De Jesus, we
said that admissions obtained during custodial
interrogations without the benefit of counsel,
although later reduced to writing and signed in
the presence of counsel, are still flawed under the

23