249 People vs.

Gallardo [GR 113684, 25 January 2000]

First Division, Pardo (J): 4 concur
Facts: On 28 July 1991, the lifeless body of Edmundo Orizal was found in the rest house of
Ronnie Balao in Balzain, Tuguegarao, Cagayan. In an autopsy performed by Dr. Edmundo Borja,
Tuguegarao Municipal Health Officer, the victim was found to have sustained 7 gunshot
wounds in the chest, abdomen, back, left and right thighs, and two (2) grazing wounds on the
left arm and back. Investigation by the Tuguegarao police station identified the suspects in the
murder of Edmundo Orizal as Armando Gallardo y Gander, Alfredo Columna y Correa (alias
Fermin), and Jessie Micate y Orteza. The police received information that the suspects were
detained at the Camalaniugan Police Station because of other criminal charges. So elements of
the Tuguegarao police went to the Camalaniugan Police Station in August 1991 to fetch the
suspects. Only Gallardo and Columna were in the custody of the Camalaniugan Police Station.
Gallardo and Columna were brought to the Tuguegarao Police Department. On August 18,
1991, they were investigated by Police Investigator SPO4 Isidro Marcos, and they gave
statements admitting that they, together with Jessie Micate, killed Edmundo Orizal. During the
investigation, the dialect used was Ilocano, the native tongue of the accused, and during the
taking of the statements, Atty. Rolando Velasco assisted them. Judge Vilma Pauig was present.
She administered the oath on the jurat of the statements. Galardo and Columna signed their
statements admitting the killing of Edmundo Orizal. On 7 November 1991, on the basis of the
sworn confessions of the accused, the Provincial Prosecutor of Cagayan filed with the Regional
Trial Court, Tuguegarao, Cagayan an information charging the accused with murder. On 2
December 1991, all three accused entered a plea of not guilty. Trial ensued. In due course, the
trial court found them guilty of murder for the treacherous killing of Edmundo Orizal and
sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua and to pay in solidum the heirs of Edmundo
Orizal in the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity for death and P150,000.00 as moral damages.
Gallardo, Columna and Micate appealed.

Issue: Whether the counsel provided by the State to the accused satisfies the Constitutional
requirement that a competent and independent counsel be present in a custodial investigation

Held: The extrajudicial confessions of the accused were given after they were completely and
clearly appraised of their Constitutional rights. A lawyer assisted them and a judge administered
their oath while the initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a person under custodial
investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police
investigators, the accused really 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 where he never raised any objection against the former's appointment during the
course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his
statement before the swearing officer. Herein, although Atty. Velasco was provided by the
State and not by the accused themselves, the accused were given an opportunity whether to
accept or not to accept him as their lawyer. They were asked and they immediately agreed to
have Atty. Velasco as their counsel during the investigation. There is no requirement in the
Constitution that the lawyer of an accused during custodial investigation be previously known
to them. The Constitution provides that the counsel be a competent and independent counsel,
who will represent the accused and protect their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Further, to
be an effective counsel, a lawyer need not challenge all the questions being propounded to his
client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything which
might incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest
coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. The counsel, however, should
never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. Herein, Atty. Velasco
acted properly in accordance with the dictates of the Constitution and informed the accused of
their Constitutional rights. Atty. Velasco assisted the accused and made sure that the
statements given by the accused were voluntary on their part, and that no force or intimidation
was used by the investigating officers to extract a confession from them. Under rules laid by the
Constitution, existing laws and jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible must satisfy all four
fundamental requirements, namely: (1) the confession must be voluntary; (2) the confession
must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3)the confession
must be express; and (4) the confession must be in writing. All these requirements were
complied with.

People vs. Barasina [GR 109993, 21 January 1994]

Third Division, Melo (J): 4 concur
Facts: It was around 6:40 p.m. of 17 July 1988 when Fiscal Lino Mayo of Olongapo City
succumbed to a single bullet on his side of his face fired by a gunman from an unlicensed .45
caliber firearm while the former was walking at the VIP parking lot of the Victory Liner
Compound at Caloocan City. The gun man continued walking at the same time holding his gun
with two hands trying to cock it. After walking a few meters, the gun man tucked the gun in his
right waist and began running away. Barangay Councilman Prudencio Motos and about four
other men (among them, Ruel Ganiola and Michael Estapia, both porters) chased the gun man.
When the gun man was about to reach the LRT Station, they shouted at the policeman
conducting traffic in the area and pointed at the running man. The policeman, Pfc. Napoleon
Francia, shouted at the gun man, who stopped and raised his hands. Pfc. Francia then
confiscated a .45 cal. pistol from the gun man. Afterwards, Pfc. Francia, Councilman Motos and
others brought the gun man to the Kalookan City Police Headquarters aboard a passenger jeep.
The gun man was identified later as Elias Barasina y Laynesa. Barasina was charged for violation
of Preisdential Decree 1866 (illegal possession of firearms). Barasina, "John Doe" and "Peter
Doe" (true names, real identities and present whereabouts of the last two mentioned accused,
still unknown) were also charge for the crime of murder. When haled to respond to the
inculpations, Barasina was indifferent in entering any plea, thus the plea of not guilty to the two
criminal charges was entered by the trial court in his behalf. In the course of the trial, Barasina,
through counsel, filed a Motion to Quash on the ground of double jeopardy, i.e. in jeopardy of
being convicted of two offenses — Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms. In an Order,
dated 17 August 1989, the Court denied the Motion to Quash. On trial, one of the principal
defenses set up by Barasina was that he was mauled, maltreated and forced to sign two
documents by the Caloocan policemen while he was inside a small cell inside the Caloocan City
Police Headquarters. He identified those 2 documents, the "Paalala", dated 18 July 1988, and
his statement dated 18 July 1988. He further claimed that he never read any of those
documents and that he was not assisted by any lawyer during their execution, and that he does
not know of any Atty. Abelardo Torres. He signed an Affidavit of retraction dated 22 July 1988.
On 28 February 1990, the trial court found Barasina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of (1)
violation of Par. 1 of P.D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearm); and (2) Murder, and sentenced
him (1) as a result of his conviction under PD 1866 to suffer imprisonment of 17 Years, 4
Months and 1 Day of Reclusion Temporal as minimum to 20 Years of Reclusion Temporal, as
maximum, and to pay the costs, and (2) as a result of his conviction of Murder, to suffer
imprisonment of 10 Years and 1 Day of Prision Mayor, as minimum to 18 Years, 8 Months and 1
Day of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, and to pay the costs. The trial court also directed
Barasina to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Fiscal Lino Mayo, the amount of P61,000.00
representing the funeral and burial expenses of the victim and the amount of P500 ,000.00
representing the moral damages suffered by his widow and the loss of income as a result of the
victim's death at the age of 50 years. On 29 December 1992, the Court of Appeals (de Pano,
Elbiñas, Gutierrez [P], JJ.), acting on the appeal interposed by Barasina, rendered a decision
increasing the penalties imposed on Barasina to reclusion perpetua for each of the two crimes
committed. The records do not show that the case was certified by the Court of Appeals to the
Supreme Court pursuant to Section 13, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
although the records of the case were forwarded to to the Supreme Court by the Court of
Appeals on 11 May 1993 after the assailed decision was promulgated on 29 December 1992. In
any event, the appeal was later accepted by the Supreme Court and Barasina was thereupon
required to file his brief following which the Solicitor General filed a brief for the People.

Issue: Whether the admissions made in the custodial investigation attended to by Atty.
Abelardo Torres, a lawyer which Barasina did not expressly choose as counsel to assist him
therein, are inadmissible.

Held: Section 12 (1), Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution dealing with the rights of a person
undergoing investigation reads "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." The phrase "competent and independent" and "preferably of his
own choice" were explicit details which were added upon the persistence of human rights
lawyers in the 1986 Constitutional Commission who pointed out cases where, during the
martial law period, the lawyers made available to the detainee would be one appointed by the
military and therefore beholden to the military. Yet, the apprehension of the human rights
advocates then along this line hardly inspires belief in the present inasmuch as there was no
indication below that Barasina did in fact choose Atty. Romeo Mendoza to assist him while in
the process of offering the inculpatory statements, to the exclusion of other lawyers (The hiring
of Atty. Romeo Mendoza as counsel by Barasina after the custodial investigation appears to be
an afterthought). Withal, the word "preferably" under Section 12 [1], Article 3 of the 1987
Constitution 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 attorneys
from handling his defense. If the rule were otherwise, then, the tempo of a custodial
investigation will be solely in the hands of the accused who can impede, nay, obstruct the
progress of the interrogation by simply selecting lawyer who for one reason or another, is not
available to protect his interest. This absurd scenario could not have been contemplated by the
framers of the charter.

People vs. Morial [GR 129295, 15 August 2001]

En Banc, Per Curiam: 13 concur, 1 out of town on official business, 1 on leave
Facts: At 6:00 p.m. on 6 January 1996, at Benjamin Morial's house at Barangay Cagnituan,
Maasin, Southern Leyte, Gabriel Guilao (62 years old) saw Nonelito Abiñon slapped Paula
Bandibas' neck. Paula fell and was stabbed by Edwin Morial with a small, sharp, pointed
weapon. Leonardo Morial stood outside the house. Gabriel also saw Paula Bandibas' grandson,
Albert Bandibas, run towards his grandmother's garden, and later heard the crushing sound of a
stone against flesh. Abinon and the two Morials stayed in the house for about 10 minutes after
the killing the victims. Thereafter, they departed and headed towards the nearby houses.
Benjamin Morial, Paula's common-law husband, who was in neighboring Barangay Maria Clara
(7½ kilometers away from Barangay Cagnituan) when the incident took place, arrived at
Barangay Cagnituan at around 4:00 p.m. the next day. As was his wont, Benjamin called out
Paula's name when he was some 5 meters from the house. There was no answer. Benjamin
raced to the house, heading straight to the bedroom. There, he found the clothes all topsy-
turvy. The box where he and Paula hid their money was turned upside down. Someone had
ransacked their house. Benjamin moved back and saw Paula lying on the floor with a cut in her
neck. He shouted for help. Responding to his cries, Benjamin's neighbors, including barangay
kagawads Patricio Abiñon and Rufino Guilao, rushed to his house. Benjamin asked his neighbors
to help search for Albert, who was found shortly some 50 meters from the house. Albert
Bandibas laid flat on the ground with two stones near his head. Benjamin requested Patricio to
send someone to report the incident to the police. Upon learning of Benjamin's return to
Barangay Cagnituan, Gabriel Guilao hurried to Benjamin's house. He revealed to the grieving
Benjamin that he witnessed Paula's killing and that Edwin Morial, Leonardo Morial and Nonelito
Abiñon were the perpetrators. Benjamin advised Gabriel not to tell anyone about what he knew
for fear that they would all be killed since the Abiñons were "saturated in their place." Gabriel
heeded Benjamin's advice. The police arrived at around 10:00 p.m. SPO4 Antonio Macion, along
with four other police officers, investigated the tragedy. They found wounds in Paula Bandibas'
stomach, breast and neck. Albert Bandibas, on the other hand, had a contusion on the right side
of his head. Beside him were two stones. After examining the victims' wounds, the police
officers, along with Benjamin Morial, proceeded to the bedroom. Benjamin informed the
officers that P11,000.00 was missing from the moneybox. Other than the cash, nothing else was
missing. Outside the house, Benjamin disclosed to the officers his three suspects, the accused in
this case. He advised them, however, to bring only Leonardo and Edwin Morial into custody and
not to include Nonelito Abiñon, who had many relatives in Cagnituan. As a former barangay
captain of 22 years, he knew that the Abiñons were "most feared" in Cagnituan. Benjamin did
not tell the police that Gabriel Guilao had witnessed the incident. The police found Edwin and
Leonardo Morial in the house of Nonelito Abiñon and invited the two to the police station,
where they were turned over to SPO4 Andres Fernandez. Leonardo Morial told SPO4 Fernandez
that he had no money to pay for the services of counsel. SPO4 Fernandez informed him that
there are many lawyers in their municipality and named some of them. Leonardo said he did
not know any of the lawyers mentioned. SPO4 Fernandez thus volunteered to obtain a lawyer
for the suspect, to which Leonardo Morial consented. SPO4 Fernandez then contacted Atty.
Aguilar. At about 8:00 a.m. of 9 January 1996, Atty. Tobias Aguilar arrived. After being
introduced to Leonardo Morial, Atty. Aguilar had a short conference with him. He asked
Leonardo if he was willing to answer the questions that may be propounded by the police
investigator. Atty. Aguilar warned him that the statements that he may give might be used in
evidence against him. Leonardo said he was willing to answer the questions voluntarily.
According to Atty. Aguilar, Leonardo was bent on revealing what really happened. Thereafter,
SPO4 Fernandez conducted the investigation in Cebuano. Midway into the investigation, after
the police investigator had asked "all the material points," Atty. Aguilar asked the investigator
that he be given leave as he had a very important engagement. The investigator agreed to the
lawyer's request. Before leaving, Atty. Aguilar asked Leonardo if he was willing to answer the
questions in his absence. He also instructed the police that, after the written confession had
been prepared, the accused and the document containing the confession should be brought to
his office for "further examination." Atty. Aguilar was in the police station for less than thirty
minutes from the start of the interrogation. At about 1:30 or 2:00 p.m., Leonardo and his
policeman escort arrived at Atty. Aguilar's office. Atty. Aguilar asked the accused whether he
was maltreated while he was away and examined the suspect's body for contusions or
abrasions. Leonardo told him that he was not harmed by the police officer. The lawyer then
studied the document to determine whether its contents conformed to the answers given by
the accused in his (counsel's) presence. He propounded questions to Leonardo with reference
to the document. Atty. Aguilar asked him whether he understood its contents and whether he
was willing to sign it. Leonardo replied in the positive and signed the document in the presence
of Atty. Aguilar and the policeman-escort. Edwin Morial, Leonardo Morial (@ Carding) and
Nonelito Abiñon (@ Noly) were charged with robery with homicide. Upon arraignment, the
three accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial court rendered a decision
convicting all the three accused for the crime of robbery with homicide, as defined under
Article 293 and penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced (1)
Leonardo Morial and Nonelito Abiñon to suffer the supreme penalty of death by lethal
injection; and (2) Edwin Morial, due to his minority, to suffer the lesser penalty of reclusion
perpetua. On the civil aspect of the case, the court held the three accused libale jointly and
severally (1) to indemnify the heirs of Paula Bandibas the amount of P50,000.00 as death
indemnity; (2) to indemnify the heirs of Albert Bandibas the amount of P50,000.00 as death
indemnity; (3) to indemnify complainant Benjamin Morial the amount of P20,546.00 as actual
damages for the funeral, burial and wake expenses; (4) to pay to the heirs [the]
aforementioned moral damages of P60,000.00 for each death; and (5) to restitute or restore to
Benjamin Morial the P11,000.00 amount robbed. The court also ordered them to pay the costs.
Hence, the automatic review.

Issue: Whether Leonardo Morila’s extra-judicial confession was valid, inasmuch as the “material
points” were tackled when the counsel, Atty. Aguilar Tobias, was present.
Held: Leonardo Morial's extra-judicial confession is invalid since he was effectively deprived of
his right to counsel during the custodial investigation. An accused under custodial interrogation
must continuously have a counsel assisting him from the very start thereof. SPO4 Fernandez
cannot justify Atty. Aguilar's leaving by claiming that when the lawyer left, he knew very well
that the suspect had already admitted that Leonardo and his companions committed the crime.
Neither can Atty. Aguilar rationalize his abandoning his client by saying that he left only after
the latter had admitted the "material points," referring to the three accused's respective
participation in the crime. For even as the person under custodial investigation enjoys the right
to counsel from its inception, so does he enjoy such right until its termination — indeed, "in
every phase of the investigation." An effective and vigilant counsel "necessarily and logically
requires that the lawyer be present and able to advise and assist his client from the time the
confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the
extrajudicial confession." Furthermore, Section 2(a) of RA 7438 requires that "any person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel."
The last paragraph of Section 3 of the same law mandates that "[i]n the absence of any lawyer,
no custodial investigation shall be conducted." The right of Leonardo Morial to counsel was
therefore completely negated by the precipitate departure of Atty. Tobias before the
termination of the custodial investigation. If it were true that Atty. Tobias had to attend to
matters so pressing that he had to abandon a client undergoing custodial investigation, he
could have terminated the same to be continued only until as soon as his schedule permitted,
advising the suspect in the meantime to remain silent. This he failed to do. Appallingly, he even
asked his client whether he was willing to answer questions during the lawyer's absence. The
records also disclose that Atty. Tobias never informed appellant of his right to remain silent, not
even before the custodial investigation started. Atty. Tobias, by his failure to inform appellant
of the latter's right to remain silent, by his "coming and going" during the custodial
investigation, and by his abrupt departure before the termination of the proceedings, can
hardly be the counsel that the framers of the 1987 Constitution contemplated when it added
the modifier "competent" to the word "counsel." Neither can he be described as the "vigilant
and effective" counsel that jurisprudence requires. Precisely, it is Atty. Tobias' nonchalant
behavior during the custodial investigation that the Constitution abhors and which this Court
condemns. His casual attitude subverted the very purpose for this vital right. That the extra-
judicial confession was subsequently signed in the presence of counsel did not cure its
constitutional defects. As Leonardo Morial was effectively deprived of his right to counsel
during custodial investigation, his extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence against
him.

People vs. Castro [GR 106583, 19 June 1997]

Second Division, Romero (J): 4 concur
Facts: At about 5:30 p.m. of 19 March 1991, Capt. Allyn Evasco together with Sgt. Rogelio
Raguine, Sgt. Emilio de Guzman and CIC Julian Discargar formed a team for the purpose of
conducting a buy-bust operation. The team went to their target area in San Roque, San Miguel,
Pangasinan and proceeded to deploy themselves as planned. Sgt. de Guzman who acted as
poseur-buyer and civilian informer Discargar proceeded to Victoriano Castro y Calagno's house.
Sgt. Raguine, meanwhile, hid in a grassy spot near the house. Discargar introduced Castro to
Sgt. de Guzman who said that he wanted to purchase a kilo of dried marijuana leaves. After
going inside the house, Castro emerged with a plastic bag which he handed to Sgt. de Guzman
who, in turn, paid him P600.00. After the exchange, Sgt. de Guzman made the pre-arranged
signal, indicating that the transaction was complete, by raising his right hand. Upon espying the
signal, Sgt. Raguine and the other team members approached Castro, introduced themselves as
NARCOM (Narcotics Command) agents, and arrested him. He was thereafter brought to the San
Manuel Police Station. While the arresting team went to San Fernando, La Union for further
investigation, the marijuana leaves were sent to Camp Crame for examination where it was
discovered that the actual weight of the confiscated marijuana leaves was 930 grams. Castro
was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch 38 in an information dated
21 March 1991, for violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972). After Castro entered a plea of not guilty, trial on the merits commenced. On 29 April
1992, the trial court rendered its decision finding Castro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense charged, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of P25,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs
of the proceedings. Castro appealed.

Issue: Whether Castro’s signature on the “Receipt of Property Seized” is admissible in evidence.

Held: Castro's signature on the "Receipt of Property Seized" is inadmissible in evidence as there
is no showing that he was assisted by counsel when he signed the same. Since this is a
document tacitly admitting the offense charged, the constitutional safeguard must be
observed. Be that as it may, even disregarding this document, there is still ample evidence to
prove Castro's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the same having been shown by the detailed
testimonies of the law officers who took part in the buy-bust operation.

People vs. Wong Chuen Ming [GR 112801-11, 12 April 1996]

First Division, Padilla (J): 4 concur

Facts: On 7 September 1991, at about 1:00 p.m., Philippine Air Lines (PAL) Flight PR 301 from
Hongkong arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) in Pasay City, Metro Manila.
Among the many passengers who arrived on board said flight were Wong Chuen Ming, Au Wing
Cheung ,Tan Soi Tee, Chin Kok Wee, Lim Chan Fatt, Chin Kin Yong, Yap Boon Ah, Chin Kong
Song, Chin Kin Fah, Chai Min Huwa and Lim Nyuk Sun. Their respective passports showed that
Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung are the only British (Hongkong) nationals in the group
while the rest are all Malaysian nationals. Their passports also revealed that all Malaysians
(except Lim Chan Fatt) originally came from Malaysia, traveled to Singapore and Hongkong
before proceeding to Manila. Upon the other hand, Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung, as
well as Lim Chan Fatt, directly came from Hongkong to Manila. Wong Chuen Ming, et. al.
arrived in Manila as a tour group arranged by Select Tours International Co., Ltd. Au Wing
Cheung, an employee of Select Tours International Co., Ltd. acted as their tour guide. After
passing through and obtaining clearance from immigration officers at the NAIA, the tour group
went to the baggage claim area to retrieve their respective checked-in baggages. They placed
the same in one pushcart and proceeded to Express Lane 5 which at the time was manned by
customs examiner Danilo Gomez. Au Wing Cheung handed to Gomez the tour group's
passenger's manifest, their baggage declarations and their passports. Danilo Gomez instructed
the tour group to place their baggages on the examiner's table for inspection. They were
directed to hold on to their respective baggages while they wait for their turn to be examined.
Chin Kong Song's baggage was first to be examined by Gomez. Gomez put his hand inside the
baggage and in the course of the inspection, he found 3 brown colored boxes similar in size to
powdered milk boxes underneath the clothes. The boxes were marked Alpen Cereals and as he
found nothing wrong with them, Gomez returned them inside the baggage and allowed Chin
Kong Song to go. Following the same procedure, Gomez next examined the baggage of Wong
Chuen Ming. Gomez again found and pulled out 2 boxes of Alpen Cereals from said baggage
and like in the previous inspection, he found nothing wrong with them and allowed Wong
Chuen Ming to go. The third baggage to be examined belonged to Lim Nyuk Sun. When Gomez
pulled out another 3 boxes of Alpen Cereals from said baggage, he became suspicious and
decided to open one of the boxes with his cutter. Inside the box was a plastic bag containing
white crystalline substance. Alarmed, Gomez immediately called the attention of Appraiser
Oreganan Palala and Duty Collector Zenaida Reyes Bonifacio to his discovery. Upon learning
about the boxes containing the white crystalline substance, Zenaida Reyes Bonifacio (Chief of
the Collection Division and Acting Duty Collector of the Customs Office at the NAIA)
immediately ordered the tour group to get their baggages and proceed to the district collector's
office. Chin Kong Song and Wong Chuen Ming, who were previously cleared by Gomez, were
also brought inside together with the rest of the group. Inside the collector's office, Gomez
continued to examine the baggages of the other members of the tour group. He allegedly found
that each baggage contained 1, 2 or 3 boxes similar to those previously found in the baggages
of Chin Kong Song, Wong Chuen Ming and Lim Nyuk Sun. A total of 30 boxes of Alpen Cereals
containing white crystalline substance were allegedly recovered from the baggages of the 11
accused. As Gomez pulled out these boxes from their respective baggages, he bundled said
boxes by putting masking tape around them and handed them over to Bonifacio. Upon receipt
of these bundled boxes, Bonifacio called out the names of accused as listed in the passengers'
manifest and ordered them to sign on the masking tape placed on the boxes allegedly
ecovered from their respective baggages. Also present at this time were Capt. Rustico Francisco
and his men, agents of the Bureau of Customs and several news reporters. A few minutes later,
District Collector Antonio Marquez arrived with General Job Mayo and then NBI Deputy
Director Mariano Mison. Shortly after all boxes of Alpen Cereals were recovered, Capt. Rustico
Francisco, Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Philippine National Police Narcotics Command
Detachment at the NAIA, conducted a field test on a sample of the white crystalline substance.
His test showed that the substance was indeed "shabu." Capt. Francisco immediately informed
the 11 accused that they were under arrest. Thereafter, all accused, as well as the Alpen Cereals
boxes which were placed inside a big box, were brought to Camp Crame. At Camp Crame,
accused were asked to identify their signatures on the boxes and after having identified them,
they were again made to sign on the plastic bags containing white crystalline substance inside
the boxes bearing their signatures. The examination by Elizabeth Ayonon, a forensic chemist at
the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame, confirmed that the white
crystalline substance recovered from accused was "shabu." The total weight of "shabu"
recovered was placed at 34.45 kilograms. 11 separate criminal informations were filed against
all of the accused individually. The counsel of Au Wing Cheung earlier filed a petition for
reinvestigation and deferment of his arraignment but the same was denied by the trial court for
lack of merit. At their respective arraignments, all accused with the assistance of their counsels,
including Au Wing Cheung pleaded not guilty to the charge. The trial court conducted a joint
and/or consolidated trial of all the cases upon motion by the prosecution considering that the
State had common testimonial and documentary evidence against all accused. On 29 November
1991, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 109 of Pasay City, found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article each to life imprisonment and a fine of
P20,000.00. Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung appealed.

Issue: Whether the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well as on the plastic bags containing
"shabu", are admissible in evidence.
Held: The Court holds that the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well as on the plastic bags
containing "shabu", are inadmissible in evidence. A careful study of the records reveals that
accused were never informed of their fundamental rights during the entire time that they were
under investigation. Specifically, accused were not informed of their Miranda rights i.e. that
they had the right to remain silent and to counsel and any statement they might make could be
used against them, when they were made to affix their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals
while they were at the NAIA and again, on the plastic bags when they were already taken in
custody at Camp Crame. By affixing their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals and on the
plastic bags, accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime charged for mere possession
of "shabu" is punished by law. These signatures of accused are tantamount to an uncounselled
extra-judicial confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights (Section 12[1][3], Article
III, 1987 Constitution). They are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any admission wrung
from the accused in violation of their constitutional rights is inadmissible against them. The fact
that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the "exclusionary rule"
because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all
persons, both aliens and citizens.

254 Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division) [GR 109242, 26 January 1999]
Second Division, Mendoza (J): 4 concur

Facts: On 10 February 1989, Jacinto Merete, a letter carrier in the Makati Central Post Office,
disclosed to his chief, Projecto Tumagan, the existence of a group responsible for the pilferage
of mail matter in the post office. Among those mentioned by Merete were Arnold Pasicolan, an
emergency laborer assigned as a bag opener in the Printed Matters Section, and Redentor
Aguinaldo, a mail sorter of the Makati Post Office. Merete likewise described the modus
operandi of the group. For this reason, Tumagan sought the aid of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) in apprehending the group responsible for mail pilferage in the Makati Post
Office. On 17 February 1989, NBI Director Salvador Ranin dispatched NBI agents to Legaspi
Village following a report that the group would stage a theft of mail matter on that day.
Tumagan accompanied a team of NBI agents composed of Senior Agent Arles Vela and two
other agents in a private car. They arrived at Legaspi Village at about 1:00 p.m. They stayed at
the corner of Adelantado and Gamboa Streets, while two other teams of NBI agents waited at
Amorsolo Street, near the Esquerra Building. At 2:00 p.m., a postal delivery jeep, driven by one
Henry Orindai, was parked in front of the Esguerra Building on Adelantado Street. The
passengers of the postal delivery jeep were Arnold Pasicolan, Jacinto Merete, and the driver,
Henry Orindai. Pasicolan alighted from the jeep bringing with him a mail bag. Merete stayed
inside the jeep. Pasicolan then passed through an alley between Esguerra and Montepino
Buildings going towards Amorsolo St. Upon reaching Amorsolo St., Pasicolan gave the mail bag
to two persons, who were later identified as Ronnie Romero and Lito Marcelo. The latter
transferred the contents of the mail bag (i.e.,assorted mail matter) to a travelling bag. The two
then secured the bag to the back of their motorcycle. Meanwhile, the NBI team led by agent
Vela, upon seeing Pasicolan going towards Amorsolo St., moved their car and started towards
Amorsolo St. They were just in time to see Pasicolan handing over the mail bag to Marcelo and
Romero. At that point, Atty. Sacaguing and Arles Vela arrested Marcelo and Romero. Unaware
of the arrest of Romero and Marcelo, Pasicolan went back to the postal delivery jeep and
proceeded toward
Pasay Road. The NBI agents followed the postal delivery jeep, overtook it, and arrested
Pasicolan. The NBI agents brought Pasicolan, Marcelo, and Romero to their headquarters. They
also brought along with them the motorcycle of Romero and Marcelo and the bag of unsorted
mail found in their possession. On their way to the NBI headquarters, they passed by the
Makati Central Post Office, intending to arrest another suspect, Redentor Aguinaldo. However,
they were not able to find him there. The unsorted mail seized from Marcelo and Romero
consisted of 622 letters. The names of the addressees were listed. They were subsequently
notified by the Bureau of Posts to claim their letters. Many of them, after proper identification,
were able to claim their letters. Some letters contained money. Romero, Marcelo, and
Pasicolan were asked to affix their signatures on the envelopes of the letters. They did so in the
presence of the members of the NBI Administrative and Investigative Staff and the people
transacting business with the NBI at that time. According to Director Ranin, they required the
accused to do this in order to identify the letters as the very same letters confiscated from
them. Arnold Pasicolan y Mabazza, Ronnie Romero y Santos, and Lito Marcelo y Cruz were
charged with infidelity in the custody of documents. The case was later withdrawn and another
information for qualified theft was filed before the Sandiganbayan. On 8 March 1993, the
Sandiganbayan found all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime
of qualified theft. The Sandiganbayan sentenced Pasiclon the penalty ranging from 8 years, 8
months, and 1 day of Prision mayor, as minimum, to 13 years, 1 month, and 11 days of
reclusion temporal, as maximum; Romero and Marcelo, the penalty ranging from 7 YEARS, 4
months, and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 11 years, 6 months, and 21 days of prision
mayor, as maximum, each. Marcelo filed the petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme
Court.

Issue: Whether the exclusion of the admission, made through the signatures on the envelopes,
extend to the exclusion from evidence of the letters themselves.

Held: The purpose for securing the signature of Marcelo, et. al. on the envelopes was to
authenticate the envelopes as the ones seized from him and Ronnie Romero. This purpose and
their signatures on the envelope, when coupled with the testimony of prosecution witnesses
that the envelopes seized from Marcelo were those given to him and Romero, undoubtedly
help establish the guilt of Marcelo. Since these signatures are actually evidence of admission
obtained from Marcelo and his co-accused under circumstances contemplated in Art. III.
Sec.12(1) and 17 of the Constitution, they should be excluded. For indeed, Marcelo and his co-
accused signed following their arrest. Hence, they were at the time under custodial
investigation, defined as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way.
Under the Constitution, among the rights of a person under custodial investigation is the right
to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice and if the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, that he must be provided with one. However, the letters
are themselves not inadmissible in evidence. The letters were validly seized from Marcelo and
Romero as an incident of a valid arrest. A ruling that Marcelo's admission that the letters in
question were those seized from him and his companion on 17 February 1989 is inadmissible in
evidence does not extend to the exclusion from evidence of the letters themselves. The letters
can stand on their own, being the fruits of a crime validly seized during a lawful arrest. That
these letters were the ones found in the possession of Marcelo and his companion and seized
from them was shown by the testimonies of Vela and Tumagan. Indeed, Marcelo and his co-
accused were not convicted solely on the basis of the signatures found on the letters but on
other evidence, notably the testimonies of NBI agents and other prosecution witnesses.

People vs. Andan [GR 116437, 3 March 1997]

En Banc, Per Curiam: 15 concur
Facts: On 19 February 1994 at about 4:00 P.M., in Concepcion Subdivision, Baliuag, Bulacan,
Marianne Guevarra, 20 years of age and a second-year student at the Fatima School of Nursing,
left her home for her school dormitory in Valenzuela, Metro Manila. She was to prepare for her
final examinations on 21 February 1994. Marianne wore a striped blouse and faded denim
pants and brought with her two bags containing her school uniforms, some personal effects
and more than P2,000.00 in cash. Marianne was walking along the subdivision when Pablito
Andan y Hernandez invited her inside his house. He used the pretext that the blood
pressure of his wife's grandmother should be taken. Marianne agreed to take her blood
pressure as the old woman was her distant relative. She did not know that nobody was inside
the house. Andan then punched her in the abdomen, brought her to the kitchen and raped her.
His lust sated, Andan dragged the unconscious girl to an old toilet at the back of the house and
left her there until dark. Night came and Andan pulled Marianne, who was still unconscious, to
their backyard. The yard had a pigpen bordered on one side by a 6-foot high concrete fence. On
the other side was a vacant lot. Andan stood on a bench beside the pigpen and then lifted and
draped the girl's body over the fence to transfer it to the vacant lot. When the girl moved, he
hit her head with a piece of concrete block. He heard her moan and hit her again on the face.
After silence reigned, he pulled her body to the other side of the fence, dragged it towards a
shallow portion of the lot and abandoned it. At 11:00 a.m. of the following day, the body of
Marianne was discovered. She was naked from the chest down with her brassiere and T-shirt
pulled toward her neck. Nearby was found a panty with a sanitary napkin. Marianne's
gruesome death drew public attention and prompted Mayor Cornelio Trinidad of Baliuag to
form a crack team of police officers to look for the criminal. Searching the place where
Marianne's body was found, the policemen recovered a broken piece of concrete block stained
with what appeared to be blood. They also found a pair of denim pants and a pair of shoes
which were identified as Marianne's. Andan's nearby house was also searched by the police
who found bloodstains on the wall of the pigpen in the backyard. They interviewed the
occupants of the house and learned from Romano Calma, the stepbrother of Andan's wife, that
Andan also lived there but that he, his wife and son left without a word. Calma surrendered to
the police several articles consisting of pornographic pictures, a pair of wet short pants with
some reddish brown stain, a towel also with the stain, and a wet T-shirt. The clothes were
found in the laundry hamper inside the house and allegedly belonged to Andan. The police tried
to locate Andan and learned that his parents live in Barangay Tangos, Baliuag, Bulacan. On
February 24 at 11:00 P.M., a police team led by Mayor Trinidad traced Andan in his parents'
house. They took him aboard the patrol jeep and brought him to the police headquarters where
he was interrogated. Initially, Andan denied any knowledge of Marianne's death. However,
when the police confronted him with the concrete block, the victim's clothes and the
bloodstains found in the pigpen, Andan relented and said that his neighbors, Gilbert Larin and
Reynaldo Dizon, killed Marianne and that he was merely a lookout. He also said that he knew
where Larin and Dizon hid the two bags of Marianne. Immediately, the police took Andan to his
house. Larin and Dizon, who were rounded up earlier, were likewise brought there by the
police. Andan went to an old toilet at the back of the house, leaned over a flower pot and
retrieved from a canal under the pot, two bags which were later identified as belonging to
Marianne. Thereafter, photographs were taken of Andan and the two other suspects holding
the bags. By this time, people and media representatives were already gathered at the police
headquarters awaiting the results of the investigation. Mayor Trinidad arrived and proceeded
to the investigation room. Upon seeing the mayor, Andan approached him and whispered a
request that they talk privately. The mayor led Andan to the office of the Chief of Police and
there, Andan broke down and said "Mayor, patawarin mo ako! I will tell you the truth. I am the
one who killed Marianne." The mayor opened the door of the room to let the public and media
representatives witness the confession. The mayor first asked for a lawyer to assist Andan but
since no lawyer was available he ordered the proceedings photographed and videotaped. In the
presence of the mayor, the police, representatives of the media and Andan's own wife and son,
Andan confessed his guilt. He disclosed how he killed Marianne and volunteered to show them
the place where he hid her bags. He asked for forgiveness from Larin and Dizon whom he falsely
implicated saying he did it because of ill-feelings against them. He also said that the devil
entered his mind because of the pornographic magazines and tabloid he read almost everyday.
After his confession, Andan hugged his wife and son and asked the mayor to help him. His
confession was captured on videotape and covered by the media nationwide. Andan was
detained at the police headquarters. The next two days, February 26 and 27, more newspaper,
radio and television reporters came. Andan was again interviewed and he affirmed his
confession to the mayor and reenacted the crime. Pablito Andan y Hernandez alias "Bobby"
was charged with rape with homicide. On arraignment, however, Andan entered a plea of "not
guilty." In a decision dated 4 August 1994, the trial court convicted Andan and sentenced him to
death pursuant to Republic Act 7659. The trial court also ordered Andan to pay the victim's
heirs P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P71,000.00 as actual burial expenses and P100,000.00 as
moral damages. Hence, the automatic review.

Issue: Whether Andan’s confession to the police, the mayor, and the newsmen may be
admitted as evidence against Andan.

Held: Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right (1)
to remain silent; (2) to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice;
and (3) to be informed of such rights. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this provision is
inadmissible in evidence against him. The exclusionary rule is premised on the presumption
that the defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through menacing police
interrogation procedures where the potentiality for compulsion, physical and psychological, is
forcefully apparent. The in communicado character of custodial interrogation or investigation
also obscures a later judicial determination of what really transpired. When the police arrested
Andan, they were no longer engaged in a general inquiry about the death of Marianne. Indeed,
Andan was already a prime suspect even before the police found him at his parents' house.
Andan was already under custodial investigation when he confessed to the police. It is admitted
that the police failed to inform appellant of his constitutional rights when he was investigated
and interrogated. His confession is therefore inadmissible in evidence. So too were the two
bags recovered from Andan's house. The victim's bags were the fruits of Andan's uncounselled
confession to the police. They are tainted evidence, hence also inadmissible. On the other
hand, however, Andan's confession to the mayor was not made in response to any
interrogation by the latter. In fact, the mayor did not question Andan at all. No police authority
ordered Andan to talk to the mayor. It was Andan himself who spontaneously, freely and
voluntarily sought the mayor for a private meeting. The mayor did not know that Andan was
going to confess his guilt to him. When Andan talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a
law enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession to him did not violate his constitutional
rights. Andan's confessions to the media were properly admitted. The confessions were made
in response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer.
Statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are
deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. The records show that Alex Marcelino, a
television reporter for "Eye to Eye" on Channel 7, interviewed Andan on 27 February 1994. The
interview was recorded on video and showed that Andan made his confession willingly, openly
and publicly in the presence of his wife, child and other relatives. Orlan Mauricio, a reporter for
"Tell the People" on Channel 9 also interviewed appellant on 25 February 1994. Andan's
confessions to the news reporters were given free from any undue influence from the police
authorities. The news reporters acted as news reporters when they interviewed Andan. They
were not acting under the direction and control of the police. They were there to check Andan's
confession to the mayor. They did not force Andan to grant them an interview and reenact the
commission of the crime. In fact, they asked his permission before interviewing him. They
interviewed him on separate days not once did Andan protest his innocence. Instead, he
repeatedly confessed his guilt to them. He even supplied all the details in thecommission of the
crime, and consented to its reenactment. All his confessions to the news reporters were
witnessed by his family and other relatives. There was no coercive atmosphere in the interview
of Andan by the news reporters. Thus, Andan's verbal confessions to the newsmen are not
covered by Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not
concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another individual. It governs
the relationship between the individual and the State. The prohibitions therein are primarily
addressed to the State and its agents. They confirm that certain rights of the individual exist
without need of any governmental grant, rights that may not be taken away by government,
rights that government has the duty to protect. Governmental power is not unlimited and the
Bill of Rights lays down these limitations to protect the individual against aggression and
unwarranted interference by any department of government and its agencies.

People vs. Endino [GR 133026, 20 February 2001]

Second Division, Bellosillo (J): 4 concur
Facts: On a busy street in Puerto Princesa City in the evening of 16 October 1991, an
emboldened Gerry Galgarin (@ Toto), uncle of Edward Endino, suddenly and without warning
lunged at Dennis Aquino and stabbed him repeatedly on the chest. Dennis' girlfriend Clara
Agagas who was with him, stunned by the unexpected attack, pleaded to Galgarin to stop.
Dennis struggled and succeeded momentarily to free himself from his attacker. Dennis dashed
towards the nearby Midtown Sales but his escape was foiled when from out of nowhere
Edward Endino appeared and fired at Dennis. As Dennis staggered for safety, the 2 assailants
fled in the direction of the airport. Meanwhile, Dennis, wounded and bleeding, sought refuge
inside the Elohim Store where he collapsed on the floor. He was grasping for breath and near
death. Clara with the help of some onlookers took him to the hospital but Dennis expired even
before he could receive medical attention. On 18 October 1991, an Information for the murder
of Dennis Aquino was filed against Edward Endino and Gerry Galgarin and warrants were issued
for their arrest. However, as both accused remained at large, the trial court issued on 26
December 1991 an order putting the case in the archives without prejudice to its reinstatement
upon their apprehension. On 19 November 1992, Gerry Galgarin was arrested through the
combined efforts of the Antipolo and Palawan police forces at a house in Sitio Sto. Niño,
Antipolo, Rizal. He was immediately taken into temporary custody by the Antipolo Police. Early
in the evening of the following day, he was fetched from the Antipolo Police Station by PO3
Gaudencio Manlavi and PO3 Edwin Magbanua of the Palawan police force to be taken to
Palawan and be tried accordingly. On their way to the airport, they stopped at the ABS-CBN
television station where Galgarin was interviewed by reporters. Video footages of the interview
were taken showing Galgarin admitting his guilt while pointing to his nephew Edward Endino
as the gunman. According to Galgarin, after attacking Aquino, they left for Roxas, Palawan,
where his sister Langging who is Edward's mother, was waiting. Langging gave them money for
their fare for Manila. They took the boat for Batangas, where they stayed for a few days, and
proceeded to Manila where they separated, with him heading for Antipolo. Galgarin appealed
for Edward to give himself up to the authorities. His interview was shown over the ABS-CBN
evening news program TV Patrol. During trial, Galgarin disowned the confession which he made
over TV Patrol and claimed that it was induced by the threats of the arresting police officers. He
asserted that the videotaped confession was constitutionally infirmed and inadmissible under
the exclusionary rule provided in Sec. 12, Art. III of the Constitution. The trial court found
Galgarin guilty of murder qualified by Treachery, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and
ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Dennis Aquino in the amount of P50,000.00 as
compensatory damages and P72,725.35 as actual damages.

Issue: Whether the ABS-CBN interview recording Galgarin’s confession is admissible as

evidence.

Held: The interview was recorded on video and it showed Galgarin unburdening his guilt
willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of newsmen. Such confession does not form part
of custodial investigation as it was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt
to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. Besides, if he had indeed been forced into
confessing, he could have easily sought succor from the newsmen who, in all likelihood, would
have been sympathetic with him. However, because of the inherent danger in the use of
television as a medium for admitting one's guilt, and the recurrence of this phenomenon
in several cases, it is prudent that trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken
in further admitting similar confessions. For in all probability, the police, with the connivance of
unscrupulous media practitioners, may attempt to legitimize coerced extra-judicial confessions
and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an offense on
television. Such a situation would be detrimental to the guaranteed rights of the accused and
thus imperil our criminal justice system. It is not suggested that videotaped confessions given
before media men by an accused with the knowledge of and in the presence of police officers
are impermissible. Indeed, the line between proper and invalid police techniques and conduct
is a difficult one to draw, particularly in cases such as this where it is essential to make sharp
judgments in determining whether a confession was given under coercive physical or
psychological atmosphere. A word of counsel then to lower courts: "we should never presume
that all media confessions described as voluntary have been freely given. This type of
confession always remains suspect and therefore should be thoroughly examined and
scrutinized. Detection of coerced confessions is admittedly a difficult and arduous task for the
courts to make. It requires persistence and determination in separating polluted confessions
from untainted ones. We have a sworn duty to be vigilant and protective of the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution."

People vs. Ordono [GR 132154, 29 June 2000]

En Banc, Per Curiam: 15 concur
Facts: On 5 August 1994, the decomposing body of a young girl was found among the bushes
near a bridge in Barangay Poblacion, Santol, La Union. The girl was later identified as Shirley
Victore, 15 years old, a resident of Barangay Guesset, Poblacion, Santol, La Union, who 3 days
before was reported missing. Postmortem examination conducted by Dr. Arturo Llavore, a
medico-legal officer of the NBI, revealed that the victim was raped and strangled to death.
Unidentified sources pointed to Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina as the authors of the
crime. Acting on this lead, the police thereupon invited the 2 suspects and brought them to the
police station for questioning. However, for lack of evidence then directly linking them to the
crime, they were allowed to go home. On 10 August 1994, Ordoño and Medina returned to the
police station one after another and acknowledged that they had indeed committed the crime.
Acting on their admission, the police immediately conducted an investigation and put their
confessions in writing. The investigators howevercould not at once get the services of a lawyer
to assist the 2 accused in the course of the investigation because there were no practicing
lawyers in the Municipality of Santol, a remote town of the Province of La Union. Be that as it
may, the statements of the 2 accused where nevertheless taken. But before doing so, both
accused were apprised in their own dialect of their constitutional right to remain silent and to
be assisted by a competent counsel of their choice. Upon their acquiescence and assurance that
they understood their rights and did not require the services of counsel, the investigation was
conducted with the Parish Priest, the Municipal Mayor, the Chief of Police and other police
officers of Santol, La Union, in attendance to listen to and witness the giving of the voluntary
statements of the 2 suspects who admitted their participation in the crime. After Medina said
his piece, his wife and mother suddenly burst into tears. He then affixed his signature on his
statement and so did his wife, followed by all the other witnesses who listened to his
confession. Pacito Ordoño narrated his story in the afternoon. At the end of his narration
Ordoño affixed his thumbmark on his statement in lieu of his signature as he did not know how
to write. Thereafter, Medina and Ordoño were detained at the Santol police station. News
about the apprehension and detention of the culprits of the rape-slay of Shirley Victore soon
spread that Roland Almoite, leading radio announcer of radio station DZNL, visited and
interviewed them. In the interview, which was duly tape-recorded both accused admitted again
their complicity in the crime and narrated individually the events surrounding their commission
thereof. According to Medina, his remorse in having committed the crime was so great but his
repentance came too late. He and Ordoño hoped that the parents of Shirley Victore would
forgive them. Upon conclusion of the interview, Roland Almoite immediately went to radio
station DZNL and played the taped interview on the air. The same interview was played again
on the air the following morning and was heard by thousands of listeners. A couple of days
later, the police brought the 2 accused to the office of the PAO lawyer in Balaoan, La Union, for
assistance and counseling. In a closed-door session, PAO lawyer Oscar B. Corpuz apprised each
of the accused of his constitutional rights and, even though their confessions were already
written in their dialect, explained to them each of the questions and answers taken during the
investigation. He likewise advised them to ponder the consequences of their confessions,
leading them to defer the affixing of their second signature/thumbmark thereon. After a week
or so, the 2 separately went back to Atty. Corpuz and informed him of their willingness to affix
their signatures and thumbmarks for the second time in their respective confessions. Once
again Atty. Corpuz apprised the 2 accused of their constitutional rights, explained the contents
of their respective statements, and finally, accompanied them to Judge Fabian M. Bautista,
MTC judge of Balaoan, La Union, who further apprised the 2 accused of their constitutional
rights and asked them if they had been coerced into signing their confessions. They assured
Judge Bautista that their statements had been given freely and voluntarily. Upon such
assurance that they had not been coerced into giving and signing their confessions, Judge
Bautista finally asked Ordoño and Medina to affix their signatures/thumbmarks on their
respective confessions, and to subscribe the same before him. Atty. Corpuz then signed their
statements as their assisting counsel, followed by a few members of the MTC staff who
witnessed the signing. Ordono and Medina were charged for rape with homicide. On
arraignment, in a complete turnabout, the 2 accused pleaded not guilty. On 11 December 1997,
the trial court adjudged Ordoño and Medina guilty of the crime of rape with homicide attended
with conspiracy, and imposed upon each of them 2 death penalties on the basis of their
extrajudicial confessions. Hence, the automatic review.

Issue: Whether the custodial investigation made in the presence of the municipal mayor, parish
priest, etc. and/or the taped interview containing the accused’s confessions are admissible as
evidence.

Held: Custodial investigation began when the accused Ordoño and Medina voluntarily went to
the Santol Police Station to confess and the investigating officer started asking questions to
elicit information and/or confession from them. At such point, the right of the accused to
counsel automatically attached to them. Concededly, after informing the accused of their rights
the police sought to provide them with counsel. However, none could be furnished them due to
the non-availability of practicing lawyers in Santol, La Union, and the remoteness of the town to
the next adjoining town of Balaoan, La Union, where practicing lawyers could be found. At that
stage, the police should have already desisted from continuing with the interrogation but they
persisted and gained the consent of the accused to proceed with the investigation. To the
credit of the police, they requested the presence of the Parish Priest and the Municipal Mayor
of Santol as well as the relatives of the accused to obviate the possibility of coercion, and to
witness the voluntary execution by the accused of their statements before the police.
Nonetheless, this did not cure in any way the absence of a lawyer during the investigation. In
the absence of such valid waiver, the Parish Priest of Santol, the Municipal Mayor, the relatives
of the accused, the Chief of Police and other police officers of the municipality could not stand
in lieu of counsel's presence. The apparent consent of the 2 accused in continuing with the
investigation was of no moment as a waiver to be effective must be made in writing and with
the assistance of counsel. Consequently, any admission obtained from the 2 accused emanating
from such uncounseled interrogation would be inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding.
Securing the assistance of the PAO lawyer 5 to 8 days later does not remedy this omission
either. Although there was a showing that the PAO lawyer made a thorough explanation of the
rights of the accused, enlightened them on the possible repercussions of their admissions, and
even gave them time to deliberate upon them, this aid and valuable advice given by counsel still
came several days too late. It could have no palliative effect. It could not cure the absence of
counsel during the custodial investigation when the extrajudicial statements were being taken.
The second affixation of the signatures/thumbmarks of the accused on their confessions a few
days after their closed-door meeting with the PAO lawyer, in the presence and with the signing
of the MTC judge, the PAO lawyer and other witnesses, likewise did not make their admissions
an informed one. Admissions obtained during custodial investigation without the benefit of
counsel although reduced into writing and later signed in the presence of counsel are still
flawed under the Constitution. If the lawyer's role is diminished to being that of a mere witness
to the signing of a prepared document albeit an indication therein that there was compliance
with the constitutional rights of the accused, the requisite standards guaranteed by Art. III, Sec.
12, par. (1), are not met. The standards utilized by police authorities to assure the constitutional
rights of the accused therefore fell short of the standards demanded by the Constitution and
the law.
As with the interview taken by DZNL radio announcer Roland Almoite, the taped interview was
offered to form part of the testimony of witness Roland Almoite to whom the admissions were
made and to prove through electronic device the voluntary admissions by the 2 accused that
they raped and killed Shirley Victore. The defense objected to its acceptance on the ground that
its integrity had not been preserved as the tape could easily have been spliced and tampered
with. However, as Roland Almoite testified, it was the original copy of the taped interview; it
was not altered; the voices therein were the voices of the 2 accused; and, the defense never
submitted evidence to prove otherwise. Under the circumstances, the Court is inclined to admit
the authenticity of the taped interview. A review of the contents of the tape as included in
Roland Almoite's testimony reveals that the interview was conducted free from any influence
or intimidation from police officers and was done willingly by the accused. Despite allegations
to the contrary, no police authority ordered or forced the accused to talk to the radio
announcer. While it may be expected that police officers were around since the interview was
held in the police station, there was no showing that they were within hearing distance or
within the vicinity where the interview was being conducted. At most, the participation of the
police authorities was only to allow Roland Almoite to conduct an interview. The taped
interview likewise revealed that the accused voluntarily admitted to the rape-slay and even
expressed remorse for having perpetrated the crime. We have held that statements
spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed
voluntary and are admissible in evidence. By analogy, statements made by herein accused to a
radio announcer should likewise be held admissible. The interview was not in the nature of an
investigation as the response of the accused was made in answer to questions asked by the
radio reporter, not by the police or any other investigating officer. When the accused talked to
the radio announcer, they did not talk to him as a law enforcement officer, as in fact he was
not, hence their uncounseled confession to him did not violate their constitutional rights.
Sections 12, pars. (1) and (3), Art. III, of the Constitution do not cover the verbal confessions of
the 2 accused to the radio announcer. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure
of incriminating facts or confessions. The rights enumerated under Sec. 12, Art. III, are
guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the accused to
admit something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. In
relation to this, the admissions of the accused before the radio announcer and duly tape-
recorded are bolstered and substantiated by the findings of the NBI Medico-Legal Officer as
reflected in the Autopsy Report/Post Mortem Findings.

People vs. Guillermo [GR 147786, 20 January 2004]

En Banc, Quisumbing (J): 13 concur

Facts: Victor Francisco Keyser, was the owner and manager of Keyser Plastic Manufacturing
Corp., with principal place of business at Sitio Halang, Lornaville, San Roque, Antipolo City.
Keyser Plastics shared its building with Greatmore Corporation, a manufacturer of faucets.
Separating the respective spaces being utilized by the two firms in their operations was a wall,
the lower portion of which was made of concrete hollow blocks, while the upper portion was of
lawanit boards. The part of the wall made of lawanit had two large holes, which could allow a
person on one side of the wall to see what was on the other side. On 22 March 1998, Romualdo
Campos, a security guard assigned to Greatmore was on duty. At around 8:00 a.m., he saw Eric
G. Guillermo enter the premises of Keyser Plastics. Campos ignored Guillermo, as he knew him
to be one of the trusted employees of Keyser Plastics. An hour later, he saw Victor F. Keyser
arrive. Keyser checked the pump motor of the deep well, which was located in the area of
Greatmore, after which he also went inside the part of the building occupied by Keyser Plastics.
Campos paid scant attention to Keyser. Later, at around 10:00 a.m., Campos was making some
entries in his logbook, when he heard some loud noises (“kalabugan”) coming from the Keyser
Plastics area. He stopped to listen, but thinking that the noise was coming from the machines
used to make plastics, he did not pay much attention to the sound. At around noontime,
Campos was suddenly interrupted in the performance of his duties when he saw Guillermo look
through one of the holes in the dividing wall. According to Campos, appellant calmly told him
that he had killed Victor Keyser and needed Campos’ assistance to help him carry the corpse to
the garbage dump where he could burn it. Shocked by this revelation, Campos immediately
dashed off to telephone the police. The police told him to immediately secure the premises and
not let the suspect escape, while a reaction team was being dispatched to the scene. 10
minutes later, a team composed of SPO4 Felix Bautista, SPO1 Carlito Reyes, and Police Aide
Jovenal Dizon, Jr., all from the Antipolo Philippine National Police (PNP) Station, arrived at the
crime scene. With them was Felix Marcelo, an official police photographer. They were
immediately met by Campos, who informed them that Guillermo was still inside the building.
The law enforcers tried to enter the premises of Keyser Plastics, but found the gates securely
locked. The officers then talked to Guillermo and after some minutes, persuaded him to give
them the keys. This enabled the police to open the gate. Once inside, SPO4 Bautista and SPO1
Reyes immediately accosted Guillermo, who was clad only in a pair of shorts, naked from the
waist up. SPO1 Reyes then asked him where the body of the victim was and Guillermo pointed
to some cardboard boxes. On opening the boxes, the police found the dismembered limbs and
chopped torso of Keyser. The victim’s head was found stuffed inside a cement bag. When the
police asked how he did it, according to the prosecution witness, Guillermo said that he bashed
the victim on the head with a piece of wood, and after Keyser fell, he dismembered the body
with a carpenter’s saw. He then mopped up the blood on the floor with a plastic foam.
Guillermo then turned over to the police a bloodstained, two-foot long piece of coconut lumber
and a carpenter’s saw. Photographs were taken of the suspect, the dismembered corpse, and
the implements used in committing the crime. When asked as to his motive for the killing,
Guillermo replied that Keyser had been maltreating him and his co-employees. He expressed no
regret whatsoever about his actions. The police then brought Guillermo to the Antipolo PNP
Station for further investigation. SPO1 Carlos conducted the investigation, without apprising
Guillermo about his constitutional rights and without providing him with the services of
counsel. SPO1 Carlos requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct a post-
mortem examination on Keyser’s remains. The Antipolo police then turned over the
bloodstained piece of wood and saw, recovered from the locus delicti, to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for testing. Keyser’s death shocked the nation. Guillermo, who was then in police
custody, was interviewed on separate occasions by two TV reporters, namely: Augusto “Gus”
Abelgas of ABS-CBN News and Kara David of GMA Channel 7. Both interviews were
subsequently broadcast nationwide. Guillermo admitted to David that he committed the crime
and never gave it second thought. He disclosed to David the details of the crime, including how
he struck Keyser on the head and cut up his body into pieces, which he placed in sacks and
cartons. When asked why he killed his employer, Guillermo stated that Keyser had not paid him
for years, did not feed him properly, and treated him “like an animal.” Both Abelgas and David
said that Guillermo expressed absolutely no remorse over his alleged misdeed during the
course of their respective interviews with him. On 23 March 1998, Guillermo was charged by
State Prosecutor Jaime Augusto B. Valencia, Jr., of murdering his employer, Victor Francisco
Keyser. When arraigned on 3 April 1998, Guillermo, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty
to the charge. On 23 April 1998, however, Guillermo moved to withdraw his plea of guilty and
prayed for a re-arraignment. The trial court granted the motion and on 28 April 1998, he was
re-arraigned. Assisted by counsel de parte, he entered a plea of not guilty. The case then
proceeded to trial. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 73, dated 7
March 2001 (Criminal Case 98-14724), found Eric Guillermo y Garcia guilty of murder and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death. The court also ordered Guillermo to pay the
mother of the victim P50,000.00 for death indemnity, P50,000.00 for funeral expenses,
P500,000.00 as compensatory damages, P500,000.00 as moral damages, P300,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and P100,000 plus P3,000 per court appearance as attorney's fees. Hence,
the automatic review.

Issue: Whether Guillermo’s confession to the police officers, to the security guard of Greatmore
Corp., and to the newsmen are admissible as evidence.

Held: The confession Guillermo made while he was under investigation by SPO1 Carlito Reyes
for the killing of Keyser at the Antipolo PNP Station, falls short of the protective standards laid
down by the Constitution. The investigating officer made no serious effort to make Guillermo
aware of his basic rights under custodial investigation. While the investigating officer was aware
of Guillermo’s right to be represented by counsel, the officer exerted no effort to provide him
with one on the flimsy excuse that it was a Sunday. Despite the absence of counsel, the officer
proceeded with said investigation. Moreover, the record is bare of any showing that Guillermo
had waived his constitutional rights in writing and in the presence of counsel. Be that as it may,
however, the inadmissibility of Guillermo’s confession to SPO1 Reyes at the Antipolo PNP
Station as evidence does not necessarily lead to his acquittal. For constitutional safeguards on
custodial investigation (known, also as the Miranda principles) do not apply to spontaneous
statements, or those not elicited through questioning by law enforcement authorities but given
in an ordinary manner whereby the appellant verbally admits to having committed the offense.
The rights enumerated in the Constitution, Article III, Section 12, are meant to preclude the
slightest use of the State’s coercive power as would lead an accused to admit something false.
But it is not intended to prevent him from freely and voluntarily admitting the truth outside the
sphere of such power. Herein, Guillermo admitted the commission of the crime not just to the
police but also to private individuals. According to the testimony of the security guard,
Romualdo Campos, on the very day of the killing Guillermo called him to say that he had killed
his employer and needed assistance to dispose of the cadaver. Campos’ testimony was not
rebutted by the defense, and thus Guillermo's statements to Campos are admissible for being
part of the res gestae. Further, when interviewed on separate occasions by the media,
Guillermo not only agreed to be interviewed by the news reporters, but he spontaneously
admitted his guilt to them. He even supplied the details regarding the commission of the crime
to reporter Kara David of GMA Channel 7. The TV news reporters were acting as media
professionals when they interviewed Guillermo. They were not under the direction and control
of the police. There was no coercion for Guillermo to face the TV cameras. The interviews also
took place on several occasions, not just once. Each time, Guillermo did not protest or insist on
his innocence. Instead, he repeatedly admitted what he had done. He even supplied details of
Keyser’s killing. As held in Andan, statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news
reporters during a televised interview are voluntary and admissible in evidence.