SECOND DIVISION.

[G.R. No. L-71092. September 30, 1987.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANACLETO Q.

OLVIS, Acquitted, ROMULO VILLAROJO, LEONARDO CADEMAS and
DOMINADOR SORELA , accused-appellants.

DECISION

SARMIENTO , J : p

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court to Zamboanga Del Norte
sitting in Dipolog City. 1 The case was certified to this Court on January 19, 1985 following
the death sentences imposed on each of the three accused-appellants, Romulo Villarojo,
Leonardo Cademas, and Dominador Sorela (the accused first-named, Anacleto Olvis, was
acquitted), over which, under the Constitution then in force, 2 we exercised exclusive
appellate jurisdiction. 3 With the promulgation of the 1987 Charter, abolishing the death
penalty and commuting death penalties already imposed to reclusion perpetua, 4 we, on
May 14, 1987, issued a death penalty abolition resolution requiring the three accused-
appellants to file a statement, personally signed by them with the assistance of counsel,
stating whether or not they wished to continue with the case as an appealed case. 5 We
have since observed this procedure with respect to all pending capital cases. LLjur

In compliance with our resolution, the three accused-appellants, on May 28, 1987, filed a
statement informing us that they desire to continue with this case as an appealed case. 6
This appeal stemmed from an information dated November 11, 1976 charging all four
accused with the murder of Deosdedit Bagon. The same reads as follows:
xxx xxx xxx

The undersigned First Assistant Provincial Fiscal accuses ANACLETO Q. OLVIS,

as principal by inducement, ROMULO VILLAROJO, LEONARDO CADEMAS and
DOMINADOR SORELA, as principals by direct participation, of the crime of
murder, committed as follows:

That in the evening on or about the 7th day of September 1975, in the
Municipality of Polanco, Zamboanga del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring and confederating with
one another and acting upon the direction and instruction of ANACLETO Q. OLVIS
who master-minded the bizarre plot and directly induced ROMULO VILLAROJO,
LEONARDO CADEMAS and DOMINADOR SORELA to execute the conspiracy and
who, armed with boloes and a hunting knife, with intent to kill by means of
treachery and evident premeditation, and for a consideration of a price or reward,
did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack and
stab one DEOSDEDIT BAGON, thereby inflicting upon him multiple incised (hack)
and stab wounds which caused his instantaneous death.

CONTRARY TO LAW, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident

premeditation and the generic aggravating circumstances of superior strength,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 nighttime and in consideration of a price or reward. 7

xxx xxx xxx

The four accused entered identical "not guilty" pleas.

After trial, the court a quo rendered the decision under appeal, the dispositive portion
whereof reads as follows:
FOREGOING CONSIDERED, and on the part of accused ANACLETO Q. OLVIS, SR.,
there being no evidence, direct or indirect, whether testimonial, documentary or
physical evidence, that tend to establish his complicity in this case, said accused
has to be, as he hereby is, ACQUITTED.

On the part of the three (3) remaining accused ROMULO VILLAROJO, LEONARDO
CADEMAS, and DOMINADOR SORELA, the degree of moral, certainty establishing
their authorship of the crime is irreversibly positive. The three (3) accused
conspired and confederated with one another to successfully achieve their
ghastly, evil ends. Their guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Treachery and evident premeditation are qualifying circumstances in this case of

MURDER. But said offense was attended by the aggravating circumstances of
superior strength and nighttime. No mitigating circumstance has been shown to
offset the two (2) aggravating circumstances, as a consequence of which, the
Court hereby renders judgment sentencing the accused ROMULO VILLAROJO,
LEONARDO CADEMAS, and DOMINADOR SORELA, to suffer the maximum
penalty of DEATH.

The said accused are further sentenced to pay, jointly and severally, to the heirs of
the Murder victim, DEOSDEDIT BAGON, the sum of P12,000.00 as death
indemnity, P60,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 for exemplary damages,
and costs.

SO ORDERED." 8

We come to the facts.

On September 9, 1975, Alfredo and Estrella Bagon, brother and sister, arrived at the local
Integrated National Police station of Barrio Polanco, in Zamboanga del Norte, to report
their brother, Deosdedit Bagon, missing. The station commander, Captain Ruperto Encabo,
received their report.
Bagon had been in fact missing since two days before. He was last seen by his wife in the
afternoon of September 7, 1975, on his way home to Sitio Sebaca where they resided. She
did not, however, find him there when she arrived in the evening. She then set out to locate
him in three probable places, but her efforts were in vain.
It was Captain Encabo himself who led a search party to mount an inquiry. As a matter of
police procedure, the team headed off to Sitio Sebaca to question possible witnesses.
There, Captain Encabo's men chanced upon an unnamed volunteer, who informed them
that Deosdedit Bagon was last seen together with Dominador Sorela, one of the accused
herein. Encabo then instructed one of his patrolmen to pick up Sorela.
Sorela bore several scratches on his face, neck, and arms when the police found him.
According to him, he sustained those wounds while clearing his ricefield. Apparently
unconvinced. Captain Encabo had Sorela take them to the ricefield where he sustained his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 injuries. But half way there, Sorela allegedly broke down, and, in what would apparently
crack the case for the police, admitted having participated in the killing of the missing
Bagon. By then, the police of Polanco knew that they had a murder case in their hands.
Sorela allegedly confessed having been with Deosdedit Bagon, a friend of his, in the
evening of September 7, 1975 in Sitio Sebaca after some marketing. They were met by
Romulo Villarojo and Leonardo Cademas, Sorela's co-accused herein and likewise friends
of the deceased, who led them to a secluded place in the ricefields. It does not appear
from the records how the three were able to have the deceased join them. LLphil

It was then that Villarojo allegedly attacked Bagon with a bolo, hacking him at several parts
of the body until he, Bagon, was dead. Moments later, Sorela fled, running into thick cogon
grasses where he suffered facial and bodily scratches.
The police soon picked up Villarojo and Cademas. Together with Sorela, they were turned
over to the custody of Captain Encabo.
The police thereafter made the three re-enact the crime. Patrolman Dionisio Capito
directed Sorela to lead them to the grounds where Deosdedit Bagon was supposed to
have been buried. But it was Villarojo who escorted them to a watery spot somewhere in
the ricefields, where the sack covered, decomposing cadaver of Bagon lay in a shallow
grave.
The actual exhumation of the body of the victim was witnessed by Polanco policemen and
Civilian Home Defense Forces volunteers, numbering about thirty. The body was
transported to the Polanco municipal hall the following day, September 10, 1975. It was
displayed, morbidly, in front of the building where Mrs. Catalina Bagon, widow of the
deceased, and her four children viewed it. The exhumation, as well as the transfer of
Bagon's cadaver, were captured by the lens of a photographer. (Exhibits "I", "J", "K", "L", "M",
and "N").
The "ceremonies" continued in the parish church of the Polanco, where the body of the
victim was transferred. It was laid on the altar, in full public view. Again the proceedings
were recorded by the camera of a photographer. (Exhibits "Q", "R", "S".)
But it was only later on that the body itself was uncovered from the sack that had
concealed it. (Exhibits "T", "U", "V".) Thereupon, it was readied for autopsy.
The necropsy report prepared by the provincial health officer disclosed that the deceased
suffered twelve stab and hack wounds, six of which were determined to be fatal.
In the re-enactment, the suspects, the three accused herein, demonstrated how the victim
was boloed to death. Exhibit "Y," a photograph, shows the appellant Villarojo in the posture
of raising a bolo as if to strike another, while Solera and Cademas look on. Exhibit "X",
another photograph, portrays Villarojo in the act of concealing the murder weapon behind
a banana tree, apparently after having done the victim in.
The investigation yielded several effects of the offense: a twenty-inch long bolo, the shovel
used to inter the victim's remains, a nylon rope with which the dead body was tied, and the
sack itself.
Initial findings of investigators disclosed that the threesome of Solero, Villarojo, and
Cademas executed Deosdedit Bagon on orders of Anacleto Olvis, then Polanco municipal
mayor, for a reward of P3,000.00 each.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 While in custody, the three executed five separate written confessions each. The first
confessions were taken on September 9, 1975 in the local Philippine Constabulary
headquarters. The second were made before the Polanco police. On September 18, 1975,
the three accused reiterated the same confessions before the National Bureau of
Investigation Dipolog City sub-office. On September 21, 1975 and September 25, 1975,
they executed two confessions more, again before the Philippine Constabulary and the
police of Polanco.
In their confessions of September 9, 1975, September 14, 1975, September 21, 1975, and
September 25, 1975, the said accused again pointed to the then accused Anacleto Olvis as
principal by inducement, who allegedly promised them a reward of P3,000.00 each.
In their confessions of September 18, 1975, sworn before agents of the National Bureau of
Investigation, however, they categorically denied Olvis' involvement in the killing. We note
that the three were transported to the Dipolog City NBI sub-office following a request on
September 10, 1975 by Mrs. Diolinda O. Adaro, daughter of Olvis, and upon complaint by
her of harassment against her father by his supposed political enemies.

Based on these subsequent statements, the court a quo rendered separate verdicts on the
three accused on the one hand, and Anacleto Olvis on the other. As earlier stated Olvis was
acquitted, while the three were all sentenced to die for the crime of murder. prLL

In acquitting Olvis, the trial court rejected the three accused's earlier confessions pointing
to him as the mastermind, and denied the admissibility thereof insofar as far as he was
concerned. It rejected claims of witnesses that the three accused-appellants would carry
out Olvis' alleged order to kill Bagon upon an offer of a reward when in fact no money
changed hands. It likewise noted that Olvis had, two days after the murder, been in Cebu
City, and who, upon arriving in Dipolog City, was in fact informed by the Philippine
Constabulary that he was a "wanted" man, "to which said accused (Olvis) meekly complied"
9 (that is, he assented, ambiguously, to the remark). According to the court, this was
inconsistent with a guilty mind. LibLex

The court repudiated claims that Olvis had motives to do away with the deceased arising
from alleged attempts on his (Olvis') part to eject the deceased from his landholding (the
deceased having been a tenant of his), the case in fact having reached the then Ministry of
Agrarian Reform. It dismissed insinuations that his children had a score to settle with the
victim, who had earlier brought a physical injuries suit against the former, that case having
been dismissed. It observed, furthermore, that he was not questioned by the police after
the killing, notwithstanding efforts by the three herein accused-appellants to implicate him.
It relied, finally, on the retraction of the accused themselves, absolving Olvis of any liability.
It was satisfied, overall, that he had a "clean bill of health" 1 0 in connection with the murder
case. cdphil

With the acquittal of Olvis, we are left with the murder cases against the three accused-
appellants. The accused-appellants subsequently repudiated their alleged confessions in
open court alleging threats by the Polanco investigators of physical harm if they refused to
"cooperate" in the solution of the case. They likewise alleged that they were instructed by
the Polanco police investigators to implicate Anacleto Olvis in the case. They insisted on
their innocence. The accused Romulo Villarojo averred, specifically, that it was the
deceased who had sought to kill him, for which he acted in self-defense.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 The murder of Deosdedit Bagon was witnessed by no other person. The police of Polanco
had but the three accused-appellants' statements to support its claims. The fundamental
issue then is whether or not these statements, as any extrajudicial confession confronting
us, can stand up in court.
We hold that, based on the recorded evidence, the three accused-appellants' extrajudicial
confessions are inadmissible in evidence.
It was on May 7, 1987 that we promulgated People v. Decierdo. 1 1 In that decision, we laid
down the rule with respect to extrajudicial confessions:
xxx xxx xxx
". . . Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to
remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against
him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or
appointed. The defendant, may waive effectuation of those rights, provided the
waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in
any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an
attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual
is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, so
police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some
questions or voluteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the
right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an
attorney and thereafter consent to be questioned."
xxx xxx xxx

In People v. Duero, we added:

xxx xxx xxx

"At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must

first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain
silent.
"For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed simply to make them
aware of it — the threshold requirement for an intelligent decision as to its
exercise.
"More important, such a warning is an absolute pre-requisite in overcoming the
inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere ..
"Further, the warning will show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to
recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it ..
"The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the
explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in
court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege,
but also of the consequences of foregoing it . . .

"An individual need not make a pre-interrogation request for a lawyer. While such
request affirmatively secures his right to have one, his failure to ask for a lawyer
does not constitute a waiver. No effective waiver of the right to counsel during
interrogation can be recognized unless specifically made after the warnings we
here delineate have been given. The accused who does not know his rights and
therefore does not make a request may be the person who most needs counsel . .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 .

"If an individual indicates that he wishes the assistance of counsel before any
interrogation occurs, the authorities cannot rationally ignore or deny his request
on the basis that the individual does not have or cannot afford a retained attorney
..
"In order fully to apprise a person interrogated the extent of his rights under this
system then, it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult
with an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to
represent him . . .

"Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clears. If the
individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that
he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease . . . If the individual
cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to
policy, they must respect his decision to remain silent . . .

"If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a

statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that
the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-
incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel . . ." 1 2

xxx xxx xxx

Like the Decierdo confessions, the confessions in the case at bar suffer from a
Constitutional infirmity. In their supposed statements dated September 9, 14, and 21,
1975, the accused-appellants were not assisted by counsel when they "waived" their rights
to counsel. As we said in Decierdo, the lack of counsel "makes [those] statement[s], in
contemplation of law, 'involuntary,' even if it were otherwise voluntary, technically." 1 3
With respect to the confessions of September 18, 1975, while it is stated therein that "
[t]his Office had just requested the services of Atty. NARVARO VELAR NAVARRO of the
Citizens Legal Assistance Office, Department of Justice, Dipolog District Office, are you
willing to accept the legal assistance of Atty. NAVARRO to handle your case," 1 4 the same
nonetheless call for a similar rejection. There is nothing there that would show that Atty.
Navarro was the accused-appellants' counsel of choice (specifically, the appellant Romulo
Villarojo who admitted therein having been the bolo-wielder). On the contrary, it is clear
therefrom that Atty. Navarro was summoned by the NBI. He cannot therefore be said to
have been acting on behalf of the accused-appellants when he lent his presence at the
confession proceedings. What we said in People v. Galit, 1 5 applies with like force here:
No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of
counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or
appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone
on his behalf. 1 6

We cast aside, for the same reason, the confessions of September 25, 1975.
But the accused-appellants were denied their right to counsel not once, but twice. We refer
to the forced re-enactment of the crime the three accused were made to perform shortly
after their apprehension.
Forced re-enactments, like uncounselled and coerced confessions come within the ban
against self-incrimination. The 1973 Constitution, the Charter prevailing at the time of the
proceedings below, says:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 1 7

This constitutional privilege has been defined as a protection against testimonial

compulsion, 1 8 but this has since been extended to any evidence "communicative in nature"
1 9 acquired under circumstances of duress. Essentially, the right is meant to avoid and
prohibit positively the repetition and recurrence of the certainly inhuman procedure of
compelling a person, in a criminal or any other case, to furnish the missing evidence
necessary for his conviction." 2 0 This was the lesson learned from the ancient days of the
inquisition in which accusation was equivalent to guilt. 2 1 Thus, an act, whether testimonial
or passive, that would amount to disclosure of incriminatory facts is covered by the
inhibition of the Constitution.
This should be distinguished, parenthetically, from mechanical acts the accused is made
to execute not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical attributes
determinable by simple observation. This includes requiring the accused to submit to a
test to extract virus from his body, 2 2 or compelling him to expectorate morphine from his
mouth, 2 3 or making her submit to a pregnancy test 2 4 or a footprinting test, 2 5 or requiring
him to take part in a police lineup in certain cases. 2 6 In each case, the accused does not
speak his guilt. It is not a prerequisite therefore that he be provided with the guiding hand
of counsel. LibLex

But a forced re-enactment is quite another thing. Here, the accused is not merely required
to exhibit some physical characteristics; by and large, he is made to admit criminal
responsibility against his will. It is a police procedure just as condemnable as an
uncounselled confession.
Accordingly, we hold that an evidence based on such a re-enactment to be in violation of
the Constitution and hence, incompetent evidence.
It should be furthermore observed that the three accused-appellants were in police
custody when they took part in the re-enactment in question. It is under such
circumstances that the Constitution holds a strict application. As for the accused
Dominador Sorela, we cannot accept the trial judge's finding that he acted "with
unexpected spontaneity" 2 7 when he allegedly "spilled the beans" 2 8 before the law
enforcers on September 9, 1975. What is to be borne in mind is that Sorela was himself
under custody. Any statement he might have made thereafter is therefore subject to the
Constitutional guaranty.
By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after
a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way. 2 9
We indeed doubt whether Sorela's admissions, under the circumstances, were truly his
voluntary statements. Chavez v. Court of Appeals 3 0 tells us:
Compulsion as it is understood here does not necessarily connote the use of
violence; it may be the product of unintentional statements. Pressure which
operates to overbear his will, disable him from making a free and rational choice,
or impair his capacity for rational judgment would in our opinion be sufficient. So
is moral coercion "tending to force testimony from the unwilling lips of the
defendant." 3 1

In such a case, he should have been provided with counsel.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Indeed, the three accused-appellants had languished in jail for one year and two months
before the information was filed, and only after they had gone to court on an application
for habeas corpus. For if the authorities truly had a case in their hands, we are puzzled why
they, the accused, had to be made to suffer preventive imprisonment for quite an
enormous length of time. Cdpr

What is more, there are striking aspects in the case that we find distressing. For one, there
was no trace of grief upon the faces of the deceased's bereaved relatives, more so his
widow and children, upon witnessing his cadaver — wrapped in a sack and all — although it
was supposedly the first time that they saw his remains after two days of frantic search.
3 2 Exhibits "K", "L", "M", "N", and "R", for another, depict the deceased's relatives in fixed
poses, while the deceased's corpse lay in the foreground. 3 3
Moreover, the victim was transferred to the municipal hall building and then subsequently,
to the parish church, again, for a photographing session — an unusual procedure — when
the perfunctory police procedure should have been to bring the corpse to the health officer
for autopsy.
It was in fact only on September 10, 1975 that Deosdedit Bagon's remains were
unwrapped, at the parish church at that, as if pursuant to a script or as part of some eerie
ceremony.
To the mind of this Court, the disposition of the case was characterized by unusual
grandstanding, for reasons as yet unclear to us. It leaves us with an uncomfortable
impression that each scene was an act in some contrived tragedy.
We likewise find the authorities' haste in securing the accused Anacleto Olvis' acquittal, at
the expense of the present three accused, quite disconcerting. It should be noted that the
three appellants had initially implicated Olvis as the mastermind. Yet, Olvis was never
invited for the usual questioning.
To us, there is more to Exhibit "20," the request to transfer Olvis' case to the jurisdiction of
the National Bureau of Investigation for reinvestigation, than meets the eye. As it
happened, happily for Olvis, the three accused-appellants while under NBI custody,
retracted their earlier statements indicting him as a co-conspirator. Why the NBI should
intervene in the case when the Polanco police had apparently "solved" it, is, in the first
place, suspicious enough, but why the three appellants should, in an instant, make a turn-
about there leaves us even more disturbed. LLjur

While we do not challenge the verdict of acquittal rendered in favor of Olvis, for it is not
within our power to overturn acquittals, 3 4 what is our concern is the apparent design to
use three ill-lettered peasants, 3 5 the three herein accused, as fall guys in an evident
network of political intrigue.
Still, we are not prepared to hand down a judgment of acquittal upon all the three accused-
appellants.
In his counter-affidavit, 3 6 marked as Exhibit "44-A" for the defense, the accused Romulo
Villarojo admitted hacking the victim to death with a bolo. He stressed, however, that he
did so in self-defense. ("[H]e pulled out a hunting knife in order to stab me and in order also
to defend my body, I hack[ed] him.") 3 7 He completely absolved his co-accused Dominador
Sorela and Leonardo Cademas from any liability.
Villarojo's admission inflicting the fatal wounds upon the deceased is binding on him. 3 8
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 But it is still our business to see whether his defense can stand scrutiny.
The records will disclose that the deceased suffered twelve assorted wounds caused by a
sharp instrument. The assault severed his right hand and left his head almost separated
from his body. This indicates a serious intent to kill, rather than self-defense. 3 9
In finding that Villarojo did take the life of the victim, we cannot, however, appreciate
superior strength or nocturnity. These qualifying circumstances were considered by the
court a quo on the basis of the extrajudicial statements executed by the accused,
statements we reject for the reasons earlier discussed. In the absence of any other proof,
the severity and number of wounds sustained by the deceased are not, by themselves,
sufficient proof to warrant the appreciation of the generic aggravating circumstance of
abuse of superior strength. Hence, Villarojo should be liable for plain homicide. LLjur

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered modifying the Decision dated November 30,
1984. The accused-appellants Leonardo Cademas and Dominador Sorela are ACQUITTED
on the ground of reasonable doubt. The accused-appellant Romulo Villarojo is found guilty
of homicide, and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one
day of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of
reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is furthermore ordered to indemnify the heirs of
Deosdedit Bagon in the sum of P30,000.00.
No special pronouncement as to costs.
Yap (Chairman), Paras and Padilla, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring with reservations:

I concur on the ground that the extrajudicial confessions of the accused are inadmissible
for having been uncounselled. But I have reservations regarding the generalization that re-
enactments performed while suspects are under police custody should be considered as
"forced." The effect of this pronouncement would be to tie the hands of investigating
authorities unduly and make it extremely difficult for them to gather evidence to support a
criminal charge. It should be up to the Courts to determine whether a re-enactment was
voluntarily staged or not. Cdpr

Footnotes

1. Branch VI; the Honorable Simplicio Apalisok, presiding Judge.

2. CONST. (1973), Art. X, Sec. 5(2) (d).
3. People v. Daniel, No. L-40330, November 20, 1978, 86 SCRA 511 (1978).

4. CONST. (1987), Art. III, Sec. 19(1).

5. Rollo, 132.
6. Id., 135.
7. Record, 26-27.
8. Rollo, id., 54-55.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 9. Id., 49.
10. Id., 50.
11. G.R. No. 46956, May 7, 1987.
12. At 10-13.

13. Supra, at 18.

14. Record, id., 21.
15. No. L-51770, March 20, 1985, 135 SCRA 465 (1985).
16. At 554.
17. CONST. (1973), Art. IV, Sec. 20.

18. Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920).

19. Schmerber v. California, 384 US 757, 16 L ed 2d 908, 86 S Ct 1826.
20. Bermudez v. Castillo, 64 Phil. 483 (1937).
21. See supra, Laurel, J., Concurring.

22. U.S. v. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145 (1912).

23. U.S. v. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 (1917).
24. Villaflor v. Summers, supra.
25. U.S. v. Salas, 25 Phil. 337 (1913); U.S. v. Zara, 42 Phil. 308 (1921).
26. United States v. Wade, 388 US 218, 18 L ed 2d 1146, 87 S Ct 1926.

27. Rollo, id., 36.

28. Id.
29. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 16 L ed 2d 694, 86 S Ct 1602.
30. No. L-29169, August 19, 1968, 24 SCRA 663 (1968).
31. At 679.

32. See Exhibits "K", "L", "M", and "N," record, id., 11-12.
33. Id., 11-13.
34. CONST. (1973), Art. IV, Sec. 22; RULES OF COURT, Rule 122, Sec. 2.
35. See record, id., 36-c, 54-A, 71-A.

36. id., 85-86.

37. Id., 85.
38. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, sec. 22.
39. People v. Rosario, No. L-46161, February 25, 1985, 134 SCRA 496 (1985); People v.
Gamut, No. L-34517, November 2, 1982, 118 SCRA 35 (1982); People v. Anies, No. L-
30882, October 29, 1982, 117 SCRA 974 (1982).R
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com