People of the Philippines vs.

Arnel Alicando y Briones

GR No. 117487, 12 December 1995

Facts:
Arnel Alicando was charged and later on convicted with the crime of rape with homicide, and
sentenced to suffer death penalty. Alicando and his counsel appealed the decision of the trial
court and cited 3 reasons for the said appeal. One of which was that some prosecution evidences
were inadmissible. They assailed that said inadmissible evidence were gathered by the police as
a result of custodial interrogation where Alicando confessed the crime without the benefit of
counsel.
Issue/s:
1.

2.
3.

Whether or not a verbal confession made during custodial interrogation without the benefit
of counsel and the physical evidence derived therefrom may be admitted as evidence in
court?
What is the fruit of the poisonous tree?
What evidence is required for a valid waiver of the accuseds right to remain silent and right
to counsel?

Ruling:
1.

No. SC held that uncounseled confession as well as physical evidence derived therefrom are
inadmissible as evidence in court. The high court explained that the manner by which the
evidences were derived was contrary to the Constitution, that such was a blatant violation of
the accuseds constitutional right.

2.

SC explained that the fruit of the poisonous tree is rule which indicates that once the primary
source (tree) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary evidence or
derivative evidence (fruit) derived from it is also inadmissible. SC also indicated that the said
rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used
to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence
subsequently obtained.

3.

SC held that in order that a waiver of an accuseds right to remain silent and to counsel may
be considered valid, there must be a clear and convincing evidence for the same. SC also
held that the burden to prove that the accused waived said rights prior to making a confession
under custodial interrogation lies with the prosecution. The high court also stated that the
prosecution has the burden to show that the evidence derived from the confession is not
tainted as fruit of the poisonous tree. The high court also emphasized that the Constitution
provides for only one mode of waiver, to wit: it must be in writing and in the presence of
counsel. In the case at bar, records show that the prosecution failed to discharge this burden.
SC also highlighted that even the lack of timely objection of the appellant to the introduction
of constitutionally proscribed evidence did not satisfy the heavy burden of proof that rested
on the prosecution.