Article III, Section 12 CASE DIGESTS AND BAR QUESTIONS CASE DIGESTS People vs. Jaime Ochoa, et.

al, G.R. No. 157399, November 17, 2005 Facts: Petitioners were charged before the Sandiganbayan for allegedly having falsified the NPCs application for managers checks with the Philippine National Bank (PNB), NPC Branch in the total amount of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY ONE PESOS and TWENTY FIVE CENTAVOS (P183,805,291.25), Philippine Currency, intended for the purchase of US dollars from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), and thus succeeded in diverting, collecting and receiving the total amount mentioned), Philippine Currency from the National Power Corporation, which they thereafter malverse, embezzle, misappropriate and convert to their own personal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of the National Power Corporation. Issues: What is custodial investigation? Was the accused under custodial investigation? Was his statement, taken without counsel, admissible in evidence? Ruling: The investigation under Section 12 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution refers to a custodial investigation where a suspect has already been taken into police custody and the investigating officers begin to ask questions to elicit information and confessions or admissions from the suspect. Thus, the accused, considering the circumstances that his statement was taken during the administrative investigation of NPCs audit team before he was taken into custody and was still a general inquiry into an unsolved offense at the time and where there was no specific suspect yet, was not under custodial investigation. And though it appears that statement was taken without a counsel, the sworn statement was conducted by NPC personnel for the NPCs administrative investigation therefore does not fall in the ambit of Section 12, Art III of the 1987 Constitution, and after having denied that he was coerced or intimidated, affirmed the contents of the document as a true reflection of his statements and even signed the same, the statement therefore is admissible. People vs. Sayaboc, GR No. 147201, January 15, 2004 Facts: On December 2, 1994, accused, committed murder. On March 8, 1995, witnesses identified Sayaboc at the PNP Headquarters as the gunman who shot victim to death. On the afternoon of that day, SPO4 Cagungao was called to take the statement of Sayaboc. Before taking the statement of Sayaboc, he advised the latter of his constitutional rights. Then Sayaboc told him that he wanted to have a counsel of his own choice. But since Sayaboc could not name one, Cagungao asked the police officers to get a lawyer wherein they brought Atty. Rodolfo Cornejo of the PAO, who then conferred with Sayaboc for a while. After Cagungao heard Sayaboc say, okay, he continued the investigation, during which Atty. Cornejo remained silent the entire time. However, Cagungao would stop questioning Sayaboc whenever Atty. Cornejo would leave to go to the comfort room. That night Sayaboc executed an extrajudicial confession in Ilocano dialect. He therein confessed to killing Joseph Galam at the behest of Marlon Buenviaje for the sum of P100,000. He likewise implicated Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso. The confession was also signed by Atty. Cornejo and attested to by one Fiscal Melvin Tiongson. Issue: Did accused validly waive his right to counsel? Did the police afford the accused the right to be inflormed? Ruling: The SC ruled that Sayaboc was not afforded his constitutional right to counsel. The facts show through the testimonies of Sayaboc and SPO4 Cagungao that Atty. Cornejo remained silent throughout the duration of the custodial investigation. The right to a competent and independent counsel means that the counsel should satisfy himself, during the conduct of the investigation, that the suspect understands the import and consequences of answering the questions propounded. In People v. Deniega, the SC said that the desired role of counsel in the

process of custodial investigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer merely gives perfunctory advice as opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the rights of the person undergoing questioning. If the advice given is so cursory as to be useless, voluntariness is impaired. The SC likewise ruled that the police did not afford the accused the right to be informed. The right to be informed requires the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. It should allow the suspect to consider the effects and consequences of any waiver he might make of these rights. The police failed in this regard. People vs. Aleman, et.al, GR 185710, January 19, 2010 Facts: The accused Romulo Tuniaco, Jeffrey Datulayta, and Alex Aleman were charged with murder. Police Officer Jaime Tabucon, on his arrival on the sub-station, noted the presence of Atty. Ruperto Besinga, Jr. of PAO who was conversing with those taken in custody for the offense. Tabucon took the statement of accused Aleman after informing him of his constitutional rights. Since accused Aleman said he had no lawyer, Tabucon pointed to Atty. Besinga who claimed that he was assisting all the suspects in the case. Based on Alemans statement, the victim/deceased Dondon Cortez threatened to report his (Aleman) drinking companions illegal activities to the police unless they gave him money. Since Datulayta and Tuniaco had already planned to kill Cortez, they finally decided to do it. They got Cortez drunk and led him to a demp site where Aleman stabbed him on the stomach, Datulayta shot him on the head using his single shot homemade M16 pistol, and Tuniaco used the same gun on Cortezs body. They covered the body with rice husks. Accused Tuniaco filed a demurrer to evidence which resulted in the dismissal of the case against him. On being re-arraigned at his request, accused Datulayta pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide and he was sentenced by the trial court to imprisonment (6 years, 1 day). RTC found accused Aleman guilty of the crime charged. Issues: (a) What is the doctrine of interlocking confessions? (b) Did the accused Aleman correctly invoke the Galit doctrine? Ruling: (a) Under the doctrine of interlocking confessions, the corroboration of confessions is circumstantial evidence against the person implicated in it. Thus, in the case at bar, accused Datulaytas confession corroborates that of Aleman in important details. Hence, the contention of Aleman that his confession was fabricated and that the police forced him to sign it is improbable. More importantly, the confession has details that only the person who committed the crime could have possibly known. (b) No. The accused Aleman incorrectly invoked the Galit doctrine. The doctrine laid down in People v. Galit states that: long questions followed by monosyllabic answers do not satisfy the requirement that the accused is amply informed of his rights. The court held that this doctrine does not apply in the case at bar. Police Officer Tabucon testified that he spoke to Aleman clearly in the language he knew. Aleman, joined by Atty. Besinga, even signed a certification that the investigator sufficiently explained to him his constitutional rights and that he was still willing to give his statement. People vs. Guillermo, GR 147786 Jan 20, 2004 Facts: On March 22, 1998, Guillermo was arrested by police officers after he positively admitted to the witness, Campos, he had just killed his employer, Victor Francisco Keyser, and asked for his help to dispose of his body. During custodial investigation, the appellant was not apprised of his constitutional rights, nor was he afforded a counsel. Appellant made a confession to the police that he committed the crime. He also confessed to the media on two separate occasions that he killed his employer. But during trial he recanted his confession. However, the Trial Court found him guilty and sentenced him to death. Hence, this was committed for automatic review before the Supreme Court. Issue: If its Sunday and no lawyer is available, can this right be waived?

Ruling: No. The record does not show that appellant had waived his constitutional rights in writing and in the presence of counsel. Article III Section 12(1) of the Constitution provides that an admissible confession must satisfy the following requisites: that the confession must be (a) voluntary; (b) made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (c) express; and (d) in writing. The records clearly show that the requisites were not complied with. Even if the admission or confession of an accused is gospel truth, even if it was voluntarily given, is still inadmissible if it was made without the assistance of counsel (People v. Dano, G.R. No. 117690, 1 September 2000, 339 SCRA 515, 527). However, failing to prove treachery, the appellant was still found guilty of homicide, because he made a spontaneous confession on several occasions admitting his guilt. People vs. Velarde, 384 SCRA 646 Facts: The RTC of Malolos, Bulacan found Crispin Velarde guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide. It was satisfied with the existence of enough circumstantial evidence pointing to appellant as the culprit in the crime. It also found his written extrajudicial confession admissible in evidence. As a consequence, it convicted him of rape with homicide and imposed upon him the supreme penalty of death. Issue: Is a lawyer, at the same time mayor, competent and independent? Ruling: A municipal mayor cannot be considered a competent and independent counsel qualified to assist a person under custodial investigation. Hence, the extrajudicial confession taken from the accused with his honor as counsel is admissible in evidence. Without this confession, the remaining evidence, which is circumstantial, fails under moral certainty, thus, acquittal is inevitable. Under the circumstances, Atty. Domingo cannot be considered as an independent counsel. He was the municipal mayor of Malolos, Bulacan that time. As such, he exercised Operational suspension and control over the PNP unit in the aforesaid municipality. His powers included the utilization of the elements thereof for the maintenance of peace and order, the prevention of crimes, and the arrest of criminal offenders. As mayor of Malolos, his duties were inconsistent of his responsibilities to appellant, who was already tagged as the main suspect of the rape slay case. Serving as counsel of appellant placed him in direct conflict with his duty of Operational suspension and control over the police. People vs. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432 Facts: Accused Eduardo Gomez, a bartender, and Felipe Immaculata, a stay-in Driver of David, were implicated in the crime of transporting twenty (20) kilograms of heroin on a flight from Bangkok to Manila sometime March 14, 1990. They were alleged to be in conspiracy with Aya Yupangco, Art David, Lito Tuazon and Benito Cunanan, all business partners. Gomez, claiming to be innocent of such travel he is into, surrendered himself to Drug Enforcement Agency(DEA) of the United States in Manila. Meanwhile, Immaculata was imprisoned in Hongkong because of an expired visa while he travels with David. He was visited by NBI agents for his implication in the "heroin" case, of which he denied the accusation. Later, he agreed, without the assistance of counsel, to execute a sworn statement at the Stanley Prison. After his prison term, Immaculata was deported to Manila. Eventually, Gomez and Immaculata were then convicted by the RTC which made them file for notices of appeal. In his appeal, Immaculata insists that the trial court has erred in including him in the drug conspiracy and in admitting in evidence his sworn statement taken, without the assistance of counsel, by an NBI agent at the Stanley Prison in Hongkong. He contended that this is in violation of his constitutional rights as contemplated in Section 12(1), Article III, of the Constitution. Issue: Is an uncounselled confession executed in Hongkong admissible? Ruling: No. The court ruled that Section 12(1), Article III, of the Constitution requires that any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.

These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. In the case at bar, even if the appellant allowed himself to be investigated without a counsel, this does not signify that he has waived his right of having one. Such right is for any Filipino citizen to exercise even when abroad. Therefore, his sworn statement remains an inadmissible evidence in court. Moreover, conspiracy to be the basis for a conviction, should be proved in the same manner as the criminal act itself. It is also essential that a conscious design to commit an offense must be established . Conspiracy is not the product of negligence but of intentionality on the part of the cohorts. Under our laws, the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of an accused for a criminal offense lies with the prosecution. There is no clear proof that appellant Immaculata was together with the other accused in designing the commission of the crime charged. People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009 Facts: On Aug. 11, 1999, Domingo Reyes y Paje, Alvin Arnaldo y Avena, and Joselito Flores y Victorio were charged with the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide penalized under Article 267 of RPC before the RTC. The accused, together with 3 other men who remain at large, allegedly carried away and deprived Robert Yao, Yao San, Chua Ong Ping Sim, Raymond Yao, Ronald Matthew Yao, Lennie Yao, Charlene Yao, Jona Abagatnan, and Josephine Ortea against their will and consent on board their Mazda MVP van for the purpose of extorting money (P5M) and during the detention, killed Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond Yao. The Yao family arrived at their poultry farm the night of the kidnapping. Accused Arnaldo, on July 26, 1999, surrendered to the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) and identified his co-accused. Appellants claim that their written extra-judicial confessions should be inadmissible as it was produced in violation of their constitutional rights. Issues: (a) Was the Pasubali of the accused taken without counsel, admissible in evidence? (b) Was he afforded the right to counsel at his own choice? Ruling: (a) Yes. Since the prosecution has sufficiently established that the respective extrajudicial confessions of appellant Arnaldo and appellant Flores were obtained in accordance with the constitutional guarantees, these confessions are admissible. They are evidence of a high order because of the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience. Consequently, the burden of proving that undue pressure or duress was used to procure the confessions rests on appellants, which they failed to do. Although extra-judicial confession is admissible only against the confessant, jurisprudence makes it admissible as corroborative evidence of other facts that tend to establish the guilt of his co-accused appellant Reyes guilt. (b) Yes. It is true that it was the PAOCTF which contacted and suggested the availability of Atty. Uminga and Atty. Rous to appellants Arnaldo and Flores. Nonetheless, this does not automatically imply that their right to counsel was violated. What the constitution requires is the presence of competent and independent counsel, one who will effectively undertake his clients defense without any intervening conflict of interest. There was no conflict of interest and both counsels had no interest adverse to appellants. Also, the phrase preferably of his own choice under Section 12(1) does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent attys from handling the defense. Otherwise, the tempo of custodial investigation would be solely in the hands of the accused who can impede or obstruct the progress of the interrogation by simply selecting a lawyer who is not available to protect his interest. While the choice of a lawyer in cases where the person under custodial interrogation cannot afford the services of counsel or where the preferred lawyer is not available, is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the suspect has the final choice, as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused when he does not raise any objection to the counsels appointment. Appellants Arnaldo and Flores did not object to the appointment of the lawyers during the custodial investigation. Hence, appellants are deemed to have engaged the services of Atty. Uminga and Atty. Rous.

People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008 Facts: On Nov 26, 2002, a confidential informant reported to PDEA that Alfredo Concepcion alias Totoy was engaged in selling SHABU. SPO1 Lopez(PDEA agent) instructed the confidential agent to set a drug deal with Totoy. A buy-bust operation was planned and a team was formed. The team then proceeded to the said area of transaction. At around 2:00 a.m. a violet Hyundai van arrived. Dela Cruz was driving, while appellant Alfredo Concepcion, a.k.a. Totoy, was seated beside him and appellant Henry was at the back. The confidential informant introduced PO2 Sistemio to Totoy who asked the latter how much shabu he would buy. PO2 Sistemio replied he would buy two plastic packs of shabu equivalent to ten grams. Totoy answered that each pack was worth P6,000.00 and got two plastic packs from the vans compartment and gave them to PO2 Sistemio. Appellant Henry Concepcion said, Mura pa yan, direkta kasi kami.[8] PO2 Sistemio also heard someone say, Magandang klase yang stuff na yan.[9] After receiving the two plastic packs, PO2 Sistemio lit a cigarette, the pre-arranged signal for the other members of the buy-bust team to approach and arrest the culprits. Issue: When must the accused raise the matter that his constitutional rights have been violated during custodial investigation? Ruling: The arresting officers alleged failure to inform them of their Miranda rights and violation of their constitutional rights during custodial investigation should have had been raised before arraignment which is usually for the first part of the criminal procedure that occurs before a judge. The purpose of which is to provide the accused with a reading of the crime. In the case at bar, it was too late in the day for appellants to raise these alleged illegalities after a valid information had been filed, the accused arraigned, trial commenced and completed, and a judgment of conviction rendered. Lumanog vs. People, G.R. No. 182555, September 7, 2010 Facts: For review is the decision of the court of appeals which affirmed with modification the joint decision dated July 30, 1999 of the RTC of Quezon City. The consolidated cases, arose in connection with the killing of former Chief of Metropolitan Command Intelegence and security Group of the Philippine Constabulary, now the PNP Colone l Polondo N. Abadilla who was ambushed in a broad daylight while driving his car. Along Kalupunan Avenue, Quezon City. Issues: (a) Was the accused under custodial investigation? (b) Was his extra-judicial confession taken thereafter, admissible in evidence? (c) Was the accused afforded the right to an independent and competent counsel preferably of his own choice? Ruling: (a) Yes. Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus on a particular person as a suspect. When appellants were arrested, they were already considered suspects: Joel was pinpointed by security guard Alejo who went along with the PARAC squad to Fairview on June 19, 1996, while the rest of appellants were taken by the same operatives in follow-up operations after Joel provided them with the identities of his conspirators and where they could be found. (b) No. Joel de Jesus extra-judicial confession is not valid or admissible in evidence. P/Insp. Castillo admitted that the initial questioning of Joel began in the morning of June 20, 1996, the first time said suspect was presented to him at the CPDC station, even before he was brought to the IBP office for the taking of his formal statement. The constitutional requirement obviously had not been observed. Settled is the rule that the moment a police officer tries to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information from a suspect, the latter should, at that juncture, be assisted by counsel, unless he waives his right in writing and in the presence of counsel. 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.

(c) Yes. Atty. Sandano was secured by CPDC investigators from the IBP-Quezon chapter which the accused never objected to. The phrase preferably of his own choice does not convey the message that the choice of a lawyer is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent attys from handling the defense. While the choice of a lawyer when accused cannot afford the services of counsel or where the preferred lawyer is unavailable is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the suspect has the final choice. The lawyer is deemed engaged by the accused when he does not raise any objection against the counsels appointment and he subscribes to the veracity of the statement before the swearing officer. People vs. Lucero, G.R. No. 188705, March 2, 2011 Facts: Before this Court on appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CRH.C. No. 00469-MIN dated December 17, 2008, which upheld the conviction of accused Federico Lucero in Criminal Case No. 10849, decided by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30 in Tagum City on April 20, 2005. Before the RTC, the accused was charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide in an Information dated July 31, 1997. In his appeal, Lucero questions the positive identification made by witnesses Jao and Langgoy. He insists that the witnesses were unable to see the face of the perpetrator, and identification was made solely on the basis of the green short pants worn by the suspect. He also claims that Jao did not immediately report the identity of the perpetrator to the police, and that this casts doubt on the witness credibility. In his defense, he also claims that a DNA test should have been done to match the spermatozoa found in the victims body to a sample taken from him, and that since no DNA test was done, he cannot be linked to the crime. Issues: (a) Was the accused denied of his rights under custodial investigation? (b) Is he entitled to an acquittal? Ruling: (a) Yes. The accused was denied of his rights under custodial investigation. Accusedappellant was not informed of his rights, nor was there a waiver of said rights. The investigating officer directly questioned the accused which he also answered. The questioning was made in violation of Sec. 12(1), Article III. Thus, the information elicited is inadmissible, and the evidence garnered as the result of that interrogation is also inadmissible. (b) No. The Court held that even if the confession and evidence gathered are disregarded/held inadmissible, the evidence that remains still supports the result of the conviction of accusedappellant. Even if there are no direct evidence, in this case, it is the circumstantial evidence that comes into play to reach a conclusion. As held in People vs. Pascual, in crimes of rape with homicide, resort to circumstantial evidence is usually unavoidable since the crime of rape is difficult to prove because it is generally unwitnessed and very often only the victim is left to testify for herself. Under Sec. 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence shall be sufficient for conviction when the ff. requisites are complied with: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved; (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. People vs. Bokingo, G.R. No. 187536, August 10, 2011 Facts: For review is the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals finding appellants Michael Bokingco and Reynante Col guilty as conspirators beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In the trial court, an Information was filed against appellants (construction workers) charging them of the crime of murder committed against Noli Pasion (their employer and owner of the apartment they were housed and a pawnshop). On arraignment, Bokingco entered a guilty plea while Col did not. Bokingco confessed that he killed Pasion during the pre-trial and in the open court. Col, on the other hand, was charged as a co-conspirator. Bokingcos confession was admittedly taken without the assistance of counsel in violation of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Issue: Was the accused denied of his rights under custodial investigation? Is he entitled to an acquittal?

Ruling: Yes. Bokingcos extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against him because he was not assisted at all by counsel during the time his confession was taken before a judge. The right to counsel applies in certain pretrial proceedings that can be deemed critical stages in the criminal process. The preliminary investigation can be no different from the in-custody interrogations by the police, for a suspect who takes part in a preliminary investigation will be subjected to no less than the State's processes, xxx (People v. Sunga). Such confession is also inadmissible against Col, specifically where Bokingco implicated him as a cohort. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another (Sec 28, Rule 130, Rules of Court). Thus, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused, and is considered as hearsay against them. Section 30 of the same Rule provides an exception - the act or declaration of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator provided that the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than by such act or declaration. Here, the court did not find any sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy. Col is acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt. Bokingco is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. Ho Wai Pang versus People, G. R. No. 176229, Oct. 19, 2011

thereafter take, steal and drive away a (sic) one (1) Black Honda Civic with Plate No. WFD-891 registered in the name of OLIVER GATCHALIAN. Issue: Is the oral extrajudicial confession of the appellant to Eduardo admissible? Ruling: Appellant's confession to Eduardo, who is not a police officer, is admissible in evidence. The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. Appellant's admissions are not covered by Sections 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution, because they were not extracted while he was under custodial investigation. The rule is that any person, otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard and understood all of it. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such case it must be given in its substance. And case law has it that whenever homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same. There was no showing that appellant attempted to prevent the killing. People vs. Lara GR No. 199877, August 13, 2012

Facts: Petitioner Ho Wai Pang assails the June 16, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals which also affirmed the RTC decision, finding him and his co-accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 15, Article III of RA 6425 otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. In this petition for certiorari, petitioner takes issue on the fact that he was not assisted by a competent and independent lawyer during the custodial investigation. He also claimed that he was not duly informed of his rights to remain silent and to have competent counsel of his choice. Issue: Aside from extrajudicial confession, what are inadmissible in evidence if the rights of an accused during custodial investigation have been violated? Ruling: While there is no dispute that petitioner was subjected to all the rituals of a custodial questioning by the customs authorities and the NBI in violation of his constitutional right under Section 12 of Article III of the Constitution, we must not, however, lose sight of the fact that what said constitutional provision prohibits as evidence are only confessions and admissions of the accused as against himself. Thus, in Aquino v. Paiste, the Court categorically ruled that the infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation. The admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue and are not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation. In the present case, 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. Ladiana, G.R. No. 174660, May 30, 2011 Facts: On or about the 27th day of June 2001, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, accused Antonio Manuel Uy y Suangan and John Doe, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away jewelries all belonging to JEEPNEY SHOPPING CENTER, represented by RICARDO M. SALVADOR and an ARMSCOR .38 caliber revolver with SERIAL No. 64517 amounting to P9,000.00, more or less, belonging to ENERGETIC SECURITY AGENCY represented by ROMEO SOLANO, to the damage and prejudice of Jeepney Shopping Center in the total amount ofP327,390.00 and Energetic Security Agency in the total amount of P9,000.00 more or less; and on the occasion thereof, accused stabbed Gilbert V. Esmaquilan and hit on the head with a 2x2 wood Felix Araez y Gida and Delfin Biniahan y Cahtong, Security Guard, Janitor and maintenance of Jeepney Shopping Center(,) respectively, thereby causing their death; and accused to facilitate their escape

Facts: On or about May 31, 2001, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, armed with a gun, conspiring and confederating together with one unidentified person who is still at-large, and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to gain, and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and divest from Joselito M. Bautista cash money amounting to P230,000.00 more or less and belonging to San Sebastian Allied Services, Inc. represented by Enrique Sumulong. Issue: Is the right to counsel available in a police lineup? Ruling: Contrary to Laras claim, that he was not provided with counsel when he was placed in a police line-up did not invalidate the proceedings leading to his conviction. That he stood at the police line-up without the assistance of counsel did not render Sumulongs identification of Lara inadmissible. The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise moment custodial investigation begins and being made to stand in a police line-up is not the starting point or a part of custodial investigation. People vs. Gustafsson, G.R. No. 179265, July 30, 2012 Facts: This is an appeal by Cristina Gustafsson y Nacua on the June 27, 2007 decision of the CA which affirmed RTC Decision convicting her of violation of sec. 16, Art. III of RA 6425. She was charged with possession of 2,626.49 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or Shabu. On Sept. 19, 2000, the plastic sachets of shabu appeared on the x-ray machine of the airport and were found in the appellants luggage. The sachets were hidden in the soles of the shoes and in a car air freshener cylinder. Thereafter, appellant was officially turned over to SPO2 Jerome Cause at the headquarters of the PNP Aviation Security Group Pildera II, Pasay City. Issue: Was there a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to remain silent? Ruling: Yes. The court believes that there was a violation of appellants constitutional rights because she was not given the assistance of counsel when she signed the affidavit nor was she apprised of her right against self-incrimination when she was made to admit her participation in the commission of the offense. However, the court still affirmed the RTCs decision of her conviction.

BAR QUESTIONS 2000 Bar 1988 Bar Armando Salamanca, a notorious police character, came under custodial investigation for a robbery in Caloocan City. From the outset, the police officers informed him of his right to remain silent, and also his right to have a counsel of his choice, if he could afford one or if not, the government would provide him with such counsel. He thanked the police investigators, and declared that he fully understands the rights enumerated to him, but that, he is voluntarily waiving them. Claiming that he sincerely desires to atone for his misdeeds, he gave a written statement on his participation in the crime under investigation. In the course of the trial of the criminal case for the same robbery, the written admission of Salamanca which he gave during the custodial investigation, was presented as the only evidence of his guilt. If you were his counsel, what would you do? Explain your answer. SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would object to it on the ground that the waiver of the rights to silence and to counsel is void, having been made without the presence of counsel. (Art. III, Sec. 12 (1); People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1980)). The waiver must also be in writing, although this requirement might possibly have been complied with in this case by embodying the waiver in the written confession. It should also be noted that under Rule 134, sec. 3, even if the extrajudicial confession is valid, it is not a sufficient ground for conviction if it is not corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. 1989 Bar Before interrogation, the policeman on duty informed the boy (who finished fifth grade) in English that he does "have a right to remain silent and the right to counsel." However, there was no counsel available as it was midnight. He declared orally that he did not need any lawyer as he was innocent, since he was only bringing the marijuana leaves to his employer in Quezon City and was not a drug user. He was charged with illegal possession of prohibited drugs. Is his waiver of the right to counsel valid? SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the waiver of the right to counsel is not valid, since it was not reduced in writing and made in the presence of counsel. Under Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution to be valid, the waiver must be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. 1997 Bar SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A, while on board a passenger jeep one night, was held up by a group of three teenagers who forcibly divested her of her watch, necklace and wallet containing P100.00. That done, the trio jumped off the passenger jeep. In court, C and D set up, in defense, the illegality of their apprehension, arrest and confinement based on the identification made of them by A and B at a police line-up at which they were not assisted by counsel. How would you resolve the issues raised by C and D? SUGGESTED ANSWER: The arguments of the accused are untenable. As held in People vs. Acot, 232 SCRA 406, the warrantless arrest of accused robbers Immediately after their commission of the crime by police officers sent to look for them on the basis of the information related by the victims is valid under Section 5(b).Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. According to People vs. Lamsing, 248 SCRA 471, the right to counsel does not extend to police line-ups, because they are not part of custodial investigations. However, according to People vs. Macan 238 SCRA 306, after the start of custodial investigation, if the accused was not assisted by counsel, any identification of the accused in a police line-up is inadmissible. According to People vs. Jara, 144 SCRA 516(1986), the confession is inadmissible. If it is inadmissible against the one who confessed, with more reason it should be inadmissible against others. 2005 Bar Mariano was arrested by the NBI as a suspect in the shopping mall bombings. Advised of his rights, Mariano asked for the assistance of his relative, Atty. Santos. The NBI noticed that Atty. Santos was inexperienced, incompetent and inattentive. Deeming him unsuited to protect the rights of Mariano, the NBI dismissed Atty. Santos. Appointed in his place was Atty. Barroso, a bar topnotcher who was in the premises visiting a relative. Atty. Barroso ably assisted Mariano when the latter gave a statement. However, Mariano assailed the investigation claiming that he was deprived of counsel of his choice. Was the NBI correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and appointing Atty. Barroso in his stead? Is Mariano's statement, made with the assistance of Atty. Barroso, admissible in evidence? On October 1, 1985, Ramos was arrested by a security guard because he appeared to be "suspicious" and brought to a police precinct where in the course of the investigation he admitted he was the killer in an unsolved homicide committed a week earlier. The proceedings of his investigation were put in writing and dated October 1, 1985, and the only participation of counsel assigned to him was his mere presence and signature on the statement. The admissibility of the statement of Ramos was placed in issue but the prosecution claims that the confession was taken on October 1, 1985 and the 1987 Constitution providing for the right tozcounsel of choice and opportunity to retain, took effect only on February 2, 1987 and cannot be given retroactive effect. Rule on this. SUGGESTED ANSWER: The confession of Ramos is not admissible, since the counsel assigned to him did not advise him of his rights. The fact that his confession was taken before the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution is of no moment. Even prior to the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court already laid down strict rules on waiver of the rights during investigation in the case of People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985). 2001 Bar Rafael, Carlos and Joseph were accused of before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Accused Joseph turned state witness against his co-accused Rafael and Carlos, and was accordingly discharged from the information. Among the evidence presented by the prosecution was an extrajudicial confession made by Joseph during the custodial Investigation, implicating Rafael and Carlos who, he said, together with him (Joseph), committed the crime. The extrajudicial confession was executed without the assistance of counsel. Accused Rafael and Carlos vehemently objected on the ground that said extrajudicial confession was inadmissible in evidence against them. Rule on whether the said extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence or not. FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: According to People vs. Balisteros, 237 SCRA 499 (1994), the confession is admissible. Under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, the confession is inadmissible only against the one who confessed. Only the one whose rights were violated can raise the objection as his right is personal.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 2009 Bar The NBI was not correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and appointing Atty. Barroso in his stead. Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution requires that a person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have no less than "competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice " This is meant to stress the primacy accorded to the voluntariness of the choice under the uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial investigation' Thus, the lawyer called to be present during such investigation should be as far as reasonably possible, the choice of the individual undergoing questioning. The appointment of Atty. Barroso is questionable because he was visiting a relative working in the NBI and thus his independence is doubtful. Lawyers engaged by the police, whatever testimonials are given as proof of their probity and supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in many areas, the relationship between lawyers and law enforcement authorities can be symbiotic. Considering that Mariano was deprived of counsel of his own choice, the statement is inadmissible in evidence. (People v. Januario, G.R. No. 98252, February 7, 1997) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER: The NBI was correct in dismissing Atty. Santos as he was incompetent. The 1987 Constitution requires counsel to be competent and independent. Atty. Barroso, being a bar topnotcher ably assisted Mariano and there is no showing that his having a relative in the NBI affected his independence. Moreover, the accused has the final choice of counsel as he may reject the one chosen for him and ask for another. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he raises no objection against the lawyer during the course of the investigation, and the accused thereafter subscribes to the truth of his statement before the swearing officer. Thus, once the prosecution shows there was compliance with the constitutional requirement on pre-interrogation advisories, a confession is presumed to be voluntary and the declarant bears the burden of proving that his confession is involuntary and untrue. A confession is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency which are not present in this case. Accordingly, the statement is admissible. (People v. Jerez, G.R. No. 114385, January 29, 1998) 2008 Bar Having received tips the accused was selling narcotics, two police officers forced open the door of his room. Finding him sitting partly dressed on the side of the bed, the officers spied two capsules on a night stand beside the bed. When asked, " Are these yours?", the accused seized the capsules and put them in his mouth. A struggle ensued, in the course of which the officer pounced on the accused, took him to a hospital where at their direction, a doctor forced an emetic solution though a tube into the accused's stomach against his will. This process induced vomiting. In the vomited matter were found two capsules which proved to contain heroin. In the criminal case, the chief evidence against the accused was the two capsules. a) As counsel for the accused, what constitutional rights will you invoke in his defense? b) How should the court decide the case? SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) I will invoke my clients right against unreasonable search and seizure (Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution) which guarantees: (1) sanctity of the home, (2) inadmissibility of the capsules seized, (3) and inviolability of the person. A mere tip from a reliable source is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest or search (People vs. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007). b) The court should declare the search and seizure illegal: (1) the entry into the accuseds home was not a permissible warrantless action because the police had no personal knowledge that any crime was taking place; (2) due to the invalid entry, whatever evidence the police gathered would be inadmissible; and (3) the arrest of the accused was already invalid and causing him to vomit while under custody was an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy (US vs. Montoya, 473 US 531 [1985]). The fact that the police officer gave him the Miranda warning in halting English does not detract from its validity. Under Section 2(b) of Republic Act No. 7438, it is sufficient that the language used was known to and understood by him. William need not be given the Miranda warning before the investigation started. William was not denied his Miranda rights. It is not practical to require the police officer to provide a lawyer of his own choice from the United States (Gamboa v. Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 [1988]). 2010 Bar Which statement best completes the following phrase: Freedom from torture is a right A. subject to derogation when national security is threatened. B. confined only during custodial investigation. C. which is non-derogable both during peacetime and in a situation of armed conflict. D. both (a) and (b) E. none of the above. 2011 Bar After X, a rape suspect, was apprised of his right to silence and to counsel,he told the investigators that he was waiving his right to have his own counsel orto be provided one. He made his waiver in the presence of a retired Judge who was assigned to assist and explain to him the consequences of such waiver. Is the waiver valid? A. No, the waiver was not reduced in writing. B. Yes, the mere fact that the lawyer was a retired judge does not cast doubt on his competence and independence. C. Yes, the waiver was made voluntarily, expressly, and with assistance of counsel. D. No, a retired Judge is not a competent and independent counsel. 2012 Bar Under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent, etc. The investigation referred to is called: A. preliminary investigation; B. summary investigation; C. criminal investigation; D. custodial investigation. William, a private American citizen, a university graduate and frequent visitor to the Philippines, was inside the U.S. embassy when he got into a heated argument with a private Filipino citizen. Then, in front of many shocked witnesses, he killed the person he was arguing with. The police came, and brought him to the nearest police station. Upon reaching the station, the police investigator, in halting English, informed William of his Miranda rights, and assigned him an independent local counsel. William refused the services of the lawyer, and insisted that he be assisted by a Filipino lawyer currently based in the U.S. The request was denied, and the counsel assigned by the police stayed for the duration of the investigation. William protested his arrest. He claimed that his Miranda rights were violated because he was not given the lawyer of his choice; that being an American, he should have been informed of his rights in proper English; and that he should have been informed of his rights as soon as he was taken into custody, not when he was already at the police station. Was William denied his Miranda rights? Why or why not?