Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 128 views

    People v. Lauga

    Uploaded by

    Nichole John Uson
    - The appellant was accused of raping his daughter AAA. He argued that his extrajudicial confession to Moises Boy Banting, a bantay bayan, was inadmissible as it was obtained without the assistance of counsel in violation of his constitutional rights. - The Court ruled that the confession was inadmissible, as a bantay bayan can be considered a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying constitutional rights against self-incrimination. - However, the appellant was still found guilty based on the testimonies of AAA and BBB regarding the rape, as the inadmissible confession was not the sole basis for the conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Lauga

    Uploaded by

    Nichole John Uson
    128 views3 pages
    - The appellant was accused of raping his daughter AAA. He argued that his extrajudicial confession to Moises Boy Banting, a bantay bayan, was inadmissible as it was obtained without the assistance of counsel in violation of his constitutional rights. - The Court ruled that the confession was inadmissible, as a bantay bayan can be considered a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying constitutional rights against self-incrimination. - However, the appellant was still found guilty based on the testimonies of AAA and BBB regarding the rape, as the inadmissible confession was not the sole basis for the conviction.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - The appellant was accused of raping his daughter AAA. He argued that his extrajudicial confession to Moises Boy Banting, a bantay bayan, was inadmissible as it was obtained without the assistance of counsel in violation of his constitutional rights. - The Court ruled that the confession was inadmissible, as a bantay bayan can be considered a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying constitutional rights against self-incrimination. - However, the appellant was still found guilty based on the testimonies of AAA and BBB regarding the rape, as the inadmissible confession was not the sole basis for the conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    128 views3 pages

    People v. Lauga

    Uploaded by

    Nichole John Uson
    - The appellant was accused of raping his daughter AAA. He argued that his extrajudicial confession to Moises Boy Banting, a bantay bayan, was inadmissible as it was obtained without the assistance of counsel in violation of his constitutional rights. - The Court ruled that the confession was inadmissible, as a bantay bayan can be considered a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying constitutional rights against self-incrimination. - However, the appellant was still found guilty based on the testimonies of AAA and BBB regarding the rape, as the inadmissible confession was not the sole basis for the conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    PEOPLE v.

    ANTONIO LAUGA - Uson

    FACTS:

     AAA was left alone at home. AAAs father, the appellant, was having a drinking spree at the
    neighbors place. Her mother decided to leave because when appellant gets drunk, he has the
    habit of mauling AAAs mother. Her only brother BBB also went out in the company of some
    neighbors.
     At around 10:00 oclock in the evening, appellant woke AAA up; removed his pants, slid inside
    the blanket covering AAA and removed her pants and underwear; warned her not to shout for
    help while threatening her with his fist; and told her that he had a knife placed above her head.
    He proceeded to mash her breast, kiss her repeatedly, and inserted his penis inside her vagina.
     Soon after, BBB arrived and found AAA crying. Appellant claimed he scolded her for staying out
    late. BBB decided to take AAA with him. While on their way to their maternal grandmothers
    house, AAA recounted her harrowing experience with their father. Upon reaching their
    grandmothers house, they told their grandmother and uncle of the incident, after which, they
    sought the assistance of Moises Boy Banting.
     Moises Boy Banting found appellant in his house wearing only his underwear. He invited
    appellant to the police station, to which appellant obliged. At the police outpost, he admitted to
    him that he raped AAA because he was unable to control himself.
     On appeal, appellant argued that his extrajudicial confession before Moises Boy Banting was
    without the assistance of a counsel, in violation of his constitutional right

    RTC found appellant guilty

    CA affirmed

    ISSUE:

    I. Whether or not appellant’s extrajudicial confession before Moises Boy Banting was in violation of his
    constitutional right?

    II. Whether or not a bantay bayan may be deemed a law enforcement officer within the contemplation
    of Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution?

    RULING:

    I. YES, appellant’s extrajudicial confession before Moises Boy Banting was in violation of his
    constitutional right. Hence, inadmissible as evidence.

    The case of People v. Malnganis the authority on the scope of the Miranda doctrine provided for under
    Article III, Section 12(1) and (3) of the Constitution. In Malngan, appellant questioned the admissibility of
    her extrajudicial confessions given to the barangay chairman and a neighbor of the private complainant.
    This Court distinguished. Thus:
    Arguably, the barangay tanods, including the Barangay Chairman, in this particular instance, may be
    deemed as law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Article III, Section 12(1) and (3), of the
    Constitution. When accused-appellant was brought to the barangay hall in the morning of 2 January
    2001, she was already a suspect, actually the only one, in the fire that destroyed several houses x x x.
    She was, therefore, already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed by x x x [the]
    Constitution should have already been observed or applied to her. Accused-appellants confession to
    Barangay Chairman x x x was made in response to the interrogation made by the latter admittedly
    conducted without first informing accused-appellant of her rights under the Constitution or done in the
    presence of counsel. For this reason, the confession of accused-appellant, given to Barangay Chairman x
    x x, as well as the lighter found x x x in her bag are inadmissible in evidence against her x x x.

    [But such does] not automatically lead to her acquittal. x x x [T]he constitutional safeguards during
    custodial investigations do not apply to those not elicited through questioning by the police or their
    agents but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused verbally admits x x x as x x x in the case at
    bar when accused-appellant admitted to Mercedita Mendoza, one of the neighbors x x x [of the private
    complainant]. (Emphasis supplied)

    II. YES, a bantay bayan is a law enforcement officer within the contemplation of Article III, Section 12 of
    the Constitution.

    In People of the Philippines v. Buendia, this Court had the occasion to mention the nature of a bantay
    bayan, that is, a group of male residents living in [the] area organized for the purpose of keeping peace
    in their community[,which is] an accredited auxiliary of the x x x PNP.

    Also, it may be worthy to consider that pursuant to Section 1(g) of Executive Order No. 309 issued on 11
    November 1987, as amended, a Peace and Order Committee in each barangay shall be organized to
    serve as implementing arm of the City/Municipal Peace and Order Council at the Barangay level.[61] The
    composition of the Committee includes, among others: (1) the Punong Barangay as Chairman; (2) the
    Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan; (3) a Member of the Lupon Tagapamayapa; (4) a Barangay
    Tanod; and (5) at least three (3) Members of existing Barangay-Based Anti-Crime or neighborhood
    Watch Groups or a Non Government Organization Representative well-known in his community.

    This Court is, therefore, convinced that barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch
    groups, as in the case of the bantay bayan, are recognized by the local government unit to perform
    functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on
    the legality of the actions taken by Moises Boy Banting, and the specific scope of duties and
    responsibilities delegated to a bantay bayan, particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial
    investigation, any inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the
    entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the
    Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is concerned.
    We, therefore, find the extrajudicial confession of appellant, which was taken without a counsel,
    inadmissible in evidence.

    NOTE: Although, the extrajudicial confession was inadmissible, appellant was found guilty based on the
    testimonies of AAA and BBB.

    You might also like