Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Section 12 Custodial Investigation Facts: doubt.

SC affirmed the decision of the lower

Accused was charged and prosecuted for court.
1. Gamboa v Cruz robbery with homicide as guilty beyond Hence, the exclusionary sanctions against the
Facts: reasonable doubt. Defense assails the court admission in evidence of custodial
Petitioner was arrested for vagrancy without a decision contending the constitutional rights of identification of an uncounseled accused can
warrant. During a line-up of 5 detainees the accused were violated for subjecting them not be applied.
including petitioner, he was identified by a to a police line up at the hospital where they
were identified by the victims without the 3. People v Bolanos
complainant to be a companion in a robbery,
presence of their counsel and without any Facts:
thereafter he was charged. Petitioner filed a
warrant. Oscar Pagdalian was murdered in Marble
Motion to Acquit on the ground that the
Supply, Balagtas Bulacan. According to
conduct of the line-up, without notice and in Pat. Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao,
the absence of his counsel violated his Whether or not the constitutional rights of the deceased was with two companions on the
constitutional rights to counsel and to due accused were violated. previous night, one of whom the accused who
process. The court denied said motion. Hearing had a drinking spree with the deceased. When
was set, hence the petition. Held: they apprehended the accused they found
It is therefore appropriate to extend the the firearm of the deceased on the chair where
Issue: counsel guarantee to critical stages of the accused was allegedly seated. They
Whether or Not petitioners right to prosecution even before the trial. The law boarded accused along with Magtibay, other
counsel and due process violated. enforcement machinery at present involves accused on the police vehicle and brought
critical confrontations of the accused by the them to the police station. While in the vehicle
Held: prosecution at pre-trial proceedings "where the Bolanos admitted that he killed the deceased.
No. The police line-up was not part of the result might well settle the accused's fate and RTC convicted him hence the appeal.
custodial inquest, hence, petitioner was not reduce the trial itself to a mere formality." A
police line-up is considered a "critical" Issue:
yet entitled, at such stage, to counsel. He had
stage of the proceedings. Whether or Not accused-appellant deprived of
not been held yet to answer for
his constitutional right to counsel.
a criminal offense. The moment there is a
move or even an urge of said investigators to After the start of the custodial
investigation, any identification of an Held: A Manifestation (in lieu of Appellee's
elicit admissions or confessions or even Brief), was filed by the Solicitor General's
uncounseled accused made in a police
plain information which may appear innocent Office, with the position that the lower court
line-up is inadmissible. This is particularly
or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he true in the case at bench where the police erred in admitting in evidence the extra-judicial
should then and there be assisted by counsel, officers first talked to the victims before the confession of appellant while on board the
unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall confrontation was held. The circumstances police patrol jeep. Said office even postulated
be made in writing and in the presence of were such as to impart improper that: "(A)ssuming that it was given, it was done
counsel. suggestions on the minds of the victims in violation of appellant's Constitutional right to
that may lead to a mistaken be informed, to remain silent and to have a
On the right to due process, petitioner was not, identification. Appellants were counsel of his choice, while already under
in any way, deprived of this substantive and handcuffed and had contusions on their police custody."
constitutional right, as he was duly represented faces.
Being already under custodial
by a counsel. He was accorded all the
HOWEVER, the prosecution did not present investigation while on board the police
opportunities to be heard and to present
evidence regarding appellants patrol jeep on the way to the Police
evidence to substantiate his defense; only that Station where formal investigation may
he chose not to, and instead opted to file a identification at the line-up. The witnesses
identified the accused again in open court. have been conducted, appellant should
Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had have been informed of his Constitutional
Also, accused did not object to the in-court
rested its case. What due process abhors is the rights under Article III, Section 12 of the
identification as being tainted by illegal
absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. line-up. The witnesses and victims positively 1987 Constitution which explicitly
identified the accused thereby further affirming provides:
2. People v Macam the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
(1) Any person under investigation for the block to silence her and dragged her body to a
commission of an offense shall have the right shallow portion of the lot and abandoned it. Issue:
to remain silent and to have competent and Whether or not the admission of Andan to the
independent preferably of his own choice. If the The death of Marianne drew public attention mayor without the assistance of counsel is in
person cannot afford the service of counsel, he which prompted Baliuag Mayor Cornelio violation of the constitution and cannot be
must be provided with one. These rights cannot Trinidad to form a team of police officers to admitted as evidence in court.
be waived except in writing and in the solve the case. Apart from the vacant lot, they
presence of counsel. also searched Andans nearby house and found Ruling:
evidences linked to the crime. The occupants Under these circumstances, it cannot be
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, of the house were interviewed and learned that claimed that the appellants confession
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate accused-appellant was in Barangay Tangos, before the mayor is inadmissible. A
the free will shall be used against him. Secret Baliuag, Bulacan. A police team lead by Mayor municipal mayor has operational supervision
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or Trinidad located Andan and took him to the and control over the local police and may be
other similar forms of detention are prohibited. police headquarters where he was interrogated deemed a law enforcement officer for
where he said that Dizon killed the girl. The purposes of applying Section 12 (1) and
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in three were then brought to Andans house (3) of Article III of the Constitution.
violation of this or the preceding section shall where he showed the police where the bags of However, Andans confession to the mayor was
be inadmissible in evidence against him. Marianne were hidden. They were then brought not made in response to any interrogation by
back to the police station while waiting for the the latter. In fact, the mayor did not question
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil result of the investigation. appellant at all and no police authority ordered
sanctions for violation of this section as well as the appellant to talk to the mayor. It was the
compensation and rehabilitation of victims of The gruesome crime attracted the media and appellant who spontaneously, freely and
torture or similar practices and their families. as they were gathered at the police voluntarily sought the mayor for a private
(Emphasis supplied). headquarters for the result of the investigation, meeting. The mayor acted as a confidant and
Mayor Trinidad arrived and proceeded to the not as a law enforcer and therefore did not
Considering the clear requirements of the investigation room. Upon seeing the mayor, violate his constitutional rights.
Constitution with respect to the manner by appellant approved him and whispered a
which confession can be admissible in request that they talk privately to which Constitutional procedures on custodial
evidence, and the glaring fact that the the mayor agreed. They went to another investigation do not apply to a
alleged confession obtained while on room and there, Andan agreed to tell the spontaneous statement, not elicited
board the police vehicle was the only truth and admitted that he was the one through questioning by the authorities,
reason for the conviction, besides who killed Marianne. The mayor opened the but given in an ordinary manner whereby
appellant's conviction was not proved door of the room to let the public and the appellant orally admitted having
beyond reasonable doubt, this Court has media representatives witness the confession. committed the crime. What the constitution
no recourse but to reverse the subject Mayor Trinidad first asked for a lawyer to bars is the compulsory disclosure of
judgment under review. assist the appellant but since no lawyer incriminating facts or confession. Hence, we
was available he ordered the proceedings hold that appellants confession to the mayor
4. People v Andan photographed and recorded in video. In was correctly admitted by the trial court.
Facts: Marianne Guevarra, a second-year the presence of the media and his relatives,
nursing student at Fatima was on her way to Andan admitted to the crime and disclosed Andan was found guilty of the special complex
her school dormitory in Valenzuela, Metro how he killed Marianne and that he falsely crime of rape with homicide.
Manila when Pablito Andan asked her to check implicated Larin and Dizon because of ill-
the blood pressure of the grandmother of feelings against them. 5. People v Judge Ayson
Andans wife but there was nobody inside the Facts:
house. She was punched in the abdomen by However, appellant entered a plea of not Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the
Andan and was brought to the kitchen where guilty during his arraignment. He provided an Philippine Airlines, assigned at its Baguio
he raped her. She was left in the toilet until it alibi why he was at his fathers house at City station. It was alleged that he was
was dark and was dragged to the backyard. It another barangay and testified that policemen involved in irregularities in the sales of
was when Andan lifted her over the fence to tortured and coerced him to admit the crime plane tickets, the PAL management notified
the adjacent vacant lot where she started to but the trial court found him guilty and him of an investigation to be conducted. That
move. Andan hit her head with a concrete sentenced him to death. investigation was scheduled in accordance with
PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to the prosecution merely presented
the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by appear before the court at the time appointed, the extrajudicial confession of the
it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' or to refuse to testify altogether. It is a right accused which is inadmissible as evidence
Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. that a witness knows or should know. He must and the other evidences provided therein are
claim it and could be waived. merely circumstantial and subject for rebuttal.
A letter was sent by Ramos stating his The court acquitted the accused.
willingness to settle the amount of P76,000. Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in
The findings of the Audit team were given to miranda v. Arizona: the rights of the accused The constitutional right of the accused to be
him, and he refuted that he include: informed of his rights to remain silent and to
misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he counsel contemplates the transmission of
was prevented from settling said amounts. He 1) he shall have the right to remain silent and meaningful information and not just a mere
proffered a compromise however this did not to counsel, and to be informed of such right. ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an
ensue. Two months after a crime of estafa was 2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or abstract constitutional principle. Police officer
charged against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not any other means which vitiates the free will is duty bound not just to recite
guilty. Evidence by the prosecution shall be used against him. the rights; he must explain it as well; Waiver
contained Ramos written admission and 3) any confession obtained in violation of these MUST BE MADE in the presence of counsel.
statement, to which defendants argued rights shall be inadmissible in evidence.
that the confession was taken without the 7. Navallo v Sandiganbayan
accused being represented by a lawyer. The individual may knowingly and intelligently Facts:
Respondent Judge did not admit those stating waive these rights and agree to answer or Petitioner herein is the Collecting and
that accused was not reminded of his make a statement. But unless and until such Disbursing Officer of the Numancia Naitonal
constitutional rights to remain silent and to rights and waivers are demonstrated by the Vocational School in del Carmen, Surigao del
have counsel. A motion for reconsideration prosecution at the trial, no evidence Norte. He was entrusted, as a Collecting and
filed by the prosecutors was denied. Hence this obtained as a result of interrogation can be Disbursement Officer to hold in trust moneys
appeal. used against him. and/ properties of the government of the
Republic of the Philippines. That while being in
Issue: 6. People v Pinlac the said position, he intentionally, feloniously
Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in Facts: and without lawful authority appropriate and
making inadmissible as evidence the admission The accused was convicted for two separate misappropriate to his own private benefit,
and statement of accused. criminal cases for robbery and robbery with public funds he was holding in trust for the
homicide. He assailed his conviction on the Government of the Philippines in the total
Held: contention that the court erred in admitting his amount to PHP16, 483.62. He as unable to
No. Section 20 of the 1987 constitution extrajudicial confession as evidence which was account for the said amount during the audit.
provides that the right against self- taken by force, violence, torture, and
incrimination (only to witnesses other than intimidation without having appraised of Warrant of arrest was issued to arrest the
accused, unless what is asked is relating to a his constitutional rights and without the petitioner but he was nowhere to be found.
different crime charged- not present in case at assistance of counsel.
bar). On December 10, 1978, Sandiganbayan was
Issue: created pursuant to PD No 1606, conferring to
This is accorded to every person who gives Whether or not due process was observed it original and exclusive jurisdiction over crimes
evidence, whether voluntarily or under during the custodial investigation of the committed by public officers embraced in Title
compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal, accused. VII of the RPC
or administrative proceeding. The right is not
to "be compelled to be a witness against Held: The court find it meritorious to declare November 1984, when the petitioner herein
himself. It prescribes an "option of refusal to that the constitutional rights of the was finally arrested. He was released on
answer incriminating questions and not a accused was violated in the failure of the provisional liberty upon the approval of the bail
prohibition of inquiry." the right can be authorities in making the accused bond. When arraigned by the RTC, he pleaded
claimed only when the specific question, understand the nature of the charges not guilty. Upon motion of the prosecution, the
incriminatory in character, is actually put against him without appraising him of his RTC transferred the case and transmitted its
to the witness. It cannot be claimed at constitutional right to have a counsel records to the Sandiganbayan. Special
any other time. It does not give a witness during custodial investigation. Moreover Prosecutor Quiones-Marcos however opined
that since Navallo had already been arraigned (4) The accused is convicted or acquitted accused was not under investigation when he
before the case was transferred to the or the case is dismissed without his made the oral confession. Therefore there is no
Sandiganbayan, the RTC should continue taking express consent. need to invoke compliance of the proper
cognizance of the case. That matter was When all the above elements are present, a procedure in a custodial investigation at the
referred to the Office of the Ombudsman which second prosecution for (a) the same offense, or case at bar. The rule on RES GESTAE is
held otherwise. The information was however (b) an attempt to commit the said offense, or applicable where a witness who heard the
docketed in Sandiganbayan. A new order of (c) a frustration of the said offense, or (d) any confession is competent to satisfy the
arrest for the petitioner was issued by the offense which necessarily includes, or is
substance of what he heard if he heard and
Sandiganbayan. necessarily included in, the first offense
understood it. An oral confession need not be
charged, can rightly be barred.
Navallo filed a motion to quash contending that repeated verbatim, but in such a case it must
since he had already been arraigned by the In the case at bench, the RTC was devoid of be given in substance. Thus the oral confession
RTC, the attempt to prosecute him before the jurisdiction when it conducted an arraignment made by the accused outside the ambit of
Sandiganbayan would constitute double of the accused which by then had already been custodial investigation can be admissible in
jeopardy. conferred on the Sandiganbayan. Moreover, court and was given due credence to warrant
neither did the case there terminate with the judgment of the accused being guilty of the
ISSUE: conviction or acquittal nor was it dismissed. crime.
Whether or not double jeopardy sets it when
petitioner was arraigned by the RTC. 8. People v Dy 9. People v Alicando
Facts: Facts:
HELD: Accused is the owner of Bennys Appellant was charged with the crime of rape
NO. In the case at bench, the RTC was devoid Bar at Boracay Island and was with homicide of Khazie Mae Penecilla, a minor,
of jurisdiction when it conducted an sentenced with murder before the trial court four years of age, choking her with his right
arraignment of the accused which by then had for shooting a Swiss national in his bar. The hand. The incident happened after appellant
already been conferred on the Sandiganbayan. accused contends the court erred in admitting drank liquor. A neighbor, Leopoldo Santiago
Moreover, neither did the case there terminate found the victims body and the parents and
the presentation of the prosecution of evidence
with conviction or acquittal nor was it police were informed. Appellant was living in
that he came to a police officer and made a
dismissed. his uncle's house some five arm's length from
confession on the crime and informed said
Penecilla's house. Appellant was arrested and
The law is explicit and clear. A case falling officer where to find the gun he used, a
interrogated by PO3 Danilo Tan. He verbally
under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan statement the accused denied to have done.
confessed his guilt without the assistance of
shall be transferred to it so long as the accused They assail its admissibility to the court on the counsel. On the basis of his uncounselled
has not as yet been properly arraigned grounds that such statement was not made in verbal confession and follow up interrogations,
elsewhere on the date of effectivity of the law, writing and is in violation of the due process the police came to know and recovered from
required in custodial investigation. appellant's house, Khazie Mae's green slippers,
Accused-petitioner, invoking Section 7, Rule a pair of gold earrings, a buri mat, a stained
117, of the Revised Rules of Court, pleads Issue: pillow and a stained T-shirt all of which were
double jeopardy. We cannot agree. Double Whether or not the evidence presented by the presented as evidence for the prosecution. He
jeopardy requires the existence of the following prosecution be admissible to warrant guilt of was arraigned with the assistance of Atty.
requisites: the accused. Rogelio Antiquiera of the PAO. Appellant
pleaded guilty. The RTC convicted him. Hence
(1) The previous complaint or information an automatic review for the imposition of death
or other formal charge is sufficient in penalty.
In view of the documentary evidence on record
form and substance to sustain a
conviction; the defense lost its credibility before the court.
(2) The court has jurisdiction to try the An oral confession made by the accused to the
Whether or Not the death penalty proper.
case; officer and telling him the gun is in his bar
(3) The accused has been arraigned and which he wants to surrender can be held Held:
has pleaded to the charge; and admissible in court as evidence against him. No. The records do not reveal that the
This is because such confession was made Information against the appellant was read in
unsolicited by the police officer and the the language or dialect known to him. The
Information against the appellant is PNP as a result of custodial interrogation where school supervisor or a priest or religious
written in the English language. It is appellant verbally confessed to the crime minister chosen by him
unknown whether the appellant knows without the benefit of counsel. 5.) The waiver of a person under custodial
the English language. Neither is it known investigation or detained under Art. 125 of the
what dialect is understood by the 10. Republic Act No. 7438 Revised Penal Code (delay in delivering
appellant. Nor is there any showing that the This is different from preliminary detained persons to the proper judicial
Information couched in English was translated investigation but it serves the same purpose: authority) must be put in writing and signed by
to the appellant in his own dialect before his to protect the rights of a detained person. the detainee in the presence of counsel or it
plea of guilt. The RTC violated section 1(a) of will be null and void
Rule 116, the rule implementing the Custodial investigation involves any 6.) To be visited by, or have conferences with,
constitutional right of the appellant to be questioning by law enforcement people after a members of his immediate family, counsel,
informed of the nature and cause of the person is taken into custody or deprived of his doctor, priest or religious minister or any
accusation against him. It also denied freedom in any significant manner. That national NGO duly accredited by the CHR or
appellant his constitutional right to due process includes "inviting" a person to be investigated international NGO duly accredited by the office
of law. It is urged that we must presume that in connection of a crime of which he's suspect of the President
the arraignment of the appellant was regularly and without prejudice to the "inviting" officer
conducted. When life is at stake, we cannot for any violation of law. If a person is taken into The immediate family includes the following:
lean on this rebuttable presumption. There custody and the interrogation/questioning spouse, parents, children, siblings,
could be no presumption. The court must be tends to elicit incriminating statements, RA grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts,
sure. 7438 becomes operative (People vs. Tan, GR nephews, nieces, guardians,
117321, February 11, 1998.) Application of wards and girlfriends and boyfriends.
The trial court violated section 3 of Rule actual force or restraint isn't necessary; intent
116 when it accepted the plea of guilt of to arrest is sufficient as well as the intent of the If the assisting counsel is a private practitioner,
the appellant. Said section requires that detainee/arrested person to submit while he is entitled to the following amounts for his
the court shall conduct a searching thinking that submission is necessary. It will services in the custodial investigation:
inquiry the voluntariness and full also apply if the "invitation" is given by the
comprehension of the consequences of military and the designated interrogation site is 1.) Php150 if the crime in question is a light
his plea and require the prosecution to a military outpost (Sanchez vs. Demetriou, GR felony
prove his guilt and the precise degree of 111771-77, November 9, 1993.) 2.) Php250 if it's a grave or less grave felony
culpability. The accused may also present 3.) Php350 if it's a capital offense
evidence in his behalf. The trial court simply Once a person has been taken into police
inquired if appellant had physical marks of custody the rules of RA 7438 are to be applied. This will be paid by the city or municipal
maltreatment. It did not ask the appellant The rights of a person under custodial government where the custodial investigation
when he was arrested, who arrested him, how investigation are the following: is performed and payable by the province in
and where he was interrogated, whether he question if the city/municipality can't pay -and
was medically examined before and after his 1.) To be assisted by counsel (and you can the municipal/city treasurer must certify that
interrogation, etc. It limited its efforts trying to demand it!) there is no money first.
discover late body marks of maltreatment as if 2.) To be informed by the arresting officer, in a
involuntariness is caused by physical abuse language he can understand, of his right to If counsel is absent, a custodial investigation
alone. remain silent and to counsel (and if he can't can't proceed and the detainee must be
afford one, he'll be provided one) treated in accordance with Art. 125 of the
Further, there are physical evidence to prove 3.) The custodial investigation report will be Revised Penal Code.
Khazie was raped. These consists of a pillow null and void if it hasn't been read and
with bloodstains in its center 14 and the T-shirt explained to him by counsel before he signed Penalties
15 of the accused colored white with (or thumbmarked if he's illiterate) it
bloodstains on its bottom. These physical 4.) Extrajudicial confessions must be put in If the arresting officer fails to inform the
evidence are evidence of the highest order. writing and must be signed by him in the detainee or arrested person of his rights, he
They strongly corroborate the testimony of presence of counsel or, if there's a valid waiver, will be sentenced to 8 to 10 years'
Luisa Rebada that the victim was raped.These any one of his parents, older siblings, spouse, imprisonment and/or a fine of Php6,000. And if
are inadmissible evidence for they were municipal mayor, municipal judge, district he was previously convicted for a similar
gathered by PO3 Danilo Tan of the Iloilo City
offense, he gets perpetual absolute Obstructing counsel, immediate family
disqualification as well. members, doctors, priests or religious ministers A person under a normal audit investigation
from visiting or conferring with the detainee at is not considered to be under custodial
The same penalty will also apply if the detainee any time of the day (or night in urgent cases, investigation since a COA audit examiner isn't
or arrested person can't afford counsel's like when the detainee needs to have the considered an arresting officer under RA 7438
services and the arresting officers/authorities sacrament of anointing the sick administered (Navallo vs. Sandiganbayan, 234 SCRA 175.)
don't provide counsel. to him) will be penalized by 4 to 6 years'
imprisonment and a fine of Php4,000.