15 PEOPLE VS ULYSSES

In the case at bar, the accused was convicted of QUA:IFIED THEFT -- took, stole, and carried away
punctured currency notes due for shredding in the total amount of P194,190.00, belonging to the Central
Bank of the Philippines. There was grave abuse of confidence they being at the time employed as
Currency Reviewers, Driver, Currency Assistant I and Money Counter and as such they had free access
to the property stolen.

Facts:
Pedro Labita of Central Bank went to the Theft and Robbery Section of Western Police District Command
(WPDC), and filed a complaint for Qualified Theft against Santiago Peralta, Armando Datuin, Jr., Ulysses
Garcia, Miguelito de Leon, Librando Flores and Antonio S. Loyola. Pedro Labita submitted to the
investigating officer at WPDC, punctured currency notes in bills (face value o Php194,190.00). Was
recovered by the BSP Cash Department during its cash counting of punctured currency bills submitted
by different banks. The punctured bills were rejected by the BSP money counter machine. Investigation
revealed, it was determined that said rejected currency bills were actually punctured notes already due
for shredding which means, theyre no longer intended for circulation. Before these notes could be
shredded, they were stolen from the BSP by the above-named accused.

Ulysses Garcia (driver of armoured car of BSP) was apprehended while waiting for a passenger bus on
his way to BSP. Garcia gave three separate statements admitting guilt . He also identified his cohorts,
and accomplices. Hence, the other named accused were called for questioning and later charged with
qualiied theft.

Defense Argument:
- That Garcia was dragged to ride the car; was arrested without a valid warrant of his arrest. He
was handcuffed, hit, blindfolded. Later on, dragged down the car and up and down the stairs.
Suddenly, he felt somebody frisk his pocket.
- At a safe house, someone was telling him the name of his co-accused and if refused, would box
him at his chest. His mouth was covered and water was poured on the accused. When he cant
bear the torture, he obeyed their instructions. His ears were hit by the palms and as he was
being brought down, he felt somebody returning his personal belongings to his pocket (license,
coin purse, and impt papers). His blindfolds were removed when he reached the police officer.
- "It was actually Mr. Labita, and not accused-appellant Garcia, who gave the answers appearing
in accused-appellant Garcia's alleged three sworn statements dated November 4, 1992,
November 5, 1992 and November 6, 1992. It was said that he was asked to sign the sworn
statements by Colonel otherwise, he would be tortured again.

Trial Court:
- rejected the disclaimer by Garcia of his own confessions, as such disclaimer was "an eleventh
hour concoction to exculpate himself and his co-accused." The trial court found his allegations
of torture and coerced confessions unsupported by evidence. Further, it held that the recovery
of three pieces of perforated P100 bills from Garcia's wallet and the flight of Peralta and Datuin
Jr. were indicative of the guilt of the accused.

Issue: WON the following are admissible as evidence?

1. Sufficiency of evidence
- the three confessions given by Garcia and the three perforated P100 currency notes confiscated
from him
2. extrajudicial confessions
- alleged three Sworn Statements of Garcia were obtained without the assistance of counsel.

Ruling:

"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.

"(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, incomunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited."
In the three extrajudicial confessions, Garcia was not assisted by Atty. Sanchez. The signature of the
latter on those documents was affixed after the word "SAKSI." That the lawyer did not assist Garcia
during the investigation. That he only signed as a witness.
RTC is erred when it admitted as evidence his sworn statement absence presence of a counsel.

The right to counsel is to prevent the use of duress and other undue influence in extracting confessions
from a suspect in a crime. The basic law requires that any waiver of this right must be made in
writing and executed in the presence of a counsel. Hence, the lawyer's role cannot be reduced to being
that of a mere witness to the signing of a pre-prepared confession.The accused is entitled to effective,
vigilant and independent counsel.
A waiver in writing, which the trial court relied upon in the present case, is not enough. Without the
assistance of a counsel, the waiver has no evidentiary relevance.

PERFORATED CURRENCY
The OSG evades the issue and argues, instead, that appellants waived the illegality of their arrest when
they entered a plea. He further contends that the exclusion from the evidence of the three punctured
currency bills would not alter the findings of the trial court.

This is wrong. It was Garcia who was unlawfully arrested. The legality of an arrest can be
contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. Objection to an unlawful
search and seizure is purely personal, and third parties cannot avail themselves of it.

NO LAWFUL ARREST
At the time of his arrest, he had not committed, was not committing, and was not about to commit any
crime. Neither was he acting in a manner that would engender a reasonable ground to suspect that he
was committing a crime. . Nonetheless, not having raised the matter before entering his plea, he is
deemed to have waived the illegality of his arrest. Note, however, that this waiver is limited to the
arrest. It does not extend to the search made as an incident thereto or to the subsequent seizure of
evidence allegedly found during the search. Without a judicial warrant, arrests are allowed only under
the following exceptional circumstances: (1) a search incident to a lawful arrest, (2) seizure of evidence
in plain view, (3) search of a moving motor vehicle, (4) customs search, (5) stop and frisk situations,
and (6) consented search.

Where the arrest was incipiently illegal, it follows that the subsequent search was similarly illegal. Any
evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional provision is legally inadmissible in evidence under
the exclusionary rule. In the present case, the perforated P100 currency notes were obtained as a result
of a search made without a warrant subsequent to an unlawful arrest; hence, they are inadmissible in
evidence.