1 In Re: Query of Mr. Roger PrioreschiA.M. No. 09-6-9-SCAugust 19, 2009

Facts:

In his letter dated May 22, 2009 addressed to the Chief Justice, Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi, administrator of the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., questioned OCA Circular No. 42-2005 and Rule 141 of the Rules of Court of the Philippines that reserve the privilege of exemption from docket and filing fees to indigent persons. He questioned why the rules excluded foundations or associations that work with and for the most Indigent persons, as in the case of the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc. which had been reaching out since 1985 to the poorest among the poor, the newly born and abandoned babies, children who never saw the smile of their mother, old people who cannot afford a few pesos to pay for common prescriptions, broken families who returned to a normal life, whom the Philippine Government and the Filipino society could not reach to or had rejected or abandoned.

To answer the query of Mr. Prioreschi, the Supreme Court held that it could not grant to foundations like the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc. the same exemption from payment of legal fees granted to indigent litigants even if the foundations are working for indigent and underprivileged people. The basis for the exemption from legal and filing fees is the free access clause, embodied in Sec. 11, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that free access to the courts and quasi judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Held:

In implementation of the right of free access under the Constitution, the Supreme Court promulgated rules, specifically, Sec. 21, Rule 3, Rules of Court, and Sec. 19, Rule 141, Rules of Court.

The Court held that the clear intent and precise language of the aforequoted provisions of the Rules of Court indicated that only a natural party litigant may be regarded as an indigent litigant. The Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., being a corporation invested by the State with a juridical personality separate and distinct from that of its members, is a juridical person. Among others, it has the power to acquire and possess property of all kinds as well as incur obligations and bring civil or criminal actions, in conformity with the laws and regulations of their organization. As a juridical person, it cannot be accorded the exemption from legal and filing fees granted to indigent litigants.

The Court stated that the free access clause of the Constitution applies only to a natural person who suffers from poverty. It added that extending the exemption to a juridical person on the ground that it works for indigent and underprivileged people may be prone to abuse (even with the imposition of rigid documentation requirements), particularly by corporations and entities bent on circumventing the rule on payment of the fees and that the scrutiny of compliance with the documentation requirements may prove too time-consuming and wasteful for the courts.

2 HO WAI PANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No. 176229October 19, 2011

FACTS:

When Gilda Cinco search the bag of Ho Wai Pang in the Baggage Declaration at the arrival area, she found boxes of chocolate which when she saw inside had white substance. They were then brought to the PNP after the procedures in the airport.

The RTC found Pang guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The CA while affirming the RTC decision took note that their right to counsel during custodial investigation was violated.

ISSUE: Whether the violation of the petitioner's right to counsel made the evidence taken from the petitioner inadmissible.

RULING:

The SC held in the negative. The SC reiterated that infractions to the accused during the custodial investigation render only extrajudicial confession or admissions of the suspect inadmissible as evidence.

Also, the guilt of Pang was based on the testimony of Cinco when she caught Pang in flagrante delicto transporting shabu.

3 Gamboa v CruzG.R. No. L-56291June 27, 1988

Facts: Petitioner was arrested for vagrancy without a warrant. During a line-up of 5 detainees including petitioner, he was identified by a complainant to be a companion in a robbery, thereafter he was charged. Petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit on the ground that the conduct of the line-up, without notice and in the absence of his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. The court denied said motion. Hearing was set, hence the petition.

Issue: Whether or Not petitioners right to counsel and due process violated.

Held: No. The police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, petitioner was not yet entitled, at such stage, to counsel. He had not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. The moment there is a move or even an urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel.

On the right to due process, petitioner was not, in any way, deprived of this substantive and constitutional right, as he was duly represented by a counsel. He was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense; only that he chose not to, and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. What due process abhors is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.

4 People v MacamG.R. Nos. 91011-12November 24, 1994

Facts: Accused was charged and prosecuted for robbery with homicide as guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Defense assails the court decision contending the constitutional rights of the accused were violated for subjecting them to a police line up at the hospital where they were identified by the victims without the presence of their counsel and without any warrant.

Issue: Whether or not the constitutional rights of the accused were violated.

Held: Although the accused were arrested without a warrant such defect was cured during the proceeding when the defense failed to object on the issue during the initial proceedings before the court. Having failed to assail the issue beforehand the accused is estopped to assail the validity of their arrest as they further voluntarily submitted their self before the court by entering the plea of not guilty instead of moving to quash the information before the court on ground of an invalid arrest. It is also held that any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. HOWEVER, the prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellants identification at the line-up. The witnesses identified the accused again in open court. Also, accused did not object to the in-court identification as being tainted by illegal line-up. The witnesses and victims positively identified the accused thereby further affirming the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. SC affirmed the decision of the lower court.

5 People v Judge AysonG.R. No. 85215July 7, 1989

Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines and was allegedly involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. The PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted. That investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. A letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle the amount of P76,000. The findings of the Audit team were given to him, and he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was prevented from settling said amounts. He proffered a compromise however this did not ensue. Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not guilty. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos written admission and statement, to which defendants argued that the confession was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. Respondent Judge did not admit those stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. A motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was denied. Hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as evidence the admission and statement of accused.

Held: No. The judge should admit the evidence in court as the accused was not under custodial investigation when his statements were taken. One cannot invoke violation of the right to counsel in administrative proceeding. The right to self incrimination and custodial investigation are accorded only when the accused is subjected to custodial inquest which involves the questioning initiated by police authorities after a person is taken in custody or deprived of his freedom in any way. Because the statements were obtained beyond the purview of custodial investigation the evidence should be admitted in court.

6 People v PinlacG.R. Nos. 74123-24September 26, 1988

Facts: The accused was convicted for two separate criminal cases for robbery and robbery with homicide. He assailed his conviction on the contention that the court erred in admitting his extrajudicial confession as evidence which was taken by force, violence, torture, and intimidation without having appraised of his constitutional rights and without the assistance of counsel.

Issue: Whether or not due process was observed during the custodial investigation of the accused.

Held: The court find it meritorious to declare that the constitutional rights of the accused was violated in the failure of the authorities in making the accused understand the nature of the charges against him without appraising him of his constitutional right to have a counsel during custodial investigation. Moreover the prosecution merely presented the extrajudicial confession of the accused which is inadmissible as evidence and the other evidences provided therein are merely circumstantial and subject for rebuttal. The court acquitted the accused.

7 People v BolanosG.R. No. 101808July 3, 1992

Facts: Police authorities arrested the accused for murder. Together with the accused the police boarded a jeep to take him to their station. While on board the jeep the accused started admitting killing the deceased. This extrajudicial confession was used as evidence in court and the accused was convicted.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel.

Held: Yes. The accused on board the police vehicle on the way to the police station is already under custodial investigation and should therefore be accorded his rights under the Constitution and be informed of his Miranda rights. Any extrajudicial confession he makes without his counsel is deemed inadmissible to court.

8 People vs. Pablito AndanG.R. No. 116437March 3, 1997

Re.: Extrajudicial Confessions to Mayor and Media Admissible

Facts:

Pablito Andan alias "Bobby" was accused of the crime of rape with homicide. The offense was committed on February 19,1994 in Baliuag, Bulacan; the victim being Marianne Guevarra, 22 and a 2nd year student at the Fatima School of Nursing. On said day, victim left her home for her school dormitory in Valenzuela. While on her way, appellant invited her to his house. He used the pretext that the blood pressure of his wife's grandmother should be taken. Marianne agreed to do so as the old woman was her distant relative. She did not know that nobody was inside the house. Appellant then punched her in the abdomen, brought her to the kitchen and raped her. By night time, Marianne, who was still unconscious, was dragged by appellant to theirbackyard that was adjacent to a vacant lot. Appellant was to transfer Marianne to the vacant lot when she moved, promptingappellant to hit her head with a piece of concrete block. No longer moving, he dragged her to the lot and abandoned her. At 11amher body was discovered. The autopsy revealed that she died of "traumatic injuries."Marianne's gruesome death drew public attention and prompted Baliuag Mayor Cornelio Trinidad to form an investigationteam. The investigation pointed to the appellant. Appellant's nearby house was searched but he was not there. On February 24, apolice team led by Mayor Trinidad traced appellant in his parents' house. They took him and brought him to the police headquarterswhere he was interrogated. Initially, he denied any knowledge of Marianne's death. However, when the police confronted himwith evidence, appellant relented but implicated two of his neighbours, and that he was merely a lookout. Larin and Dizon werelikewise brought there by the police. The following day a physical examination conducted on the suspects revealed that appellanthas multiple scratches on the neck, chest and back.By that time, people and media representatives were already at the police headquarters awaiting the results of theinvestigation. Mayor Trinidad arrived. Upon seeing the mayor, appellant approached him and whispered that they talk privately.The mayor led him to the office of the Chief of Police and there, he broke down and said "Mayor, patawarin mo ako! I will tell youthe truth. I am the one who killed Marianne." The mayor opened the door of the room to let the public and media representativeswitness the confession. Since no lawyer was available he ordered the proceedings photographed and videotaped. In the presenceof the mayor, the police, representatives of the media and appellant's own wife and son, appellant confessed his guilt. He asked forforgiveness from Larin and Dizon whom he falsely implicated saying he did it because of ill-feelings against them. He also said thatthe devil entered his mind because of the pornographic magazines and tabloid he read almost everyday. After his confession,appellant hugged his wife and son and asked the mayor to help him. His confession was captured on videotape and covered by themedia nationwide.On arraignment, however, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty." He testified that on said date he was at his parent'shouse for the birthday party of his nephew. He, his wife and son went home after 5pm, slept at 8pm, and woke up at 6am the nextday. Appellant claimed that after he was picked up by the police on February 24, he was coerced to confess that he raped and killedMarianne. Fearing for his life, appellant did as he was told.The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death. He was found guilty of the crime charged in theInformation (Rape with Homicide) and penalized accordingly. Hence, the automatic review.

Issue: W/N the appellants confession not being assisted by a counsel is in violation of the constitution, and is thereforeinadmissible as evidence against him.

Held:

Under these circumstances, it cannot be successfully claimed that appellant's confession before the mayor is inadmissible.It is true that a municipal mayor has "operational supervision and control" over the local police and may arguably be deemed a lawenforcement officer for purposes of applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. However, appellant's confessionto the mayor was not made in response to any interrogation by the latter. In fact, the mayor did not question appellant at all. Nopolice authority ordered appellant to talk to the mayor. It was appellant himself who spontaneously, freely and voluntarily soughtthe mayor for a private meeting. The mayor did not know that appellant was going to confess his guilt to him. When appellanttalked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounseled confession to him did not violate hisconstitutional rights. Thus, it has been held that the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to aspontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby appellantorally admitted having committed the crime. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts orconfessions. The rights under Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead theaccused to admit something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. Hence we hold that appellant'sconfession to the mayor was correctly admitted by the trial court.Appellant's confessions to the media were likewise properly admitted. The confessions were made in response toquestions by news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer. We have held that statements spontaneouslymade by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence.The Court therefore held accused-appellant Pablito Andan guilty of the special complex crime of rape with homicide.

9 Navallo v SandiganbayanG.R. No. 97214July 18, 1994

Facts: Petitioner is the collecting and disbursing officer of Numancia National Vocational School found to have misappropriated public funds for private benefit after a COA audit. He failed to restitute the amount despite COA demands. A warrant of arrest was issued but petitioner pleaded not guilty and invokes his right to custodial investigation since during the COA audit and actual cash count he was made to sign the certification on the fund shortage in the absence of a counsel. He further contends that the shortage of funds was due to the assurance of certain Macasemo to settle his unliquidated cash advance and his failure to do so resulted to the fund shortage.

Issue: Whether or not the right to counsel be invoked during the COA audit

Held: No, the right to counsel could not be invoked during the COA audit since the procedure is not within the ambit of custodial investigation. A person may be subject to malversation of funds even in the absence of direct proof of misappropriation as long as there is evidence of fund shortage which the petitioner failed to explain with convincing justification.

10 People v DyG.R. No. 74517February 23, 1988

Facts: Accused is the owner of Bennys Bar at Boracay Island and was sentenced with murder before the trial court for shooting a Swiss national in his bar. The accused contends the court erred in admitting the presentation of the prosecution of evidence that he came to a police officer and made a confession on the crime and informed said officer where to find the gun he used, a statement the accused denied to have done. They assail its admissibility to the court on the grounds that such statement was not made in writing and is in violation of the due process required in custodial investigation.

Issue: Whether or not the evidence presented by the prosecution be admissible to warrant guilt of the accused.

Held: In view of the documentary evidence on record the defense lost its credibility before the court. An oral confession made by the accused to the officer and telling him the gun is in his bar which he wants to surrender can be held admissible in court as evidence against him. This is because such confession was made unsolicited by the police officer and the accused was not under investigation when he made the oral confession. Therefore there is no need to invoke compliance of the proper procedure in a custodial investigation at the case at bar. The rule on RES GESTAE is applicable where a witness who heard the confession is competent to satisfy the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such a case it must be given in substance. Thus the oral confession made by the accused outside the ambit of custodial investigation can be admissible in court and was given due credence to warrant the judgment of the accused being guilty of the crime.

11 People v AlicandoGR No. 117487December 2, 1995

Facts: Accused was convicted with a crime of rape with homicide of a 4 year old girl. He was arrested and during the interrogation he made a confession of the crime without the assistance of a counsel. By virtue of his uncounseled confession the police came to know where to find the evidences consisting of the victims personal things like clothes stained with blood which was admitted to court as evidences. The victim pleaded guilty during the arraignment and was convicted with the death penalty. The case was forwarded to the SC for automatic review.

Issue: Whether or not due process during the custodial investigation was accorded to the accused.

Held: Due process was not observed in the conduct of custodial investigation for the accused. He was not informed of his right to a counsel upon making his extrajudicial confession and the information against him was written in a language he could not understand and was not explained to him. This is in violation of section 1(a) of Rule 116, the rule implementing the constitutional right of the appellant to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The lower court also violated section 3 of Rule 116 when it accepted the plea of guilt of the appellant without conducting a search inquiry on the voluntariness and full understanding of the accused of the consequences of his plea. Moreover the evidences admitted by the court that warranted his convicted were inadmissible because they were due to an invalid custodial investigation that did not provide the accused with due process of the law. Thus the SC annulled the decision of the imposition of the death penalty and remanded the case back to the lower for further proceeding.