People v Pinlac 165 SCRA 675 (1988)

Facts: The accused was convicted for two separate criminal cases for robbery and robbery with homicide. He assailed his conviction on the contention that the court erred in admitting his extrajudicial confession as evidence which was taken by force, violence, torture, and intimidation without having appraised of his constitutional rights and without the assistance of counsel.

People v Dy 158 SCRA 111 (1988)

Facts: Accused is the owner of Benny’s Bar at Boracay Island and was sentenced with murder before the trial court for shooting a Swiss national in his bar. The accused contends the court erred in admitting the presentation of the prosecution of evidence that he came to a police officer and made a confession on the crime and informed said officer where to find the gun he used, a statement the accused denied to have done. They assail its admissibility to the court on the grounds that such statement was not made in writing and is in violation of the due process required in custodial investigation.

Read RA No. 7438

Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila

Eighth Congress

Republic Act No. 7438             April 27, 1992

AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::

Section 1. Statement of Policy. – It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full respect for human rights.

Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers.–

(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.

(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.lawphi1Ÿ

(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.

(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.

(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.

As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.

People v Alicando GR No. 117487 (December 2, 1995)

Facts: Accused was convicted with a crime of rape with homicide of a 4 year old girl. He was arrested and during the interrogation he made a confession of the crime without the assistance of a counsel. By virtue of his uncounseled confession the police came to know where to find the evidences consisting of the victim’s personal things like clothes stained with blood which was admitted to court as evidences. The victim pleaded guilty during the arraignment and was convicted with the death penalty. The case was forwarded to the SC for automatic review.

People v Macam 238 SCRA 306 (1994)

Facts: Accused was charged and prosecuted for robbery with homicide as guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Defense assails the court decision contending the constitutional rights of the accused were violated for subjecting them to a police line up at the hospital where they were identified by the victims without the presence of their counsel and without any warrant.

IssueL Whether or not the constitutional rights of the accused were violated.

People v Macam 238 SCRA 306 (1994)

Facts: Accused was charged and prosecuted for robbery with homicide as guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Defense assails the court decision contending the constitutional rights of the accused were violated for subjecting them to a police line up at the hospital where they were identified by the victims without the presence of their counsel and without any warrant.

IssueL Whether or not the constitutional rights of the accused were violated.

Held: Although the accused were arrested without a warrant such defect was cured during the proceeding when the defense failed to object on the issue during the initial proceedings before the court. Having failed to assail the issue beforehand the accused is estopped to assail the validity of their arrest as they further voluntarily submitted their self before the court by entering the plea of not guilty instead of moving to quash the information before the court on ground of an invalid arrest. It is also held that any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. HOWEVER, the prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellant’s identification at the line-up. The witnesses identified the accused again in open court. Also, accused did not object to the in-court identification as being tainted by illegal line-up. The witnesses and victims positively identified the accused thereby further affirming the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. SC affirmed the decision of the lower court. 

Navallo v Sandiganbayan 234 SCRA 177 (1994)

Facts: Petitioner is the collecting and disbursing officer of Numancia National Vocational School found to have misappropriated public funds for private benefit after a COA audit. He failed to restitute the amount despite COA demands. A warrant of arrest was issued but petitioner pleaded not guilty and invokes his right to custodial investigation since during the COA audit and actual cash count he was made to sign the certification on the fund shortage in the absence of a counsel. He further contends that the shortage of funds was due to the assurance of certain Macasemo to settle his unliquidated cash advance and his failure to do so resulted to the fund shortage.

Issue: Whether or not the right to counsel be invoked during the COA audit

People v Bolanos 211 SCRA 262 (1992)

Facts: Police authorities arrested the accused for murder. Together with the accused the police boarded a jeep to take him to their station. While on board the jeep the accused started admitting killing the deceased. This extrajudicial confession was used as evidence in court and the accused was convicted.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel.

People v Agustin 240 SCRA 541 (1995)

Facts: Quiaño, the gunman who killed the victims, confessed during the investigation conducted by Baguio City Fiscal Erdolfo Balajadia in his office that he was the triggerman. He implicated Abenoja, Jr., who engaged him to kill Dr. Bayquen for a fee, Cartel, who provided the armalite, and a certain "Jimmy." During the investigation, Wilfredo Quiaño was assisted by Atty. Reynaldo Cajucom. Stenographic notes of the proceedings during the investigation as transcribed with the sworn statement of Quiaño was signed, with the assistance of Atty. Cajucom, and swore to before City Fiscal Balajadia. The following day, Agustin was apprehended, and was investigated and was afforded the privileges like that of Quiaño. Agustin’s defense interpose that he was forced to admit involvement at gunpoint at Kennon Road. He further declared that although he was given a lawyer, Cajucom (a law partner of the private prosecutor), he nevertheless, asked for his uncle Atty. Oliver Tabin, and that Atty. Cajucom interviewed him from only two minutes in English and Tagalog but not in Ilocano, the dialect he understands. The promise that he would be discharged as a witness did not push through since Quiaño escaped. However the RTC convicted him, since conspiracy was established, hence this appeal.

People v Lucero 244 SCRA 425 (1995)

Facts: Accused-appellant was convicted for robbery with homicide. While he was in custodial investigation the accused cannot afford a lawyer thus one was provided for him in the person of Atty. Peralta as his counsel. Counsel explained to the accused his constitutional rights but Atty. Peralta observed no reaction from the accused. He left to attend the wake of a friend and the police authorities started to take statements from the accused. Apparently during the custodial investigation no counsel was around while accused gave his extrajudicial confession which was used against him as evidence in court and merit his conviction.

Issue: Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the accused may be admissible during the trial.

People v Bandula 232 SCRA 566 (1994)

Facts: The accused was charged of robbery with homicide. During investigation he was investigated and made an extrajudicial confession during the interrogation in the absence of a counsel. It was 2 weeks later that he was provided with one in the person of Atty. Zena, a municipality attorney where he was made to sign a sworn statement admitting the shooting of the victim.

Issue: Whether or not the accused was accorded with due process of custodial investigation.

People v Deniega 251 SCRA 626 (637)

Facts: The accused-appellants were convicted of rape and homicide. The prosecution was based solely on the alleged extrajudicial confessions taken by the police officers without the presence of a counsel during custodial investigation. It was also notable that the prosecution did not present any witness to the actual commission of the crime and the basis of the lower court’s conviction to the accused was based on their alleged extrajudicial confessions.

Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting the appellants based on their extrajudicial confession.

People v Judge Ayson 175 SCRA 216 (1989)

Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines and was allegedly involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets.  The PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted. That investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. A letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle the amount of P76,000. The findings of the Audit team were given to him, and he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was prevented from settling said amounts. He proffered a compromise however this did not ensue. Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not guilty. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’ written admission and statement, to which defendants argued that the confession was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. Respondent Judge did not admit those stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. A motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was denied. Hence this appeal.

Gamboa v Cruz 162 SCRA 642 (1988)

Facts: Petitioner was arrested for vagrancy without a warrant. During a line-up of 5 detainees including petitioner, he was identified by a complainant to be a companion in a robbery, thereafter he was charged. Petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit on the ground that the conduct of the line-up, without notice and in the absence of his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. The court denied said motion. Hearing was set, hence the petition.

Issue: Whether or Not petitioner’s right to counsel and due process violated.

Pecho v People 262 SCRA 518 (1996)

Facts: The decision of the Supreme Court for convicting the accused for the complex crime of attempted estafa thru falsification of official and commercial document was assailed with the contention of the defense that the accused may not be convicted of the crime for double jeopardy. The charge against the accused was on violation of RA 3019 of which he was acquitted because it only penalizes consummated crime. In the absence of evidence that shows that the crime was consummated the accused was acquitted but the court held judgment of prosecuting his conviction for attempted estafa thru falsification of official and commercial document which is necessarily included in the crime charged. Accused invokes the defense of double jeopardy since his acquittal from the charge involving RA 3019 is a bar for prosecution on the crime of attempted estafa thru falsification of official and commercial document and that the accused was not informed of this charge against him in the filing of the information.

Amion v Chiongson 301 SCRA 614 (January 22, 1999)

Facts: This is an administrative matter filed before the court charging the respondent judge for ignorance of the law and oppression for vehemently insisting of appointing the accused-appellant counsel de officio despite the appellant’s opposition because he has his own counsel of choice in the person of Atty. Depasucat. However, many instances that Atty. Depasucat did not appear in court which prompted respondent judge to assign Atty. Lao Ong from the PAO to represent the accused stating on record that his representation is without prejudice to the appearance of the accused own counsel. This was done in order to avoid delay of the trial since the complainant already expressed frustration on the so many postponement of the hearing.

People v Agbayani 284 SCRA 315 (1998)

Facts: The appellant was charged for raping his 14-year old daughter and was found guilty of the crime of rape. A motion for a new trial was filed before the court by the new counsel of the accused assailing the irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused invoking the failure of the court to inform the accused of his right to choose his own counsel and the violation of the appellants right for a 2 day preparation for trial.

Issue: Whether or not the failure of the record to disclose affirmatively that the trial judge advised the accused of the right to have counsel is sufficient ground to reverse the judgment of conviction and to send the case back for a new trial.

Corpuz v People 194 SCRA 73 (1991)

Facts: Petitioner seeks reversal of the lower court’s decision finding him guilty for malversation of public funds. The accused was the acting supervising cashier at the Provincial Treasurer’s office. He denied having misused the whole amount of P72,823.08 which was discovered to be a shortage from the government funds contending that the P50,000.00 was the unliquidated withdrawal made by their paymaster Pineda thru the 4 checks he issued while the petitioner was on leave and that he was forced by their Provincial Treasurer Aluning to post said amount in his cash book despite not actually receiving the amount.

Galman v Sandiganbayan 144 SCRA 392 (1986)

Facts: An investigating committee was created to determine the facts on the case involving the assassination of Ninoy Aquino. It appears that majority and minority reports showed that they are unconvinced on the participation of Galman as the assassin of late Sen. Aquino and branded him instead as the fall guy as opposed to the military reports. Majority reports recommended the 26 military respondents as indictable for the premeditated killing of Aquino and Galman which the Sandiganbayan did not give due consideration.

The office of the Tanod Bayan was originally preparing a resolution charging the 26 military accused as principal to the crime against Aquino but was recalled upon the intervention of President Marcos who insist on the innocence of the accused. Marcos however recommended the filing of murder charge and to implement the acquittal as planned so that double jeopardy may be invoked later on.

Baylon v Judge Sison 243 SCRA 284 (1995)

“application for bail on offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua/life imprisonment requires a hearing to give prosecution the chance to present evidence on the guilt of the accused”

Facts: Respondent judge is accused for malfeasance in granting bail to the accused charged with double murder. Prosecution was not given notice of at least 3 days before the scheduled hearing for bail in violation of Rule 15, section 4 of the Rules of Court and the filing of petition for bail has only 2 non-working day interval from the schedule of the hearing. Moreover the prosecution also assails that they were not given the chance to present evidence that strongly prove the guilt of the accused. Respondent judge justifies not having committed grave abuse of discretion since the prosecution did not interpose objection with his orders and the lack of previous notice was cured with the filing of motion for reconsideration.

Comendador v De Villa 200 SCRA 80 (1991)

"military members exempted from the right to bail”

Facts: This is a consolidated case of members of the AFP who were charged with violation of Articles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny), AW 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) and AW 94 (Various Crimes) in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder). The petitioners were questioning the conduct of the pre-trial investigation conducted where a motion to bail was filed but was denied. Petitioner applied for provisional liberty and preliminary injunction before the court which was granted. However De Villa refused to release petitioner for provisional liberty pending the resolution of the appeal they have taken before the court invoking that military officers are an exemption from the right to bail guaranteed by the Constitution. Decision was rendered reiterating the release for provisional liberty of petitioners with the court stating that there is a mistake in the presumption of respondents that bail does not apply among military men facing court martial proceeding. Respondents now appeal before the higher court.