Case Digests

PEOPLE vs MALNGAN            GR No. 170470

FACTS:

the barangay chairman and his tanods saw the accused-appellant, one hired as a housemaid, hurriedly leaving the house of her employer. Thirty minutes later, the group discovered that a fire gutted the house of the employer of the housemaid. 

ISSUE:

WoN the uncounseled extrajudicial confession by the accused-appellant is admissible 

HELD:

No, the uncounseled extrajudicial confession by the accused-appellant is inadmissible.

To be admissible in evidence against an accused, the extrajudicial confessions made must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing.

Accused-appellant’s confession to the Barangay Chairman was made in response to the interrogation made by the latter admittedly conducted without first informing accused-appellant of her rights under the Constitution or done in the presence of counsel. For this reason, the confession as well as the lighter found by the latter in her bag are inadmissible in evidence against her as such were obtained in violation of her constitutional rights.

PEOPLE vs REYES        GR No.

FACTS:

accused-appellant, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another and grouping themselves together, by means of force and intimidation and with use of firearms, carry away and deprive Robert Yao, Yao San, Chua Ong Ping Sim, Raymond Yao, Ronald Matthew Yao, Lennie Yao, Charlene Yao, Jona Abagatnan ang Josephine Ortea against their will and consent on board their Mazda MVP van for the purpose of extorting money in the amount of Five Million Pesos.

ISSUE:

WoN the extra-judicial confessions of the accused were admissible in evidence 

HELD:

Yes, the extra-judicial confessions of the accused were admissible in evidence.

An extra-judicial confession is a declaration made voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement by a person under custodial investigation, stating or acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the commission of a crime.

Atty. Uminga sat beside appellant Arnaldo during the inquiry and listened to the latter’s entire confession and requested the PAOCTF investigators to give him a copy of appellant Arnaldo’s confession. With respect to appellant Flores, Atty. Rous warned appellant Flores that his confession would be used against him in a court of law, and that the death penalty might be imposed on him.

LUMANOG vs PEOPLE            GR No. 182555

FACTS:

Appellants were the accused perpetrators of the ambush-slay of former Chief of the Metropolitan Command Intelligence and Security Group of the Philippine Constabulary (now the Philippine National Police), Colonel Rolando N. Abadilla.

ISSUE:

WoN the extra-judicial confession of accused taken during the custodial investigation valid 

HELD:

NO, the extra-judicial confession of accused taken during the custodial investigation was NOT valid.

A confession is not valid and not admissible in evidence when it is obtained in violation of any of the rights of persons under custodial investigation.

Police officers claimed that upon arresting, they informed him of his constitutional rights. Atty. Sansano, who supposedly interviewed Joel and assisted the latter while responding to questions propounded by SPO2 Garcia, Jr., did not testify on whether he had properly discharged his duties to said client. 

PANG vs PEOPLE        GR No. 176229

FACTS:

When Gilda Cinco search the bag of Ho Wai Pang in the Baggage Declaration at the arrival area, she found boxes of chocolate which when she saw inside had white substance. They were then brought to the PNP after the procedures in the airport.

ISSUE:

WoN petitioner was not assisted by a competent and independent lawyer during the custodial investigation.

HELD:

Yes, petitioner was assisted by a competent and independent lawyer during the custodial investigation.

Section 12, Article III of the Constitution prohibits as evidence only confessions and admissions of the accused as against himself.

petitioner did not make any confession or admission during his custodial investigation. The prosecution did not present any extrajudicial confession extracted from him as evidence of his guilt. Moreover, no statement was taken from petitioner during his detention and subsequently used in evidence against him. 

PEOPLE vs LARA         GR No. 199877

FACTS:

While the vehicle was at the intersection of Mercedes and Market Avenues, Pasig City, appellant suddenly emerged and pointed a gun at prosecution witness Sumulong, demanding from him to produce the bag containing the money.

ISSUE:

WoN the identification of respondent during the police line-up is inadmissible as his right to counsel was violated .

HELD:

Yes, identification of respondent during the police line-up is admissible.

Any allegation of violation of rights during custodial investigation is relevant and material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from the accused becomes the basis of their conviction.

Appellant’s assertion that he was under custodial investigation at the time he was identified in a police line-up and therefore had the right to counsel does not hold water. Appellant was convicted based on the testimony of a prosecution witness and not on his alleged uncounseled confession or admission.

PEOPLE vs PENILLOS              GR No. L-65673

FACTS:

Four defendants are charged with the offense of "Robbery with Homicide and Attempted Homicide." During the time the victim was confined at the hospital, she recognized Penillos as one of the perpetrators when brought to her for confrontation.

ISSUE:

WoN the signed confession was defective and should not have been admitted in evidence 

HELD:

Yes, the signed confession was defective.

Any confession obtained in violation of Section 12 (3), Articles 3 of the 1987 Constitution shall be inadmissible in evidence.

it appears that appellant's sworn statement was executed in a manner not in full accord with his right to the assistance of counsel. Even if the confession of an accused is gospel truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.