Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

d2015member

Cristopher Gamboa v. Hon. Alfredo Cruz (Judge of CFI-Manila) (1988) Padilla, J. Case is a petition for certiorari and prohibition, with prayer for a temporary restraining order to annul decision of CFI-Manila Gamboa claims to have been arrested, without a warrant of arrest, for vagrancy by Patrolman Palencia o He was brought to the police precinct and booked and detained for vagrancy The next day, he was in a line-up, along with 4 other people. o The complainant in the vagrancy case, Bernal, pointed to Gamboa o And said that one is a companion While the complainant was being interrogated by the police, Gamboa was told to sit down in front of the complainant. Thereafter, Gamboa was charged with robbery. Gamboa, instead of presenting defense, filed a Motion to Acquit or Demurrer to Evidence based on the conduct of the line-up. o Gamboa claims that the line-up conducted without notice and in the absence of his counsel violated his rights to counsel and due process. CFI-Manila denied motion to acquit. Hence this petition. Pending resolution of the case, Court issued a TRO.

Issue: Did line-up violate Gamboas right to due process? Held: No. Ratio: Re: rules on rights to counsel Rights to counsel and due process are guaranteed by the Consti, both in the 1973 and 1987. Right to counsel: Sec 20, Art IV of the Bill of Rights (1973 Consti) o No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. It is also in the 1987 Consti (Sec 12 Art III) o Sec. 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. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. The right to counsel attaches at the start of an investigation (when the officer starts to ask questions to elicit information, confessions, or admissions from the accused). o There must be counsel to avoid extorting false or coerced admissions Also, in several cases, this Court has consistently held that no custodial investigation shall be conducted with the presence of counsel, engaged by the person arrested, or by any person in his behalf, or appointed by the court. o While the right may be waived, the waiver is not valid unless made in writing and in the presence of counsel.

Re: application of rules in this case In this case however, the police line-up is not part of the custodial inquest. o When Gamboa was identified at the police line-up, he was not yet held answerable for a crime. So, the police line-up is not a part of the custodial inquest. So, he was not yet entitled to counsel. When the process had not yet shifted from the investigatory, the accused may not yet avail of the services of his lawyer (as decided in the case of Escobedo v. Illinois) The police could not have violated petitioner's right to counsel and due process. In fact, when Gamboa was identified in the police line-up, he did not give any statement to the police. o He was not interrogated. o Remember: he was only asked to sit down whil the complainant was the one being investigated Re: History of the rights As in Kirby v. Illinois: o Right to counsel did not attach until judicial criminal proceedings have been started o Exclusionary rule relating to out-of-court identifications in the absence of counsel did not apply to identification testimony based upon a police station show-up, if such show-up took place before the accused had been charged with the criminal offense.

d2015member

Justice Stewart says: The landmark opinion Powell v. Alabama established that right to counsel attaches only at or after the time judicial proceedings have been started o This does not mean that right to counsel attaches only at the trial o The right attaches at the time of arraignment and it exists also at the time of a preliminary hearing. th th The 1973 and 1987 Consti go farther than 6 and 14 Amendments because: o Under both Phil Constis, the right to counsel attaches at the start of investigation and, therefore, even before adversary judicial proceedings have begun While there no real need to give a counsel during a police line-up, at the moment there is a move by the investigators to elicit admissions, the suspect must then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right

Re: right to due process He was not deprived of due process He was given opportunities to be heard and to present evidence but he chose not to, and instead filed a Motion to Acquit. What due process abhors is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. Re: proper remedy Certiorari and prohibition are not the proper remedies against an order denying a Motion To Acquit An order denying a Motion to Acquit is interlocutory and not a final order, and so, it is not appealable or subject of certiorari Petition dismissed, TRO lifted. Case is remanded to CFI to give Gamboa opportunity to present evidence.