[26] PEOPLE v.
LARRY MAHINAY y AMPARADO • Later, at 9 PM, Mahinay went to Norgina's (Isip's sister-in-law)
G.R. No. 122485 | February 1, 1999
Per Curiam
Topic: Types - Warrantless - Method of Arrest by Officer
PROVISION:
Rule 113, Sec. 8. Method of arrest by officer without warrant. When
making an arrest without a warrant, the officer shall inform the person
to be arrested of his authority and the cause of the arrest, unless the
latter is either engaged in the commission of an offense, is pursued
immediately after its commission, has escaped, flees, or forcibly
resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or when
the giving of such information will imperil his arrest.
SUMMARY: Mahinay raped and killed a 12-year-old girl and hid the
body in the septic tank. Mahinay fled the place and was later arrested
in Batangas after a series of follow-up operations and was tried and
convicted with a penalty of death. Mahinay argues that the extra-
judicial confession was obtained in violation of his constitutional
rights.
DOCTRINE: The case basically enumerated the procedure
guidelines and duties which the arresting, detaining, inviting or
investigating officers or his companions must do and observe at the
time of making an arrest. (Check ratio)
FACTS:
- Mahinay started working as a houseboy for Maria Isip in 1993
• He was to take care of her house
• He stayed and slept in an apartment owned by Isip near the
house
- Victim, Ma. Victoria Chan, was 12 y.o. and was Isip's neighbor
• She used to pass by her house on her way to school and play
inside the compound yard; Mahinay would always be around
washing his clothes
- June 25, 1995:
• At 8 AM, Mahinay joined Rivera in a drinking spree. After a
while, he asked Isip if he could go out with his friends
store to buy lugaw and she noticed that he appeared uneasy
and in deep thought
• Meanwhile, victim's mother noticed her daughter was missing
• Testimonies:
- Norgina, saw victim 3-4 times catching birds
- Sgt. Suni, a neighbor, met Mahinay along their street and saw
victim standing in front of the gate of Isip
- Mahinay failed to show up for supper that night
- June 26, 1995:
• Mahinay boarded a passenger jeep, alighted at the bridge of
North Expressway and disappeared
• A certain Boy found the dead body of the victim inside the septic
tank of the compound. She was wearing a blouse without
underwear and her face bore bruises
• Police were informed that: (1) Isip's houseboy was missing,
which was unlikely because whenever Mahinay would go out, it
would usually return on the same day; and (2) Mahinay's
townmate informed that Mahinay could possibly be found in
Caloocan City
• Police found at the scene of the crime several items which
belonged to the victim (At the second floor of the house under
construction, they retrieved from one of the rooms a pair of dirty
white short pants, a brown belt and a yellow hair ribbon which
was identified by Elvira Chan to belong to her daughter. They
also found inside another room a pair of blue slippers which Isip
identified as that of appellant. Also found in the yard, three
armslength away from the septic tank were an underwear, a
leather wallet, a pair of dirty long pants and a pliers positively
identified by Isip as appellant’s belongings. These items were
brought to the police station)
 A police report was subsequently prepared including a referral
slip addressed to the office of the Valenzuela Prosecutor. The
next day, SPO1 Virgilio Villano retrieved the victim’s underwear
from the septic tank
- After a series of follow-up operations, Mahinay was finally arrested
in Batangas and was brought to Valenzuela Police Station
 • With the assistance of Atty. Viernes, Mahinay executed an
extrajudicial confession narrating in detail how he raped and
killed the victim
• But according to Mahinay, he was apprehended by the police
officers in Ibaan, Batangas. The officers allegedly brought him to
a big house in Manila where he heard the police officers’ plan to
salvage him if he would not admit that he was the one who
committed the crime. He only executed the extra-judicial
confession out of fear.
- Mahinay was charged with rape with homicide
• Mahinay pleaded not guilty
- TC convicted Mahinay of crime charged, sentencing him to death
by electrocution
- Case brought to SC upon automatic review pursuant to Article 47
of the RPC
• Mahinay insists circumstantial evidence presented is insufficient
to prove he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUES and RATIO:
1. Did the evidence which was presented by the prosecution enough
to prove Mahinay's guilt? - YES
- The proven circumstances of this case, when juxtaposed with
appellant's proffered excuse, are sufficient to sustain his conviction
beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the absence of any
direct evidence relative to the commission of the crime for which he
was prosecuted
• TC gave credence to several circumstantial evidence, which is
more than enough to prove Mahinay's guilt beyond the shadow
of reasonable doubt:
(1) Norgina saw Mahinay drunk and walking in a zigzag manner,
uneasy and seemed to be in deep thought
(2) Sgt. Suni met Mahinay and saw Maria
(3) Maria Isip's Testimony
(4) The testimony of the passenger jeepney driver that
pinpointed Mahinay as one of his passengers
(5) Personal belongings found in the house where Mahinay slept
on the night of the incident
(6) During custodial investigation and after being informed of his
constitutional rights with the assistance of an Attorney, gave
statement admitting commission of crime. This is believed to
have been freely and voluntarily given
(7) Version of the defense of what transpired during the night of
the incident seems highly unlikely
(8) The circumstance of flight strongly indicate his
consciousness of guilt. He left the crime scene early
morning and did not return until he was arrested in Batangas
2. WON Mahinay’s confession was obtained in violation of his
rights. NO.
- Mahinay’s contention is belied by the records as well as the
testimony of Atty. Viernes who testified during the trial he assisted,
warned and explained to him his constitutional rights:
a. To remain silent
b. To have counsel
c. That he had the right to refuse to answer any question that
would incriminate him
- The enumeration of the constitutional rights was also reduced in
writing.
PART OF HE CASE SIGNIFICANT TO THE TOPIC:
Considering the heavy penalty of death and in order to ensure
that the evience against an accused were obtained through lawful
means, the Court, as guardian of the rights of the people lays down
the procedure, guidelines and duties which the arresting,
detaining, inviting, or investigating officer or his companions
must do and observe at the time of making an arrest and again at
and during the time of the custodial interrogation in accordance with
the Constitution, jurisprudence and Republic Act No. 7438:
1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial
investigation must be informed in a language known to and understood
by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant
of arrest, if any; Every other warnings, information or communication
must be in a language known to and understood by said person;
2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any
statement he makes may be used as evidence against him;
3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times
and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, RULING:
preferably of his own choice; WHEREFORE, the conviction of appellant is hereby AFFIRMED
4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the except for the award of civil indemnity for the heinous rape which is
services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer INCREASED to P75,000.00, PLUS P50,000.00 moral damages.
may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed
by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending
behalf; Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let
5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the
informed that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.
except in the presence of litigation in any form shall be conducted
except in the presence of radio, letter or messenger—with his lawyer
(either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate family, or
any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any one
from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited by/confer
with duly accredited national or international non-government
organization. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure that
this is accomplished;
7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights
provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure
that he understood the same;
8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he
must be informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence
of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even
if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak;
9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may
indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that he
does not wish to be questioned with warning that once he makes
such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the same
had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must cease if it has
already begun;
10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his
right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not
bar him from invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of
whether he may have answered some questions or volunteered some
statements;
11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the
case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether
inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in
evidence.