PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs EDNA MALNGAN y MAYO

FACTS:

On or about January 2, 2001, in the City of Manila,the said accused, with intent to cause damage, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and deliberately set fire upon the two-storey residential house of ROBERTO SEPARA and
family mostly made of wooden materials, by lighting crumpled newspaper with the use of disposable lighter inside said
house knowing the same to be an inhabited house and situated in a thickly populated place and as a consequence thereof
a conflagration ensued and the said building, together with some seven (7) adjoining residential houses, were razed by
fire; that by reason and on the occasion of the said fire resulted to the death of Roberto Separa, Sr. and Virginia Separa
together with their four (4) children whom sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death immediately
thereafter.

Brgy. Chairman Bernardo and his tanods apprehended Edna and they immediately brought her to the Barangay Hall for
investigation. At the Barangay Hall, Mercedita Mendoza, neighbor of Roberto Separa, Sr. and whose house was also
burned, identified the woman as accused-appellant EDNA who was the housemaid of Roberto Separa, Sr. Upon inspection,
a disposable lighter was found inside accused-appellant EDNA’s bag. Thereafter, accused-appellant EDNA confessed to
Brgy. Chairman Bernardo in the presence of multitudes of angry residents outside the Barangay Hall that she set her
employer’s house on fire because she had not been paid her salary for about a year and that she wanted to go home to
her province but her employer told her to just ride a broomstick in going home.

Accused-appellant EDNA was then turned over to arson investigators headed by S[F]O4 Danilo Talusan, who brought her
to the San Lazaro Fire Station in Sta. Cruz, Manila where she was further investigated and then detained. When Mercedita
Mendoza went to the San Lazaro Fire Station to give her sworn statement, she had the opportunity to ask accused-
appellant EDNA at the latter’s detention cell why she did the burning of her employer’s house and accused-appellant EDNA
replied that she set the house on fire because when she asked permission to go home to her province and narrated how
she did the burning of her employer’s house.When interviewed by Carmelita Valdez, a reporter of ABS-CBN Network,
accused-appellant EDNA while under detention was heard by SFO4 Danilo Talusan as having admitted the crime and even
narrated the manner how she accomplished it. SFO4 Danilo Talusan was able to hear the same confession, this time at his
home, while watching the television program “True Crime” hosted by Gus Abelgas also of ABS-CBN Network.

When arraigned, accused-appellant with assistance of counsel de oficio, pleaded “Not Guilty” to the crime charged.
Thereafter, trial ensued. However, she was held guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Due to the death penalty imposed by
the RTC, the case was directly elevated to this Court for automatic review. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification
the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:

W/N the court erred in allowing and giving credence to the hearsay evidence and uncounselled admissions allegedly given
by the accused.

HELD:

We have held that the provision of Art. Section 12 (1) and (3) applies to the stage of custodial investigation – when the
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect.
Said constitutional guarantee has also been extended to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested
but has merely been “invited” for questioning.
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.

The barangay tanods, including the Barangay Chairman, in this particular instance, may be deemed as law enforcement
officers for purpose of applying by Article III, Section 12. When accused-appellant was brought to the barangay hall in, she
was already a suspect, actually the only one, in the fire that destroyed several houses as well as killed the whole family of
Separa. She was, therefore, already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed by Article III, Section 12(1), of
the Constitution should have already been observed or applied to her. Accused-appellant’s confession to Barangay
Chairman Remigio Bernardo 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 of accused-appellant, given to Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo, 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.

However, the inadmissibility of accused-appellant’s confession to Barangay Chairman Remigio Bernardo and the lighter
as evidence do not automatically lead to her acquittal. It should well be recalled that the constitutional safeguards during
custodial investigations do not apply to those not elicited through questioning by the police or their agents but given in
an ordinary manner whereby the accused verbally admits to having committed the offense as what happened in the case
at bar when accused-appellant admitted to Mercedita Mendoza, one of the neighbors of Roberto Separa, Sr., to having
started the fire in the Separas’ house. The testimony of Mercedita Mendoza recounting said admission is, unfortunately
for accused-appellant, admissible in evidence against her and is not covered by the aforesaid constitutional guarantee.
Article III of the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, solely governs the relationship between the individual on one hand and
the State (and its agents) on the other; it does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another
private individual – as both accused-appellant and prosecution witness Mercedita Mendoza undoubtedly are.[44] Here,
there is no evidence on record to show that said witness was acting under police authority, so appropriately, accused-
appellant’s uncounselled extrajudicial confession to said witness was properly admitted by the RTC.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as the conviction of accused-
appellant EDNA MALNGAN Y MAYO is concerned. The sentence to be imposed and the amount of damages to be awarded,
however, are MODIFIED. So ordered.
PEOPLE VS. LAUGA

FACTS:
Appellant Lauga was charged of qualified rape by his daughter.Testimonies revealed that the victim was left alone at home
while his father was having drinking spree at the neighbor’s place. Her mother decided to leave because appellant has the
habit of mauling her mother every time he gets drunk. Her only brother also went out with some neighbors. At around
10pm, appellant woke up the victim, removed his pants and slid inside the blanket covering the victim and removed her
pants and underwear. Appellant had warned the victim not to shout for help. He proceeded to have carnal knowledge of
her daughter by threatening her with his fist and a knife. Soon after, the victim’s brother arrived and saw her crying.
Appellant claimed he scolded the victim for staying out late. The two decided to leave the house. While on their way to
their maternal grandmother’s house, victim recounted to her brother what happened to her. They later told the incident
to their grandmother and uncle who sought the assistance of Moises Boy Banting. Banting found appellant in his house
wearing only his underwear. He was invited to the police station to which he obliged. Appellant admitted to Banting that
he indeed raped her daughter because he was unable to control himself. The trial court convicted the accused for qualified
rape. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the ruling of the trial court. Hence this petition.

Antonio Lauga was accused of qualified rape committed against his 13-year old daughter. One of the witnesses for the
prosecution was Moises Boy Banting, a bantay bayan in the barangay. Banting testified that after his assistance was
sought, he proceeded to Lauga's house and found the latter wearing only his underwear. He invited Lauga to the police
station, to which Lauga obliged. At the police outpost, Lauga admitted to him that he raped his daughter AAA because he
was unable to control himself. Lauga contests the admissibility in evidence of his alleged confession with Banting.
He argues that even if he, indeed, confessed to Moises Boy Banting, a “bantay bayan,” the confession was inadmissible in
evidence because he was not assisted by a lawyer and there was no valid waiver of such requirement.

ISSUE:
Whether or not appellant’s extrajudicial confession without counsel admissible in evidence?

HELD:
Negative. Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the case of the "bantay bayan," are
recognized by the local government unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at the
barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the legality of the actions taken by Moises Boy Banting, and the specific scope of
duties and responsibilities delegated to a "bantay bayan," particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial
investigation, any inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a
suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the
Miranda Rights, is concerned. Even if the extrajudicial confessions were not admitted as evidence, it does not warrant the
acquittal of the accused. The appellant’s conviction is upheld because of the strong evidence showing his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. People vs. Edward Endino and Gerry Galgarin (accused-appellant) – GR 133026,February 20, 2001
People v. Tan – 286 SCRA 207

Facts:
This is an appeal from the Decision of the Manila RTC, finding the accused CHUA TAN LEE guilty of unlawfully selling 966.50
grams of shabu in a buy-bust operation conducted by the PNP Narcotics Group and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua.
In the morning of November 12, 1998, a confidential informant arrived at the PNP Narcotics Group, Intelligence Division,
in Camp Crame and reported to Chief Inspector Leonardo Suan about the illegal drug activities of accused CHUA TAN LEE,
alias William Chua. After evaluating the report, Suan formed a buy-bust team composed of himself, SPO1 Romeo
Velasquez, SPO1 Pongyan, Delos Santos and SPO3 Posero. Velasquez was to act as the poseur-buyer and the others as
back-up members. The informant called up the accused and set-up a drug deal for the purchase of one (1) kilo of shabu
worth P1.5M at the Harrison Plaza parking area in Malate, Manila, at 4PM. Velasquez prepared the P1.5M boodle money
to be used in the buy-bust operation. It consisted of 15 bundles of newspaper pieces, cut into the size of paper money,
each bundle representing P100,000.00. Suan gave him two (2) pieces of P1,000 bill which he put on top and at the bottom
of the boodle. The boodle money was placed inside a paper bag.
The buy-bust team then proceeded to the designated parking area and waited for the accused who arrived in a red Toyota
Corolla after about half an hour. Velasquez and the informant approached the accused’s car to meet the accused and
secure the deal. Upon being assured of the good quality of the drugs and being handed the bag containing the shabu by
th accused, Velasquez paid him with the boodle money, immediately scratched his nose as a signal to his back-up team
that the deal was consummated, and then arrested the accused. SPO1 Pongyan recovered the boodle money from the
accused and the team brought the accused to Camp Crame where Titong and Suan placed the money in the safekeeping
cabinet.
The defense, however, sought to establish their theory of hulidap through the testimonies of the accused, his girlfriend
Kin Yu and uncle Mauricio Sy Lim who alleged that after the couple failed to buy dried mangoes in Tutuban and opted
instead to buy some pizza that they could eat on their way home, the accused was ganged upon by police officers who
demanded a million pesos. Refusing to pay, accused was allegedly charged with illegal possession of regulated drugs.

Issue:
W/N the court erred in finding the accused guilty as charged

Held:
No. The appellant claims that the prosecution evidence is full of inconsistencies such as errors in the preparation of the
documents relative to his arrest and allegedly erroneous details with regards the evidence. His contentions are without
merit.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is proof that the accused peddled illicit drugs, coupled
with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The testimonies of the buy-bust team established that an operation
was legitimately and successfully carried out on November 12, 1998 to entrap appellant. The positive identification of
appellant by poseur-buyer SPO1 Romeo Velasquez as the one who peddled the shabu unequivocally established the illicit
sale as he is the best witness to the transaction. Moreover, his testimony was corroborated in every material detail by the
other operatives who participated in the buy-bust operation.
The Court is not unaware that in drug-related cases, frame-up and “hulidap” are the common and standard line of
defenses. In the case at bar, we find that the discrepancies cited by the appellant in support of his acquittal are immaterial
and insufficient to reverse his conviction. It is settled that the exact date when the crime was committed need not be
proved unless it is an essential element of the crime. Nonetheless, in this case, prosecution witnesses and anti-narcotics
operatives Velasquez, Pongyan and Titong narrated in detail the events leading to the arrest of the appellant pursuant to
a legitimate buy-bust operation. The wrong date of arrest, the description of the drugs being in a heat-sealed bag and the
date in the boodle money also respectively appear to be a mere clerical error and a mistake.
There is also nothing in the records to show that the appellant identified by name or described the features of any of his
supposed captors who he could not even easily identify during the officers’ appearance in open court. Judgment affirmed
with modification as to the penalty of fine
PEOPLE VS. MACAM [238 SCRA 306; G.R. NOS. 91011-12; 24 NOV 1994]

Facts:

Prosecution’s version:
On Aug 18,1987, Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro, Eugenio Cawilan Jr., Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque went to the house
of Benito Macam (uncle of Eduardo Macam) located at 43 Ferma Road QC. Upon the arrival of the accused, Benito invited
the former to have lunch. Benito asked his maid Salvacion Enrera to call the companions of Eduardo who were waiting in
a tricycle outside the house. A. Cedro, E. Cawilan and D. Roque entered the house while E. Roque remained in the tricycle.
After all the accused had taken their lunch, Eduardo Macam grabbed the clutch bag of Benito Macam and pulled out his
uncle’s gun then declared a hold-up. They tied up the wife (Leticia Macam), children, maid (Salvacion) and Nilo Alcantara
and brought them to the room upstairs. After a while Leticia was brought to the bathroom and after she screamed she
was stabbed and killed by A. Cedro. Benito, Nilo and Salvacion was also stabbed but survived. The total value of the items
taken was P536, 700.00.

Defense’s version:
Danilo Roque stated that he being a tricycle driver drove the 4 accused to Benito’s house for a fee of P50.00. Instead of
paying him, he was given a calling card by Eduardo Macam so that he can be paid the following day. Upon arriving, he
went with the accused inside the house to have lunch. Thereafter he washed the dishes and swept the floor. When Eugenio
Cawilan pulled a gun and announced the hold-up, he was asked to gather some things and which he abided out of fear.
While putting the said thins inside the car of Benito (victim) he heard the accused saying “kailangan patayin ang mga taong
yan dahil kilala ako ng mga yan”. Upon hearing such phrase he escaped and went home using his tricycle. He also testified
that his brother Ernesto Roque has just arrived from the province and in no way can be involved in the case at bar. On the
following day, together with his brother, they went to the factory of the Zesto Juice (owned by the father of Eduardo
Macam) for him to get his payment (50.00) . He and his brother was suddenly apprehended by the security guards and
brought to the police headquarters in Q.C. They were also forced to admit certain things.

After which, he together with all the accused, in handcuffs and bore contusions on their faces caused by blows inflicted in
their faces during investigation, was brought to the QC General Hospital before each surviving victims and made to line-
up for identification. Eugenio Cawilan was also charged with Anti-fencing Law but was acquitted in the said case.

Issue: Whether or Not their right to counsel has been violated. WON the arrest was valid. WON the evidence from the
line-up is admissible.

Held: It is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even before trial. A police line-up
is considered a “critical” stage of the proceedings. 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 arrest of the appellants was without a warrant. HOWEVER, they are estopped from questioning the legality of such
arrest because they have not moved to quash the said information and therefore voluntarily submitted themselves to the
jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a plea of not guilty and participating in trial.

The court believed the version of the prosecution. Ernesto Roque, while remaining outside the house served as a looked
out.

Wherefore, decision of lower court is Affirmed. Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque is guilty of the crime of robbery with
homicide as co-conspirators of the other accused to suffer reclusion perpetua.

Things taken: 2 toygun, airgun riffle, CO2 refiller, TV, betamax tapes, betamax rewinder, Samsonite attache case,
typewriter, chessboard, TOYOTA Crown Car Plate No. CAS-997, assorted jewelry. .22 gun and money.