10553

Villa, Edwin D.
Constitutional Law 2 Section: 1-B

Atty. Victor T. Tulalian
PEOPLE vs. MAHINAY

302 SCRA 455 (1999)
Facts:
Appellant Larry Mahinay worked as a houseboy with Maria Isip, one of his tasks was to take
care of Isip’s house which was under construction adjacent to the latter’s residence. The victim
was a 12-year old girl who used to frequent the residence of Isip.
On the late evening of 25 June 1995, the victim was reported missing by her mother. The
following morning, the Appellant boarded a passenger jeepney and disappeared.
The victim’s body was found, lifeless, at around 7:30 am that same day. She was found in the
septic tank wearing her blouse and no underwear. The autopsy showed that the victim was raped
and was strangled to death.
Upon re-examining the crime scene, policemen found a pair of dirty white short pants, a brown
belt and a yellow hair ribbon which was identified by the victim’s mother to belong to her
daughter. Also, they found a pair of blue slippers which Isip identified as that of the appellant.
Also found in the yard, three arm length away from the septic tank were an underwear, a leather
wallet, a pair of dirty long pants and a pliers positively identified by Isip as appellant’s
belongings.
The appellant was soon arrested and executed an extra-judicial confession wherein he narrated
how the crime was committed. The trial ensued and the lower court convicted him of the crime
of Rape and was sentenced to death.
The case was forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
Issues:
1. Whether or Not the appellant’s extra-judicial confession was validly taken and in
accordance with his rights under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights; and
2. Whether or Not the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution sufficient to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Ruling:
The conviction of the appellant is affirmed.
Villa, Edwin D. Constitutional Law 2 Section: 1-B
Ratio:
The Court ruled that the appellant’s extrajudicial confession was taken within the ambit of the
law as evinced by the records and testimony of the lawyer who assisted, warned and explained to
him his constitutionally guaranteed pre-interrogatory and custodial rights.
As to the second issue, the appellant argues that the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution is insufficient to warrant a conviction of his guilt. However, the Court ruled
otherwise.
The Court recalled the Rule on Evidence and settled jurisprudence. Absence of direct proof does
not absolve the appellant because conviction may be had with the concurrence of the following
requisites as stated in the Rules of Court:
1. there is more than one circumstance;
2. the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
3. the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
The Court recalled the ruling in People v. De Guia, 280 SCRA 141, all circumstances must be
consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the
same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other rational
hypothesis except that of guilt.
And also, in People v. Alberca, 257 SCRA 613 citing People v. Abitona, 240 SCRA 335, that
facts and circumstances consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, constitute
evidence which, in weight and probative force, may surpass even direct evidence in its effect
upon the court.
The Court agreed with the trial court’s decision in giving credence to several circumstantial
evidences, which is more than enough to prove appellant’s guilt beyond the shadow of
reasonable doubt.
The Court also updated the Miranda rights with the developments in law that provided the rights
of suspects under custodial investigation in detail.
A person under custodial investigation should be informed:
1. In a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be
shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other warnings, information or communication
must be in a language known to and understood by said person;
Villa, Edwin D. Constitutional Law 2 Section: 1-B
2. That he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as
evidence against him;
3. That he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent
and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice;
4. That if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided
for him; and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be
appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf;
5. That no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of
his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;
6. That, at any time, he has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient means
– telephone, radio, letter or messenger – with his lawyer (either retained or appointed),
any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by
him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited by confer
with duly accredited national or international non-government organization. It shall be
the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished;
7. That he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily,
knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same;
8. That the waiver must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he
must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insists on his waiver and chooses to
speak;
9. That he may indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not
wish to be questioned with warning that once he makes such indication, the police may
not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must have
ceased if it has already begun;
10. That his initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights
does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether
he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements;
11. That any statement or evidence, as the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the
foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible
in evidence.

10553

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10553

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10553

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Villa, Edwin D.

Constitutional Law 2 Section: 1-B

PEOPLE vs. MAHINAY

You might also like