Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
*
Nos. L-37201-02. March 3, 1975.
the same had been obtained before the effectivity of the New
Constitution, even if presented after January 17, 1973, and even if
he had not been informed of his right to counsel, since no law gave
the accused the right to be so informed before that date.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code does not confer right to counsel.·The argument that the
second paragraph of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, which
was added
_______________
* EN BANC.
custodial inquest to only the choice few who happen to know the
provisions of the law and have the courage or the temerity to invoke
it in the menacing presence of peace officers, and in the same
breath deny the beneficence of those provisions to all others. The
poor, the ignorant and the illiterate who do not know the rudiments
of law would be at an overriding disadvantage as against the
informed few.
Same; Rights of the accused; Evidence; Confession; Guarantee of
right to counsel has existed as early as 1954.·I am thus of the firm
view that the second paragraph of article 125 makes it an obligation
on the part of any detaining officer to inform the perso n detained of
his right to counsel before the very inception of custodial inquest,
and that this obligation was made a statutory one as early as in the
year 1954. So I consider it an error to say that Section 20 of Article
IV of the 1973 Constitution granted, for the first time, the right to
counsel to a person under custodial interrogation.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 3 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 4 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 5 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
x x x x x
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 7 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
10
11
retroactive effect is given, where the purpose of the new rule can be
adequately effectuated without giving it retroactive operation, or
where retroactive operation might greatly burden the
administration of justice, then it is Our duty to apply the new rule
prospectively.
FERNANDEZ, J.:
in evidence,‰
and specifically, the portion thereof which declares inadmissible
a confession obtained from a person under investigation for the
commission of an offense who has not been informed of his right (to
1
remain silent and) to counsel.
_______________
12
_______________
13
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 11 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
„In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of
his detention and shall he allowed, upon his request, to
communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel,‰
_______________
they were offered in evidence during the trial and rejected by the
Court on June 18, 1974. In this case, nothing was ment ioned of any
extrajudicial confession of the co-accused and co-respondent Jaime
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 12 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
14
15
16
null and void and are abhorred by law which proscribes the
use of such cruel and inhuman me thods to secure a
confession.‰ „A coerced confession stands discredited in the
eyes of the law and is as a th ing that never existed.‰ The
defense need not prove that its contents are false. Thus, We
_______________
17
18
Rule 115 of the Rules of Court that ÂIn all criminal prosecutions the
defendant shall be entitled x x x (b) to be present and defend in
person and by attorney at every state of the proceedings, that is,
from the arraignment to the promulgation of the judgment.Ê The
only instances where an accused is entitled to counsel before
arraignment, if he so requests, are during the second stage of the
preliminary investigation (Rule 112, Section 11) and after the arrest
(Rule 113, Section 18). The rule in the United States need not be
unquestioningly adhered to in this jurisdiction, not only because it
has no binding effect here, but also because in interpreting a
provision of the Constitution the meaning attached hereto at the
time of the adoption thereof should be considered. And even there
the said rule is not yet quite settled, as can be de duc e d from the a
bse nc e of unanimity in the voting by the members of the United
States Supreme Court in all the three above-cited cases. ‰ (People
vs. Jose, supra, at page 472).
19
20
cases still pending on direct review to benefit from the new in-
custody interrogation requirements of Miranda vs. Arizona. As
Chief Justice Warren observed in Jenkins vs. Delaware, 395 U.S.
213 (1969), „With Johson we began increasing emphasis upo n the
point at which law enforcement officials relied upon practices not y
et prescribed.‰ „More recently,‰ he continued, „we have selected the
point of initial reliance.‰ That development began with Stovall vs.
Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (on the line-up requirements of United
States vs. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967) and Gilbert vs. California, 388
U. S. 263 (1967). These new rulings were held applicable only in the
immediate cases „and all future cases which involve confrontation
for identification purposes conducted in the absence of counsel after
the dates of Wade and Gilbert.‰ The fact that Wade and Gilbert were
thus the only beneficiaries of the new rules wa s described as an
„unavoidable consequence of the necessity that constitutional
adjudications not stand as mere dictum.‰ In Jenkins vs. Delaware
itself, the Court held that the Miranda requirement did not apply to
a re-trial after June 13, 1966·the cut-off point set for the Miranda
requirement by Johnson vs. New Jersey·because JenkinÊs original
trial had begun before the cut-off point.
„Thus, the remarkable thing about this development in
21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 20 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
21
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 21 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
22
„In every case the person detained shall be informed of the cause of
his detention and shall be allowed upon his request to communicate
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 22 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
23
24
25
26
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 27 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 28 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
28
_______________
29
as coerced confessions
5
(whether the coercion be physical,
mental or emotional ) and they are therefore deemed nu ll
and void and expressly declared to be inadmissible in
evidence. Such confessions obtained without counsel stand
discredited and outlawed by mandate of the Constitution.
ACCORDINGLY, and in line with the views herein
_______________
30
_______________
31
1905 decision.
_______________
32
_______________
6 Ibid, 422-423.
7 Cf. Cardozo, The Nature of Judicial Process, 127-132 (1921).
8 Holmes, The Common Law 1 (1881).
9 Cf. De los Santos v. Mallare, 87 Phil. 289 (1950).
10 L-26182, May 31, 1971, 39 SCRA 236.
11 Ibid, 242.
12 Ibid.
13 L-26194, March 29, 1972, 44 SCRA 75.
33
________________
14 Ibid, 85.
15 L-28405, April 27, 1972, 44 SCRA 473.
16 Ibid, 484. Citing United States v. De los Santos, 24 Phil. 329 (1913).
17 Ibid.
18 Cf. People v. Manobo, L-19798, Sept. 20, 1966, 18 SC RA 30; People
v. Chaw, L-19590, April 25, 1968, 23 SCRA 127; Chavez v. Court of
Appeals, L-29169, Aug. 19, 1968, 24 SCRA 663; People v. Alto, L-18661,
Nov. 29, 1968, 26 SCRA 342; Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners, L-
25018, May 26, 1969, 28 SCRA 344; People v. Gande, L-28163, Jan. 30,
1970, 31 SCRA 347.
19 L-35792, November 29, 1973, 54 SCRA 190.
34
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 35 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
_______________
20 Ibid, 195-196.
21 384 US 436 (1966). Even before Miranda, the trend appears to be
towards a much more exacting scrutiny of the voluntariness of
confessions. Cf. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 US 278 (1936); Chambers v.
Florida, 309 US 227 (1940); Lisenba v. California, 314 US 219 (1941);
Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 US 143 (1944); Malinski v. New York, 324 US
401 (1945); Lee v. Mississippi, 332 US 742 (1948); Williams v. United
States, 341 US 97 (1 951); Rochin v. California, 342 US 165 (1952); Ley ra
v. Denno, 347 US 556 (1954); Pennsy lvania v. Claudy, 350 US 116 (1956)
; Payne v. Arkansas, 356 US 560 (1958); Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 US
199 (1960); Rogers v. Richmond, 365 US 534 (1961); Reck v. Pate, 367 US
433 (1961); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961); Gallegas v. Colorado, 370
US 49 (1962); Shotwell Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 371 US 341
(1963); Fay v. Noia, 372 US 391 (1963); Ly numn v. Illinois, 372 US 528
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 36 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
(1963); Fay v. Noia, 372 US 391 (1963); Ly numn v. Illinois, 372 US 528
(1963); Brady v. Mary land, 373 US 83 (1963); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 US 1
(1964); Jackson v. Denno, 378 US 368 (1964); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 US
478 (1964).
35
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 37 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
_______________
36
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 38 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
37
26
American lea ding decision, McNabb v. United States. It
does not lend support to their plea, wh ich merited the
approval of my brethren. It is a blade that cuts both ways.
W itness these words in the opinion of Justice Frankfurter:
„Legislation such as this, requiring that the police must
with reasonable promptness show legal cause for detaining
arrested persons, constitutes an important safeguard·no t
only in assuring protection for the innocent but also in
securing conviction of the guilty by me thods th at
commend themselves to a progressive and self-confident
society. For this procedural requirement checks resort to
those reprehensible practices known as the Âthird degreeÊ
which, though universally rejected as indefensible, still find
their way in to use. It aims to avoid all the evil implications
of secret interrogation of persons accused of crime. It
reflects not a sentimental but a sturdy view of law
enforcement. It outlaws easy but self-defeating ways in
which brutality is substituted for brains as an instrument
27
of crime detection.‰
So I would view the matter and thus reach a conclusion
different from that of the Cour t. This is not to discount the
possibility th at it ma y be a little mo re difficult to obtain
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 39 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
_______________
38
_______________
39
CONCURRING OPINION
ANTONIO , J.:
I
The constant doctrine of this Court has always been in
favor of the admis sibility of state ments obtained fro m a
defendant under police custodial interrogation 1 where the
same has been obtained freely and voluntarily. W e have
always held th at it will suffice for th e admis sion of an ex
traj ud icial co nfessio n of an accused that it appears to
have been given under conditions which accredit prima
facie its admissibility, leaving the accused at liberty to
show it was not voluntarily given or was obtained
2
by undue
pressure, thus destroying its weight, and that a
presumption of law favors the spontaneity and
voluntariness of a statement given by the defendant in a
criminal case3 and the burden is upon him to destroy that
presumption. W e have also declared that an extraj udicial
confession is not rendered inadmissible by reason of failure
to caution th e accused that he need not talk and that if he
does, what he says will be used against him,4 even though
such extrajudicial confession was under oath.
_______________
40
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 43 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
_______________
5 77 Phil., 572.
6 37 SCRA 450.
41
II
The purpose of requiring the presence of counsel in police
custodial investigation in Section 20, of Article IV, of the
New Constitution, is to serve as an effective deterrent to
lawless police action. W e canno t say th at th is purpose
would be advanced by making the requirement
retrospective. If any misconduct had been committed by the
police in connection with the taking of state men ts of
suspects du ring custodial interrogation prior to the
effectivity of the New Constitution, it will not be corrected
by making this proscription retroactive.
III
There are interests in th e administration of justice and the
integrity of the judicial process to consider. To make the
proscription in Article IV, Section 2 0, of th e New Con stitu
tio n retrosp ectiv e wou ld certain ly i mpair the effective
prosecution of cases and tax to the utmo st the
administration of justice. Custodial interrogation has lo ng
been recognized as an essential tool in effective law
enforcement. The detection and solution of crime is a
difficult and arduous task requiring determination and
persistence on the part of all responsible officers charged
with the duty of law enforcement. The line between proper
and permissible police conduct and me thods that are
offensive to due process is, at best, a difficult one to draw. It
must be noted that in most areas, police investigators are
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 44 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
42
IV
It is a funda mental rule in th e construction of
constitutions th at co n stitutio n al p rov isio n s sh ou ld
no t b e g iv en a retrospective operation, unless that is the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 45 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
_______________
43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 46 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
_______________
8 Supra.
9 Article 8, Civil Code .
44
V
It is, however, asserted that under Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, any incriminatory statements given by
a person detained, in the course of a police custodial
interrogation, is inadmissible in evidence, if the same is
done without the assistance of the declarantÊs counsel. This
novel theory cannot be squared either with the clear
wordings of the statutory provision or with the existing
jurisprudence on the matter. While it may be conceded that
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code requires the
detaining officer to in form the person detained th e cause
of his detention and of his right, if he so desires, to
communicate and confer with his counsel, it does not
necessarily follow that an additional obligation is imposed
upon said officer to allow the susp ect to be assisted by his
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 47 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
VI
45
46
··o0o··
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 49 of 50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 063 29/08/2019, 7*25 PM
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cdd181b8fc675994d003600fb002c009e/p/ATB307/?username=Guest Page 50 of 50