381 SCRA 31 (2002)
TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU M TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU University College of Law
Facts: A dead body of an 11-year-old girl Genelyn Camacho was found. The one who caused its discovery was accused-appellant Baloloy himself, who claimed that he had caught sight of it while he was catching frogs in a nearby creek. At Genelyn’s wake, Brgy. Captain Ceniza asked Baloloy why his rope was found where Genelyn’s body was discovered. He answered, ““I have to claim this as my rope because I can commit sin to God if I will not claim this as mine because this is mine.” Baloloy told Ceniza that his intention was only to frighten the girl, not to molest and kill her. When Genelyn ran away, he chased her. As to how he raped her, Baloloy told Ceniza that he first inserted his fingers into GENELYN’s vagina and then raped her.
Thereafter, he threw her body into the ravine.
After such confession, Ceniza examined his body and found a wound on his right shoulder, as well as abrasions and scratches on other parts of his body. Upon further inquiry, Baloloy told her that the wound on his shoulder was caused by the bite of Genelyn. Ceniza then turned over Baloloy to a policeman for his own protection, as the crowd became unruly when she announced to them that Baloloy was the culprit. He was forthwith brought to the police headquarters.
Ceniza informed him the police officer that Baloloy was the suspect in the killing of Genelyn, and she turned over to him a black rope which belonged to Baloloy. He wanted to interrogate Baloloy, but Ceniza cautioned him not to proceed with his inquiry because the people around were getting unruly and might hurt Baloloy. He immediately brought Baloloy to the police station, and on that same day, he took the affidavits of the witnesses.
Judge. Dicon said that when he arrived in his office, several people, including Ceniza, were already in his courtroom. He learned that they came to swear to their affidavits before him.
After reading the affidavit of Ceniza, he asked Ceniza whether her statements were true.
Ceniza answered in the affirmative and pointed to Baloloy as the culprit. Judge Dicon turned to him and asked him whether the charge against him was true. He replied: “I was demonized”. While Judge Dicon realized that he should not have asked him as to the truthfulness of the allegations against him, he felt justified in doing so because the latter was not under custodial investigation. Judge Dicon thus proceeded to ask Baloloy whether he had a daughter as old as the victim and whether he was aware of what he had done to the girl Again, Baloloy responded that he was demonized, and he spontaneously narrated that after he struck Genelyn’s head with a stone he dropped her body into the precipice.
Issue: WON the extrajudicial confession of Baloloy to Ceniza is admissible in evidence.
Ruling: In the case at bar, there is merit in Baloloy’s claim that his constitutional rights during custodial investigation were violated by Judge Dicon when the latter propounded to him incriminating questions without informing him of his constitutional rights. It is settled that at the
moment the accused voluntarily surrenders to, or is arrested by, the police officers, the custodial investigation is deemed to have started. So, he could not thenceforth be asked about his complicity in the ofense without the assistance of counsel. Judge Dicon’s claim that no complaint has yet been filed and that neither was he conducting a preliminary investigation deserves scant consideration. The fact remains that at that time JUANITO was already under the custody of the police authorities, who had already taken the statement of the witnesses who were then before Judge Dicon for the administration of their oaths on their statements.
Moreover, contrary to what the police officer claims that Baloloy was not arrested but was rather brought to the police headquarters for his protection, the records reveal that he was in fact arrested. If indeed Baloloy’s safety was the primordial concern of the police authorities, the need to detain and deprive him of his freedom of action would not have been necessary. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an ofense, and it is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested, or by his submission to the person making the arrest. At any rate, while it is true that his extrajudicial confession before Judge Dicon was made without the advice and assistance of counsel and hence inadmissible in evidence, it could however be treated as a verbal admission of the accused, which could be established through the testimonies of the persons who heard it or who conducted the investigation of the accused.
PEOPLE vs. ENDINO 352 SCRA 307 (2001)
Facts: For a murder that took place in Palawan, policemen arrested accused in Antipolo. On their way to the airport, they stopped at ABS-CBN television station where reporters interviewed accused. Video footages were taken that showed accused admitting his guilt. The interview was shown over ABS-CBN evening news program TV Patrol? Is the video footage admissible in evidence?
Ruling: Yes. The confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not given to police officers but to media men. However, because of inherent danger in the use of the television as a medium for admitting one’s guilt, and the recurrence of the phenomenon in several cases, it is prudent that trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions. For all probability, the police, with the connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners, may attempt to legitimize coerced confessions and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an ofense on television. Courts 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 scrutinized.
TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU M TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU University College of Law
PEOPLE vs. TABOGA 376 SCRA 505 (2002)
Facts: Accused was charged with Robbery with Homicide, as well as Arson, for robbing and killing an old woman and burning her house. After he was arrested, he was interviewed by a radio reporter inside the investigation room of the police station were policemen were present. The radio announcer informed him at the outset that he was a reporter who will be interviewing him to get side of the incident. During the interview, he admitted authorship of the crimes. Is his confession admissible?
Ruling: Yes. The confession made by the accused did not form part of custodial investigation. It was not given to police officers but to a media man in an apparent attempt to elicit sympathy. There is nothing in the record to show that the radio announcer colluded with the police authorities to elicit inculpatory evidence against accused. Nether is there anything on record which even remotely suggests that the radio announcer was instructed by the police to extract information from him on the details of the crimes. Thus, assistance of counsel is not required.
PEOPLE vs. MALNGAN 503 SCRA 204 (2006)
Facts: Malngan was accused of burning her employer’s house. She was apprehended by the Brgy. Chairman and the tanods and brought her to the Barangay Hall. Upon inspection, a disposable lighter was found inside Malngan’s bag. Thereafter, she confessed to Bernardo in the presence of multitudes of angry residents that she set her employer’s house on fire because she had not been paid her salary for about a year and that she wanted to go home to her province but her employer told her to just ride a broomstick in going home.
Malngan was then turned over to arson investigators headed by SFO4 Danilo Talusan, who brought her to the San Lazaro Fire Station in Sta. Cruz, Manila where she was further investigated and then detained. When interviewed by a reporter of ABS-CBN Network, Malngan while under detention was heard by SFO4 Talusan as having admitted the crime and even narrated the manner how she accomplished it. He was able to hear the same confession, this time at his home, while watching the television program “True Crime” hosted by Gus Abelgas also of ABS-CBN Network. Hence, she was charged with the crime of arson with multiple homicide.
Issue: WON the testimony of SF04 Talusan is inadmissible for being a hearsay.
Ruling: The SC ruled that although the testimony of SFO4 Talusan is a hearsay because he was not present when Gus Abelgas interviewed Malngan, it may nevertheless be admitted in evidence as
an independently relevant statement to establish not the truth but the tenor of the statement or the fact that the statement was made. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, the fact that such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.”
BPI vs. CASA MONTESSORI, YABUT 430 SCRA 261 (2004)
Facts: Casa opened an account with BPI. BPI discovered that 9 checks were encashed by Sonny Santos, a fictitious name used by Yabut, external auditor of Casa. Casa filed a complaint for collection with damages against BPI.
Issue: WON the voluntary admission of Yabut violated his constitutional rights on custodial investigation.
Ruling: He was not under custodial investigation.
His affidavit was executed in private and before private individuals. To fall within the ambit of Sec.
12, there must be an arrest or a deprivation of freedom. It does not apply to spontaneous statements made in a voluntary manner whereby an individual orally admits to authorship of a crime. What the constitution proscribes is the compulsory or coercive disclosure of incriminating facts. 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.
ASTUDILLO and ORELLANA vs. PEOPLE 509 SCRA 509 (2006)
Facts: Petitioners were hired by Western Marketing Corporation, a chain of appliance stores, as salespersons. It was found out later on that the daily cash collection report did not reflect any remittance of payments from the transactions covered by certain invoices. It was also discovered that Flormarie was the one who filled it up and received the payment reflected therein and that the goods covered thereby were missing. Concluding that the transactions under the said invoices were made but no payment was remitted to Western, the accountant reported the matter to the branch manager. Benitez and Orellana pleaded with them not to report the matter to the management. Flormarie made a similar plea as she admitted to stealing the missing booklet of invoices, she explaining that her father was sick and had to undergo medical operation, and ofering to pay for the goods covered thereby. In a subsequent meeting with Lily, Orellana admitted having brought home some appliances while Benitez gave a handwritten statement asking for apology and explaining why there was a “short-over”. In a still subsequent meeting with the representative of
TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU M TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU TAU MU University College of Law
Western, Orellana made a written statement in the former’s presence stating that she will not repeat what she did when she brought items outside the establishment. Also in a meeting with the representative, Astudillo, who was earlier implicated by Flormarie’s husband in his telephone conversation with the branch manager, wrote in her written statement her apology and her regrets for what she did. Flormarie subsequently appeared before a notary public to execute a similar statement. She later executed a statement before SPO1 Gregorio.
In an inventory of stocks conducted at the branch office of Western, several other appliances were found missing as were unauthorized deductions from the cash collections. The total missing merchandise was valued at P797,984.00 as reflected in the inventory report. And discrepancies between the actual sales per cash sales invoice and the cash remittance to the company in the sum of P34,376.00 were also discovered, prompting Western to initiate the criminal complaints for Qualified Theft.
Issue: WON the employees’ extra-judicial admissions taken before an employer in the course of an administrative inquiry are admissible in a criminal case filed against them.
Ruling: In the case at bar, petitioners were not under custodial investigation to call for the presence of counsel of their own choice, hence, their written incriminatory statements are admissible in evidence. The extra-judicial confession before the police of Flormarie in which she incriminated petitioners bears a diferent complexion, however, as it was made under custodial investigation. When she gave the statement, the investigation was no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but had begun to focus on a particular suspect. The records show that the accountant had priorly reported the thievery to the same police authorities and identified Flormarie and Benitez as initial suspects.
It is always incumbent upon the prosecution to prove at the trial that prior to in-custody questioning, the confessant was informed of his constitutional rights. The presumption of regularity of official acts does not prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. Hence, in the absence of proof that the arresting officers complied with these constitutional safeguards, extrajudicial statements, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, made during custodial investigation are inadmissible and cannot be considered in the adjudication of a case. In other words, confessions and admissions in violation of Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution are inadmissible in evidence against the declarant and more so against third persons. This is so even if such statements are gospel truth and voluntarily given.
There is nothing on record, however, buttressing petitioners’ claim other than their self-serving assertion. The presumption that no
person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience such that it is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved thus stands. Only Astudillo was acquitted.
SEBASTIAN V. GARCHITORENA