01 Mapp v. Ohio same Amendment.
If the criminal is to go free, then it must be the law that sets him
Decided June 19, 1961 | Warren Court
SUMMARY​: Police officers sought a bombing suspect and evidence of the bombing
at the petitioner, Miss Mapp’s (the “petitioner”) house. After failing to gain entry on
an initial visit, the officers returned with what purported to be a search warrant,
forcibly entered the residence, and conducted a search in which obscene materials
were discovered. The petitioner was tried and convicted for these materials.
DOCTRINE: All evidence discovered as a result of a search and seizure conducted in
violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
(“Constitution”) shall be inadmissible in State court proceedings.
FACTS:
Three Cleveland police officers arrived at the petitioner’s residence pursuant to
information that a bombing suspect was hiding out there and that paraphernalia
regarding the bombing was hidden there. The officers knocked and asked to enter,
but the petitioner refused to admit them without a search warrant after speaking
with her attorney. The officers left and returned approximately three hours later
with what purported to be a search warrant. When the petitioner failed to answer
the door, the officers forcibly entered the residence. The petitioner’s attorney
arrived and was not permitted to see the petitioner or to enter the residence. The
petitioner demanded to see the search warrant and when presented, she grabbed it
and placed it in her shirt. Police struggled with the petitioner and eventually
recovered the warrant. The petitioner was then placed under arrest for being
belligerent and taken to her bedroom on the second floor of the residence. The
officers then conducted a widespread search of the residence wherein obscene
materials were found in a trunk in the basement. The petitioner was ultimately
convicted of possessing these materials.
ISSUE: Whether evidence discovered during a search and seizure conducted in
violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution shall be admissible in a State
court?
HELD: Justice Tom Clark (“J. Clark”) filed the majority opinion. No, the exclusionary
rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search
and seizure clause in all State prosecutions. Since the Fourth Amendment’s right of
privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the same sanction of exclusion is also
enforceable against them. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter illegally
obtaining evidence and to compel respect for the constitutional guarantee in the
only effective manner. Otherwise, a State, by admitting illegally obtained evidence,
disobeys the Constitution that it has sworn to uphold. A federal prosecutor may
make no use of illegally obtained evidence, but a State prosecutor across the street
may, although he supposedly is operating under the enforceable prohibitions of the
free. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it
teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes a lawbreaker,
it breeds contempt for law.
JUDGEMENT: ​Reversed and Remanded back to the ​trial​ court.
DISSENT:
Justice John Harlan (“J. Harlan”) filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Felix
Frankfurter (“J. Frankfurter”) and Justice Charles Whittaker (“J. Whittaker”). A
recent study shows that one half of the States still adhere to the common-law
non-exclusionary rule. The main concern is not the desirability of the rule, but
whether the States should be forced to follow it. This Court should continue to
forbear from fettering the States with an adamant rule which may embarrass them
in coping with their own peculiar problems in criminal law enforcement.
CONCURRENCE:
Justice Hugo Black (“J. Black”) filed a concurring opinion. When the Fourth
Amendment’s ban against unreasonable searches and seizures is considered
together with the Fifth Amendment’s ban against compelled self-incrimination, a
constitutional basis emerges which not only justifies, but actually requires the
exclusionary rule.
Justice William Douglas (“J. Douglas”) filed a concurring opinion. He believed this to
be an appropriate case in which to put an end to the asymmetry which Wolf
imported into the law.
ContentBox-Law
DISCUSSION: ​This case explicitly overrules Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949). The
federal exclusionary rule now applies to the States through application of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. All illegally obtained evidence under
the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution must now be excluded.
02 People v. Alicando | G.R. No. 117487 | December 12, 1995 | Puno, J.
NATURE OF THE CASE: Automatic Review on the Imposition of the Death Penalty
SUMMARY​: Alicando raped and killed a four-year old girl in Iloilo. He was arrested
and he confessed without the benefit of counsel which resulted in his house being
searched which then yielded bloodstained items belonging to the girl. TC sentenced
him to death. SC reviewed the sentence and found that the evidence against him
was inadmissible since it all stemmed from an uncounseled confession as well as a
trial that didn’t confirm the independence and intelligence of his plea of guilty.
DOCTRINE​: Once the primary source (the tree) is shown to have been unlawfully
obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the fruit) derived from it is
inadmissible. The rule is based on principle that evidence illegally obtained by the
state should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally
obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained. Assuming in arguendo
that evidence were admissible, trial court still erred in holding that they strongly
corroborated the testimony of Rebada. There is no basis for the court to conclude
this because the pieces of evidence were no examined by expert. The prosecution
has the burden of proving that accused waived his right to remain silent and to
counsel. Such waiver must be in writing and in presence of a counsel.
FACTS​:
● Petitioner Alicando was charged with the crime of rape with Homicide
o June 12, 1994, Iloilo: raped 4 year old girl, Khazie Penecilla died of
her wounds (internal bleeding)
● June 29, 1994: Alicando arraigned. Assisted by PAO. Alicando pleaded
guilty
o Trial court ordered Prosecution to present evidence. Also allowed
Alicando to present own evidence if he wanted.
● Prosecution Evid: June 12, 1994, 4pm: Girl’s father was drinking in his
house with 2 friends. Alicando joined drinking session. The session ended
at 4:30pm, the group left
o Eyewitness: Next door neighbor Ms. Rabada saw the girl at the
Alicando’s house. Ms. Rebada offered to buy the girl’s yemas but
the girl closed the window. Ms. Rabada heard the girl crying soon
after
▪ Ms Rabada saw through Alicando’s window that the
Alicando was nude, and on top of the girl, choking her.
▪ Ms. Rabada left, and told her friend Ricardo Lagrana.
Lagrana also got scared, then left
o Girl’s Dad got back home at 8pm. They couldn’t find the girl. Ms.
Rabada knew that the couple was looking for the girl. Ms. Rabada
asked Alicando as to when did the girl leave Alicando’s house.
Alicando said he was drunk and didn’t know.
o Neigbor Santiago went outside his house at dawn. Saw the dead
body of the girl. Parents were informed. Rebada told them about
the rape. Alicando was arrested that day.
o Alicando verbally confessed his guilt WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL
▪ Follow up interrogations occurred. Police recovered the
girl’s Green slippers, gold earings, a buri mat, stained
pillow, stained tshirt from Alicando’s house
▪ Girl’s body was autopsied. Multiple contusions, spinal
fractures, lacerated vagina, hematoma in vagina, cause
of the death was asphyxia by strangulation, internal
bleeding in vagina
● July 20, 1994: TC found Alicando guilty. Rape with homicide. RPC 335,
death penalty, indemnify heirs 50k
o Death by electric chair, asap
ISSUE. WON Trial court correctly convicted Alicando – NO
● New and better counsel shows SC that there were many procedural and
substantive errors. Conviction based on inadmissible and incredible
evidence
1. Arraignment is null and void: TC didn’t follow Rule 116(a) on Arraignment
i. The accused must be arraigned before the court where
the complaint or information has been filed or assigned
for trial. The arraignment must be made in open court by
the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused a copy of the
complaint or information with the list of witnesses,
reading the same in the language​ ​or dialect known to
him​ and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not
guilty. The prosecutor may, however, call at the trial
witnesses other than those named in the complaint or
information."
b. Language requirement is newly imposed by 1985 rules on Crim
Pro. Implements constitutional right to be informed of the
accusations against him. Diversity of languages in the nation
makes this important
c. Records DO NOT REVEAL that it was read in Alicando’s language.
Information was in English. Nothing indicates what language
Alicando understands. No showing that Information was
translated before his plea.
2. Plea of guilt is null and void: TC violated Rule 116, section 3 when it
accepted the plea
i. Sec. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of
evidence.
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the ​court shall conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the consequences​ of his plea and
require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
degree of culpability. The accused may also present
evidence in his behalf
a. Records reveal that TC judge failed to conduct a searching
inquiry
i. The trial court simply inquired if appellant
had physical marks of maltreatment. It did
not ask the appellant when he was
arrested, who arrested him, how and where
 he was interrogated, whether he was
medically examined before and after his
interrogation, etc.
ii. It limited its efforts trying to discover late
body marks of maltreatment as if
involuntariness is caused by physical abuse
alone.
iii. TC even turned a blind eye on the entry on
June 13, 1994 showing that after his arrest,
the appellant was mobbed by inmates while
in jail and had suffered hematoma,
iv. It warned the appellant he would get the
mandatory death penalty without
explaining the meaning of "mandatory".
v. It did not inform the appellant of the
indemnity he has to pay for the death of the
victim.
b. A conviction in capital offenses cannot rest alone on a plea of
guilt. Section 3 of Rule 116 requires that after a free and
intelligent plea of guilt, the trial court must require the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant and the precise
degree of his culpability beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Some prosecution evidence, offered independently of the plea of guilt of
the appellant, were inadmissible, yet, were considered by the trial court in
convicting the appellant.
i. TC gave full credit to the physical evidence of the
prosecution: Bloodstained shirt and pillow
b. Inadmissible because they were gathered as a result of custodial
interrogation where accused confessed without the benefit of a
counsel.
c. Constitution has stigmatized as inadmissible uncounselled
confession or admission.
d. Also, evidence derived from such uncounselled confession is
inadmissible.
e. FRUITS OF POISONOUS TREE (J. Frankfurter in Nardone v US)
▪ Once the primary source (the tree) is shown to have
been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative
evidence (the fruit) derived from it is inadmissible.
▪ The rule is based on principle that evidence illegally
obtained by the state should not be used to gain other
evidence because the originally illegally obtained
evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.
▪ Assuming in arguendo that evidence were admissible,
trial court still erred in holding that they strongly
corroborated the testimony of Rebada. There is no basis
for the court to conclude this because the pieces of
evidence were no examined by expert.
▪ The prosecution has the burden of proving that accused
waived his right to remain silent and to counsel. Such
waiver must be in writing and in presence of a counsel.
Dispositive: Remanded for further proceedings
Kapunan, Dissenting
● It is not necessary that all evidence is fruit of poisonous tree.
● The more appropriate question is whether the evidence to which the
objection is made would not have been discovered anyway by sources or
procedures independently of the illegality.
● Exception should be made when evidence in question would have been
inevitably discovered under normal conditions.
03 PEOPLE v JANUARIO
1997, Panganiban
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellants: Rene Januario y Roldan, Efren Canape y Bayot
Accused: Eliseo Sarita ​alias ​Toto, Eduardo Sarinos and Santiago Cid
Facts:
Appeal from the Decision of RTC Cavite
● Januario and Canape, along with 2 others, hailed a jeepney at 5am, threatened
the driver and conductor using bolos, killed them in a sugar plantation, then
drove away with the jeepney. They went directly to Santiago Cid whom it was
agreed would sell the jeepney
● Cid went to the house of Vicente Dilanco Pons, his cousin and a farmer engaged
in the buy and sell business, and asked if he wanted to buy a jeepney. Pons said
he had no money but he could help find a buyer provided that Cid would
entrust the jeepney to him.
● Pons offered the jeepney to Myrna Temporas for 65k but Temporas only paid
48,500
● Temporas’ version: Cid borrowed 48,500 from Temporas and used the jeepney
as collateral. Pons failed to pay the indebtedness despite Temporas repeatedly
going to his house to collect the money
● Temporas lodged a complaint against him for estafa before the NBI who then
contacted the relatives of the owner of the jeepney. These relatives went to
identify the jeepney and informed the NBI that its driver and conducter had
been killed by carnappers
● The widow of the deceased conductor also filed a complaiont with the NBI
● NBI arrested Januario, Canape, and Cid and conducted an ​oral investiagtion at
the Naga City NBI office
● NBI team decided to ​take down their statements at the NBI head office in
Manila, asking Atty Saunar, “who was just around somewhere,” to assist
appellants during the investigation
● Januario signed and thumbmarked his statement sworn before NBI Executive
Director, and also signed by Atty Saunar as counsel. Canape’s sworn statement
was also taken down. Both statements confessed to their crimes
● Defense counsel failed to appear at the scheduled hearing dates and file the
promised demurrer to evidence so the Court issued an order that the accused
may no longer be allowed to present their Demurrer to evidence. Trial court
later issued an order considering the case terminated as far as Januario and
Canape were concerned. The Court then allowed Atty Saunar to testify
● RTC convicted Januario and Canape for Violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law
(RA 6539) and sentenced them to Reclusion Perpetua/life imprisonment
Issue/Ruling:
(not relevant) W/N the testimony of Atty Saunar should be admitted - YES
● Januario argue it was irregular and prejudicial to them and Saunar
shouldn’t have been presented as witness anymore after the prosecution
had closed its case and offered its documentary evidence, since Saunar
can’t be considered a rebuttal witness simply because there was no
defense evidence to rebut
○ Rule 119 (order of trial) 1. Prosecution shall present evidence, 2.
Accused may present evidence, ​3. Parties may present rebutting
evidence only, unless the court, in the furtherance of justice,
permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the
main issue​, 4. Evidence deemed submitted unless court directs
oral argument or submission of memoranda, 5. When the accused
makes an admission but interposes a lawful defense, the order of
trial may be modified
● Court may allow the prosecutor, even after he has rested his case or even
after the defense has moved for dismissal, to present involuntarily omitted
evidence. The primary consideration is ​whether the trial court still has
jurisdiction over the case
● Saunar’s testimony was admitted in evidence before the trial court
rendered its Decision so the Court retained jurisdiction even through the
prosecution had rested its case
● Saunar was not a rebuttal witness but an additional prosecution witness
because the defense waived presentation of evidence
(relevant) W/N the extra-judicial confessions are inadmissible for having been
extracted in violation of their constitutional right to counsel - YES
● Just because Saunar was present in the custodial investigation, doesn’t
mean the confessions made by the appellants were taken in accordance
with the constitutional requirement of ​“competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice”
● If the lawyer were furnished on the accused’s behalf, which in this case
was proven by the testimonies of the FBI agents who said Saunar just
happened to be there, it is important to show competence and
independence, meaning he is willing to fully safeguard the constitutional
rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who would merely be
giving a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual’s
constitutional rights
○ Lawyers engaged by the police are generally suspect, as in many
areas, the relationship between lawyers and law enforcement
authorities can be symbiotic
● Saunar, who was applying for work in the NBI, cannot be considered
“independent” because he cannot be expected to work against the interest
of a police agency he was hoping to join
● Prior to the execution of the sworn statements at the NBI head office in
Manila, appellants had already made verbal admissions of complicity in
the crime. Verbal admissions, however, should also be made with the
assistance of counsel
● Because their uncounseled oral admissions in Naga City resulted in the
execution of their written confessions in Manila, the latter had become
as constitutionally infirm as the former
● Libertarian exclusionary rule/Fruit of the poison tree: once the primary
source is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or
derivative evidence derived from it is also inadmissible.
● Appellants were even made to travel 10 hours from Naga City to Manila
just so their formal confessions could be executed in the latter city.
● Without such statements, the remaining prosecution evidence – consisting
mostly of hearsay testimony and investigation reports – is sorely
inadequate to prove appellants’ participation in the crime

Dispositive:
Wherefore RTC decision is reversed and set aside; Januario and Canape are
acquitted
04 People v. Samontañez
Petitioner: ​People of the Philippines
Respondent:​ Roberto Samontañez y Dela Vega
For: ​Rape with Homicide
Facts:
● November 25, 1995 Corazon delas Alas saw her 18-year old daughter,
Lolita off to school from their residence (Sitio Ilaya, Brgy. Bunducan,
Nasugbu, Batangas)
○ 8:00PM ​of the same day Lolita's ​lifeless and naked body was
found in the middle of the sugar cane plantation.
○ She was apparently raped before the attacker ended her life.
○ Nobody witnessed the actual commission of the crime.
● Police investigation ​revealed that the accused ​Roberto ​Samontañez was
seen around 5:30PM passing by the house of Melecio Mendoza (Sitio
Bulanggutan) and​ headed eastward ​to direction of Sugar Cane plantation
○ Around ​6:00PM​, Lolita was spotted heading eastward to her
house in Sitio Laya
○ Around ​6:30PM ​of the same day, ​Roberto ​was spotted coming
out of the sugar cane plantation near the place where the body of
Lolita was found.
○ Around ​7:00PM ​Roberto was seen returning heading west passing
thru same path along the cane field
● November 28, 1995: ​Roberto was fetched by the police authorities of
Nasugbu from his workplace at Hermogenes Trading
○ Roberto admitted that the victim's personal belongings inside the
accused bag left at his workplace.
■ Follow up investigation led to the recovery of said
belongings
● Samontañez was formally charged in court with the crime of ​rape with
homicide.
○ He originally pleaded not guilty (arraignment) to the crime
charged but later changed it to that of guilty (before trial!)
■ TC ordered that accused be re-arraigned in Tagalog →
guilty plea
■ Required prosecution to adduce evidence to prove guilt
1
of accused and the precise degree of culpability
● Testimonies were presented: mother of the
victim; cousin of the accused; uncle of the
accused
● Medical examination: hymenal lacerations in the
vaginal canal of victim
○ Police investigation:
■ SPO2 Masikat, Ramos, Malinay, Ocoma, Lejano and Ilao
found Roberto at Hermogenes Trading
■ Invited Roberto to Police HQ
■ Roberto admitted some belongings of victim were in his
bag
● Omax wristwatch, Joop cologne, pawnshop
receipt for gold ring (identified by mom of victim
as Lolita’s belongings_
○ TC: ​guilty of rape with homicide; death penalty → automatic
review → SC
○ Accused ​assails the validity of guilty plea for having been
improvidently made
■ Petitioners cited portions of the transcript of
stenographic notes during the re-arraignment and
scheduled hearings to show voluntary plea of guilt w/ full
knowledge of the consequences of pleading guilty →
established beyond reasonable doubt by independent
evidence adduced by prosecution during trial of instant
case
○ Record shows that trial court relied on
■ a) the appellant's plea of guilty to the crime of rape with
homicide as charged in the information
■ b) the evidence adduced by the prosecution during the
trial of the instant case.
Issues​:
1. W/N the plea of guilt of the accused was provident
1
​Rule 116, Sec 3, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure 
Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. — When the accused pleads guilty to a 
capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full 
comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt 
and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf. 
NO. The accused’s plea of guilt was improvident.
2
● Trial court’s duties after an accused enters a guilty plea:
○ 1. The trial court must conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his
plea;
○ 2. The trial court must require the prosecution to present
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree
of his culpability through the requisite quantum of evidence;
○ 3. The trial court must ask the accused if he desires to present
evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.
○ ** Rationale: courts must proceed with more care where the
possible punishment is in its severest form, namely death, for the
reason that the execution of such a sentence is irrevocable and
experience has shown that innocent persons have at times
pleaded guilty. The primordial purpose is to avoid improvident
pleas of guilty on the part of an accused where grave crimes are
involved since by admitting his guilt before the court, he would
forfeit his life and liberty without having fully understood the
meaning, significance and consequence of his plea.
● Court was not convinced that the lengthy inquiries conducted by the trial
court during the re-arraignment of the appellant as well as during the
subsequent hearings for the presentation of evidence of both the
prosecution and the defense su ciently established voluntariness and full
comprehension of the appellant of his plea of guilty to the crime charged
in the Information.
○ Roberto earlier entered the plea of "Not guilty" to the Information
in this case during his arraignment on February 1, 1996.
Subsequently, he manifested, through his counsel de oficio, his
intention to change his previous plea to that of a plea of guilty to
the crime charged in the Information. After having entered the
plea of guilty on re-arraignment, the trial court proceeded to
propound questions on the appellant during which a rmative
responses were elicited from the appellant apparently to show
that his subsequent plea of guilty was his own voluntary decision.
○ TC ​failed to dwell on a significant development ​that transpired
during the scheduled hearing on November 13, 1997 when the
appellant revealed in open court, through counsel, that his
2. W/N the TC erred in admitting evidence which are fruits of the poisonous tree
2
YES. The TC erred in admitting the illegally obtained evidence.
It must be emphasized that the said procedure is mandatory and any judge who fails to 
observe it commits grave abuse of discretion 
subsequent plea of guilty was prompted by "pressure" from a
certain policeman so that he (appellant) agreed to admit the
commission of the offense charged.
■ TC perfunctorily brushed aside the aforesaid disclosure
from the appellant that he was pressured by a
policeman to change his earlier plea of not guilty to that
of guilty to the charge in the information. It did not
propound any clarificatory questions about the matter
on the same occasion such as the identity of the
concerned policeman, the nature of the pressure and
the circumstances under which the alleged pressure
was applied on the appellant
■ Questions were primarily aimed to elicit affirmative
responses or confirmations of guilty plea
■ Statement of Samontanez that he was pressured by
policemen apparently escaped memory or concern of TC
○ THERE ARE DOUBTS ON THE ACCUSED’S GRASP OF THE TRUE
MEANING, FULL SIGNIFICANCE AND CONSEQUENCES OF HIS
GUILTY PLEA
■ TC failed to emphasize that the guilty plea will not affect
or reduce the imposition of death penalty which is
mandatory under RA 7659
■ Failed to apprise of the civil liability arising from the
crime of rape with homicide
● Seems that accused was led to believe that his
penalty would be reduced
■ TC should shave proved deeper to the extent of securing
every material detail of the crime in its lengthy inquiries
to the accused subsequent to his re-arraignment
■ Questions tending to elicit corroborative responses
should’ve been asked
■ Should require the accused to fully narrate the incident
that spawned the charges against him or by making him
re-enact manner he did the crime or by causing him to
furnish and explain to the court missing details of
significance
● Facts show that the appellant Roberto Samontañez was actually arrested
by police authorities of Nasugbu, Batangas on November 28, 1995 at his
workplace
● Does not appear from the record that the appellant was apprised of his
constitutional rights during the police ​custodial investigation ​which are
enshrined in Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution.
○ Not assisted by counsel during CI
○ In the absence of a valid waiver, any confession obtained from
the appellant during the police custodial investigation relative to
the crime, including any other evidence secured by virtue of the
said confession is inadmissible in evidence even if the same was
not objected to during the trial by the counsel of the appellant​.
○ Thus, the personal belongings of the victim namely: Omax
wristwatch, gold ring and Joop cologne were recovered and found 05 People v. Mojello
inside the bag of the appellant when the police authorities 2004, Ynares-Santiago, ​J.
returned to the appellant's place of work at the Hermogenes
Trading in Barangay Galicia III, Mendez, Cavite after they illegally Facts:
obtained a confession from the appellant. ● Dindo “Bebot” Mojello was convicted by the trial court of rape with homicide,
● People v. Alicando: We have not only constitutionalized the Miranda having raped and killed Lenlen Rayco, a girl under 12 years of age
warnings in our jurisdiction. We have also adopted the libertarian ● The facts show that Rogelio Rayco, Lenlen’s uncle, saw Mojello and Lenlen
walking together one night but did not mind this as the two were often seen
exclusionary rule known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree," a phrase
together. It was only in the morning that the Rayco family was informed that
minted by Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter in the celebrated case of Nardone Lenlen’s dead body was found at the seashore of Sitio Kota (Talisay, Cebu)
vs. United States. According to this rule, once the primary source (the ● Mojello was arrested while attempting to board a motor launch bound for
"tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or Cadiz City. In the investigation, he confessed to the crime, assisted by counsel
derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated Atty. Giduquio during the custodial interrogation. The extrajudicial confession
otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the was sworn before a judge.
illegal act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of ● During arraignment, Mojello pleaded not guilty. He was convicted by the lower
the same illegal act. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once court.
● Accused now appeals on the ground that the lower court erred in admitting
removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible.
into evidence his confession, since he was not knowingly and intelligently
The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the apprised of his constitutional rights before such confession was taken from
State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally him. Hence, his confession, and admissions made therein, should be deemed
illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained. inadmissible in evidence, under the ​fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine​.
● The only other evidence of the prosecution are the testimonies of Carlito
Samontañez and Melecio Mendoza, both of which merely seek to establish Issue:
the presence of the appellant near the vicinity of the crime scene on or 1. Whether the extrajudicial confession executed by appellant is admissible in
about the time when the crime took place. Ultimately, the conviction of evidence. YES (the tree wasn’t poisonous at all)
● The Miranda doctrine under the 1987 Charter took on a modified form
the appellant for the crime charged in the case at bar rested primarily on
where the right to counsel was specifically qualified to mean ​competent
his plea of guilty which appeared to have been improvidently made and and independent counsel preferably of the suspect's own choice.​ Waiver of
hence, contrary to the letter and spirit of Section 3, Rule 116 of the Revised the right to counsel likewise provided for stricter requirements compared
Rules of Court, supra.
 to its American counterpart; it must be done in writing, and in the
presence of counsel.
● The court a quo observed that the confession itself expressly states that
the investigating officers informed him of such rights.
● Atty. Giduquio testified that he was requested by the Chief of Police of Sta.
Fe to assist appellant, who manifested on record his desire to have Atty.
Giduquio as his counsel, with the latter categorically stating that before the
investigation was conducted and appellant's statement taken, he advised
appellant of his constitutional rights. Atty. Giduquio even told appellant to
answer only the questions he understood freely and not to do so if he was
not sure of his answer.
● Concededly, the December 17, 1996 custodial investigation upon
appellant's apprehension by the police authorities violated the Miranda
doctrine on two grounds: (1) no counsel was present; and (2) improper
waiver of the right to counsel as it was not made in writing and in the
presence of counsel. ​However, the December 23, 1996 custodial
investigation which elicited the appellant's confession should nevertheless
be upheld for having complied with Art. III​, Sec. 12, par. 1.
● Prior to conducting his investigation, police explained to appellant his
constitutional rights in the Visayan dialect, notably Cebuano, a language
known to the appellant.
● Mojello claimed his life was threatened, inducing him to execute a
confession, yet he neither filed any case against the person who
threatened him, nor did he report this to his counsel.
2. Whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with
homicide. STATUTORY RAPE ONLY
● The categorical admission of the appellant to the crime of rape, coupled
with the corpus delicti as established by the Medico-Legal Report and the
testimony of Rogelio Rayco, leads to no other conclusion than that of
appellant's guilt for the rape.
● Although the circumstances may point to the appellant as the most likely
perpetrator of the homicide, the same do not constitute an unbroken
chain of events which would lead us to a reasonable conclusion that
appellant was guilty of killing the victim.
● Appellant only admitted to boxing the victim when she shouted, then
hurriedly ran away. The cause of death of Lenlen was cardio-respiratory
attack due to asphyxiation and physical injuries; she was strangled to death
and left on the seashore as manifested by the frothing in her lungs. No
physical, scientific or DNA evidence was presented to pinpoint appellant as
the person who killed the victim.
06 Ho Wai Pang v. People
2011, J. Del Castillo
Petitioner: Ho Wai Pang
Respondent: People of the Philippines
Facts:
● Petitioner is one of the 6 accused in a drug case
o However, petitioner is the only one being pursued in appeal.
● Sept 1991 – 13 Hong Kong nationals arrived at NAIA
o One of them was Wong Kwok Wah (Sonny Wong) – the group
leader
● Customs Examiner Gilda Cinco (Cinco) was presented by Sonny Wong with
a Baggage Declaration Form
o Cinco examined the bag of each of the 13 passenges
o The first bag she examined had a box of chocolates which at first
she didn’t mind. However upon examining the second bag, she
saw the same box of chocolates, hence she opened one of them.
▪ Cinco saw a white crystalline substance contained in a
white transparent plastic.
o Cinco immediately informed her immediate superiors
▪ She was advised to call the Narcotics Command
(NARCOM) and the police.
o Cinco brought the tourists to the Intensive Counting Unit (ICU)
along with the four chocolate boxes discovered earlier.
▪ All in all there were 18 chocolate boxes recovered from
the 6 accused.
● The following day, the 13 tourists were brought to NBI for questioning.
o The confiscated items were turned over to the Forensic Chemist
▪ It has a total weight of 31.1126 KG and positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride
● Six separate Informations were filed against accused.
RTC: ​All 6 accused are guilty of RA 6425 “The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972”
● All the accused appealed to the SC
o Later, ​all the accused except for the petitioner withdrew their
appeal.
o Hence the resolution of the RTC became final and executory
against the 5 accused.
CA: ​Denied appeal and affirmed RTC decision.

Issue:
WoN evidence has to be excluded since Miranda rights were not given? NO

● Infraction of the Miranda rights only render inadmissible

o The extra-judicial confession
o The admission made during custodial investigation
● All other evidence which are relevant to the issue are not excluded by law
or rules
o Also they are not affected even if obtained through the course of
custodial investiogation
● In fact, the petitioner did not make any confession during his custodial
investigation.
o Moreover, the prosecution did not present any extrajudicial
confession to prove his guilt
o No confession was extracted and used against him as evidence
● Conviction of the Petitioner in the current case was on the strength that he
was caught ​in flagrante delicto​ transporting shabu into the country

Dispositive Portion
WHEREFORE​ premises considered, the petition is DENIED and the assailed June 16,
2006Decision and January 16, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 01459 are ​AFFIRMED​.

SO ORDERED​.