People v.

Rodriguez

Rule 122 Section 11 (Effect of Appeal by any of several accused)

(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar
as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter;
(b) The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect shall not affect the criminal aspect of the judgment
or order appealed from.
(c) Upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of the judgment or final order appealed from shall be stayed
as to the appealing party.

FACTS: Artellero was employed as a cement mixer and helper of co-accused Rodriguez, a mason in the construction
of the upper floors of the Far East Bank and Trust Company - Manila. Both were charged with the crime of robbery with
homicide for the killing of the bank security guard, Matias.

On October 11, 1991, early in the morning, at the FEBTC-Manila, a messenger discovered the lifeless body of Matias,
inside the bank premises. The body was hogtied with a nylon cord, and bore 32 stab wounds. The chairs and tables
inside the bank were in disarray. The banks emergency exit vault bore chisel marks. At around 6:00 A.M., SPO3
Mendoza and two other officers of the WPD arrived after receiving a report on the incident. They interviewed the bank
janitor, a Mr. Cawagdan, and the other security guard, Vargas. Then they ordered the transfer of the body of Matias to
the morgue. The police found a bloodstained scissors mate inside a podium located near the main entrance of the
bank. The head guard of the bank's security agency also reported that three .38 cal. revolvers and five 12 gauge
shotguns were missing from the guard rostrum.

At around 4:00 P.M., SPO3 Jamoralin and four other WPD policemen conducted a follow-up investigation. They learned
from Vargas that there was an on-going construction on the upper floors of the bank, and that Artellero and his
Rodriguez had access to the bank after office hours. SPO3 Jamoralin asked Vargas to accompany them to the barracks
of the construction workers where they saw Artellero at the ground floor of the construction site. On the third floor, they
saw Rodriguez, packing his personal belongings. When asked why he was packing, Rodriguez replied that he had
nothing more to do at the site. SPO3 Jamoralin and the other police officers saw a pair of worn-out maong pants on
Artellero's bed, which had reddish stains on the right leg. The police also saw reddish stains on Rodriguez's shirt.
Rodriguez explained that he had a wound on his neck. However, when the police examined his neck, they found no
wound. The police then arrested Rodriguez and Artellero and brought them to the police station for interrogation. The
police took the maong and t-shirt and had them examined by the Chemistry Section of NBI.

On October 15, 1991, Rodriguez executed a sworn statement confessing that he and Artellero together with one
Mendoza, and two other men whose names he did not know, killed Matias. Rodriguez was assisted by the Public
Attorneys Office.

On October 18, 1991, Artellero and Rodriguez were charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

Upon arraignment, Artellero and Rodriguez entered their respective pleas of not guilty.

After presentation of the prosecution's evidence, Artellero filed a Demurrer to the Evidence on the grounds that the
prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses were hearsay. Upon the Opposition of the public prosecutor, the trial court denied the demurrer for lack of
merit.

On the stand, both Rodriguez and Artellero admitted that they were provincemates from Masbate and co-workers in
the construction site. They slept inside the building on the night before the incident but denied any participation in the
killing. They claimed that they learned of the killing only on October 11, 1991, at around 7:00 A.M., when they saw
many people milling around the area. Rodriguez claimed that on the night of October 11, 1991, he was mauled by
policemen to confess to the crime. Artellero, on his part, testified that the policemen merely placed him outside the
room where Rodriguez was being interrogated, and that the police did not take any statement from him. He also denied
owning the maong pants which the police said were taken from his bed.

After due trial, the trial court rendered a decision finding Artellero and Rodriguez guilty of murder, instead of robbery
with homicide. The charge of Robbery with Homicide is dismissed it being not the proper charge. Both the accused are
acquitted from the charge of Robbery for insufficiency of evidence.

Both appealed. However, Rodriguez withdrew his appeal for financial reasons.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal taken by Artellero shall affect Rodriguez's conviction or acquittal despite withdrawal
of his appeal

HELD: Yes.

Although it is only Artellero who persisted with the present appeal, the well-established rule is that an appeal in a
criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review of all its aspects, including those not raised by the parties.
The records show that Rodriguez had withdrawn his appeal due to financial reasons. However, Section 11 (a) of Rule
122 of the Rules of Court provides that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who
did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellant court is favorable and applicable to the latter.

The resolution of the issue regarding the guilt of Artellero, in our view, hinges on whether the extrajudicial confession
of accused Rodriguez is admissible not only against himself but also against Artellero. We find that Rodriguez's
confession is constitutionally flawed so that it could not be used as evidence against them at all.

The four fundamental requisites for the admissibility of a confession are (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.

We find the second requisite lacking. Prosecution witness SPO3 Jamoralin testified that Artellero and Rodriguez were
arrested and brought to the police station at around 5:00 P.M. of October 11, 1991. The records show that the
extrajudicial confession of Rodriguez was taken down by Pat. Tuazon at 2:00 P.M. of October 15, 1991. Atty. Lao
confirmed on the stand that the police investigators called him at around 2:00 P.M. of October 15, 1991, and that he
conferred with the accused for about 10 minutes prior to the execution of the extrajudicial confession. Evidently,
Rodriguez and Artellero were detained for four days, but Atty. Lao of the PAO was called only on the fourth day of
detention when accused was about to put his confession in writing. Under the factual milieu, the moment Artellero and
Rodriguez were arrested and brought to the police station, they were already under custodial investigation.

An accused who is already under custodial investigation, should be accorded his rights under the Constitution.
The rights of persons under custodial investigation is enshrined in Article III, Section 12 of the 1987
Constitution

Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person as a suspect. When Rodriguez and Artellero were arrested
by the police in the afternoon of October 11, 1991, they were already the suspects in the slaying of the security guard,
Matias, and should have been afforded the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly the right to counsel. The
records do not show that Rodriguez and Artellero, at the time of their arrest in the afternoon of October 11, 1991, were
informed of the well-known Miranda rights. Worse, they were not provided with competent and independent counsel
during the custodial investigation prior to the execution of the extrajudicial confession.

Jurisprudence is clear that an accused under custodial investigation must continuously have a counsel assisting him
from the very start thereof. In this case, Rodriguez and Artellero were in the hands of the police for about four days
without the assistance of counsel. The operative act, it has been stressed, is when the police investigation is no longer
a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who has been taken into custody
by the police to carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminatory statements, and not the
signing by the suspect of his supposed extrajudicial confession. Admissions obtained during custodial investigation
without the benefit of counsel although later reduced to writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed
under the Constitution.

Moreover, so stringent is this requirement that even if the confession of an accused speaks the truth, if it was
made without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion,
or even if it had been voluntarily given.

Since the extrajudicial confession executed by Rodriguez was given in violation of the safeguards in Art. III,
Sec. 12 of the 1987 Constitution, we hold that Rodriguez's confession is totally inadmissible, and it was error
for the trial court to use it in convicting Rodriguez and Artellero.

Insofar as Rodriguez is concerned, the trial court relied on his extrajudicial confession in convicting him. Aside from
said extrajudicial confession, however, there is a dearth of evidence on record, whether direct or circumstantial, linking
Rodriguez to the commission of the crime.
As to Artellero, the trial court convicted him on the basis of two pieces of circumstantial evidence which show
conspiracy: (1) the extrajudicial confession of Rodriguez implicating him as one of the perpetrators and (2) the fact that
the maong pants allegedly belonging to Artellero was found positive of type O blood. The former being inadmissible
and the latter being of no probative value since the blood type of Artellero and the victim were not taken for purposes
of comparison, there remains nothing to support Artellero's conviction.

As pointed out by the OSG, even granting arguendo that the extrajudicial confession of Rodriguez was admissible,
Section 33 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that such confession is only admissible against the confessant.
In order to be admissible against his co-accused, Section 30 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court require there must be
independent evidence aside from the extrajudicial confession to prove conspiracy. In this case, however, no other piece
of evidence was presented to prove the alleged conspiracy.

As we have elucidated, the evidence against and the conviction of both Artellero and Rodriguez are inextricably
linked. Hence, Artellero's acquittal, which is favorable and applicable to Rodriguez, should benefit the latter.

The decision of the trial court was REVERSED. Artellero and Rodriguez are ACQUITTED.

People vs. Sucro

Pat. Roy fulgencio, a member of the INP Kalibo, Aklan was instructed by P/Lt Vicente Seraspi Jr., Station
commander, to monitor the activities of appellant. Fulgencio positioned himself to a house, adjacent of which i a
chapel. Fulgencio saw appellant enter the chapel taking something which turn out later to be marijuana from a
compartment of a cart found inside the chapel and return to the street where he handed the same to a buyer.

Fulgencio radioed Seraspi and reported the activity, Seraspi instructed Fulgencio to continue monitoring.

At about 6:30 PM Fulgencio again called up Sraspi to report the third buyer later identified as Ronnie
Macabante, was transacting with appellant.

At that point, the team seraspi proceeded to the area and fulgencio told seraspi to intercept Macabante and
Appellant. Team Seraspi caught up with macabante at a crossing. Upon seeing the police Macabante throw
something at the ground which turned to a tea bag of marijuana. Macabante admitted that he brought the same from
appellant. The police team was able to overtake and arrest appellant.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful

2. Whether or not the evidence resulting from arrest is admissible

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that under Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure for the instance
that arrest without warrant is considered lawful. – A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest
a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the
person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant
shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with
section 7 of Rule 112.
 An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer when the officer sees the offense,
although at the distance, or hears the disturbance created thereby and proceed at once at the scene – the act of
surveillance

Second requirement: the act of macabante, throwing of the marijuana and the admission, constitute that he
just committed an illegal act which the police officer had personal knowledge, being members of the team which
monitors Sucro’s nefarious activity

People vs bati – police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime when it had earlier
conducted surveillance activities.

Evidence - admissible because the arrest is valid

RONTOS v. PEOPLE

Facts: PO2 Masi dispatched PO1 Pacis and PO1 Labaclado of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Task Force to conduct
surveillance in Sampaloc St., Camarin, Caloocan City because of reports of illegal drug activity in the said area. Upon
coming closer, they saw that the plastic sachets appeared to contain a white crystalline substance similar to shabu. PO1
Pacis approached petitioner and confiscated the plastic sachets. Thereafter, he introduced himself as a police officer
and informed petitioner of the offense the latter had committed. The two police officers informed petitioner of his
constitutional rights, while he just remained silent. A Complaint for possession of dangerous drugs, Article II of R.A.
9165, was drawn up and referred to the city prosecutor for the filing of charges before the court.

The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the concurrence of all the elements of possession
of dangerous drugs. On appeal, The CA ruled that the question over the legality of the arrest was deemed waived by
petitioner when he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by entering a plea of "Not Guilty" and
participating in the trial of the case. In any case, the CA explained that while the arrest was without a warrant, it was
with probable cause since petitioner was arrested in flagrante delicto. He committed a crime in plain view of the police
officers, as he was spotted in the act of holding and examining plastic sachets containing shabu

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred when it held that the question of legality was deemed waived when petitioner
entered a plea of not guilty?

Held: No.

In his arraignment before the trial court, petitioner never raised any issue and instead "freely and voluntarily
pleaded Not Guilty to the offense charged." Thus, he was estopped from raising the issue of the legality of his arrest
before the trial court, more so on appeal before the CA or this Court. However, on the basis of the non-observance of
the rules of procedure for handling illegal drug items, we resolve to acquit petitioner on the ground of reasonable doubt.

In illegal drugs cases, the identity and integrity of the drugs seized must be established with the same
unwavering exactitude as that required to arrive at a finding of guilt. The case against the accused hinges on the
ability of the prosecution to prove that the illegal drug presented in court is the same one that was recovered from the
accused upon his arrest.