COSNIA.CRIMPRO

7/24/2019 COSNIA.CRIMPRO

1/15

Harris v. New YorkFebruary 24, 1971Burger, C.J.

Facts: Harris was arrested for making two sales of heroin to an undercover police officer. Before

receiving the Miranda warnings, Harris said that he had made both sales at the request of the officer. Thisstatement was not admitted into evidence at the trial, the prosecution conceding that it was inadmissiblewith respect to the Miranda doctrine. However, Harris later testified in Court that he did not make the first

sale and in the second sale he merely sold the officer baking powder. Harris initial statement was thenused by the prosecution in an a ttempt to impeach his credibility.

ssue! "id the use of Harris post#arrest statement violate his $ifth, %i&th, and $ourteenth 'mendmentrights guaranteed by the Miranda decision(

He!"#$atio: )o. *n a +#to# decision, the Court held that the Miranda decision did not mandate that

evidence inadmissible against an accused in the prosecutions case must be barred for all purposes fromthe trial. The Court reasoned that the shield provided by Miranda could not be -perverted into a license touse perury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances.-

The Court found that the speculative possibility that police misconduct could be encouraged wasoutweighed by the value of admitting the statement into the impeachment process.

/uotes!0.1very criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so. But that

privilege cannot be construed to include the right to commit perury. Having voluntarily taken the stand,

petitioner was under an obligation to speak truthfully and accurately, and the prosecution here did no morethan utili2e the traditional truth#testing devices of the adversary process. Had inconsistent statements beenmade by the accused to some third person, it could hardly be contended that the conflict could not be laid

before the ury by way of cross#e&amination and impeachment 3.

The shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license to use perury by way of a defense, free

from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances.Black, Brennan, Marshall, "*%%1)T! The statement was used to impeach "s direct testimony not oncollateral matters but on matters directly related to crimes for which Harris was on trial.

Harris has been denied an unfettered choice between taking the stand and denying what the police officersaid knowing that the police can use illegally obtained evidence to impeach his testimony.This goes to undoing the progress made in conforming police methods to the Constitution.

Citation.+4 5.%. 0303 036 %. Ct. 077 086 9. 1d. 3d :+ 3;;6 5.%.

Brief $act %ummary.


2/15

$acts! >bet was convicted of violating 'rt. 0#' of =' 83+ ""'for manufacturing shabu. bet for a buy#bust operation. 'fter several hours, theinformant reported that >B1T was already waiting for her at )o. 0:+ %oliman %treet, Makati City, withinstructions for her to come alone as soon as she was ready with thentried to convince Betty to surrender the shabu that >B1T insisted was hidden inside

the house.

's Betty persistently denied the e&istence of the shabu, B1T to confer with Betty. 'fter

a while, >B1T proceeded to the kitchen of the guesthouse located outside the main house, followed byBetty. >B1T then promptly pointed to what he termed as liquid shabu inside a white pail along with otherdrug paraphernalia, such a s a beaker spray. =*')> sei2ed the items.

>bet@s version!

>B1T testified that while he was watching television on the night of 0+ $ebruary 0446, he heard the

doorbell rang. 5pon seeing 1va Baluyot, his childhood friend, he opened he door for her. *nside the house,1va handed him bundle f money and stated that she was buying shabu from him.>B1T emphatically told

1va that he was not engaged in such illegal trade and returned the money. >B1T then accompanied 1vaout of the house. 't the a rage, >B1T noticed someone peeping from the darkG so e told 1va to go backinside the house with him. 1va ignored the request. >B1T thus left 1va at the garage and got his .+

caliber gun from his house. ?hile he was locking the door, his handgun accidentally fired off, as he forgot

that it had already been cocked. This blast was followed by shouts of people outside claiming that theywere )B* men. 5ncertain, >B1T did not go out of the house but instead told the alleged )B* men to call

the Makati B1T togo out of the house. He did get out of his house after three hours when he heard the voice of Maor =eyes.

>B1T gaveto Maor =eyes his gun. The Makati B1Ts house which, however, yielded nothing. >B1T was then brought to the Makati instructed >B1T to call and tell Betty that he was already near.The gate was already opened when they arrived, and the )B* men freely parked their car at the garage.

Then, =*')> alighted from the car and entered Bettys house. >B1T was left in thecar under the charge of the third )B*manG hence, he knew nothing of wha t happened inside Bettys house

*ssue 0!?hether or not the acquittal of Betty will benefit >bet by virtue of the element of conspiracy(

HeldI=atio!)o. he acquittal of a conspirator likewise absolves a co#conspirator from criminal liability.*ndeed, the rule is well#settled that once a conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all, and

each of the conspirators is liable for the crimes committed by the other conspirators. *t follows then that ifthe prosecution fails to prove conspiracy, the alleged conspirators should be held individually responsiblefor their own respective acts. 'ccordingly, >B1Ts criminal liability in this case must be udged on the

basis of his own acts as established by the quantum of proof required in criminal cases.

*ssue 3! ?hether or not >bet@s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and sei2ures wasviolated(

HeldI=atio! Des.The buy#bust operation was a failure because no shabu or other regulated or prohibiteddrug was found in >B1Ts person and residence. )o evidence was adduced to show that >B1T handed

shabu over to the informant. Det, he was placed in custody. $or what offense he was held in custody doesnot, initially, appear very clear on the record. *t was established that >B1T fired two shots toward thedirection of =*')> and held hostage his mistress and her two children. Det he was

not placed under custodial investigation for such crimes as grave threats, coercion, illegal possession offirearms, or crimes other than that with which he was charged. >n the contrary, >B1T was held in custody

and investigated or interrogated about the source of the shabu, none of which was found during the buy#bust operation. *n short he was held in custody as a consequence of the failed buy#bust operation and as afollow#up to link him to the source and establish a conspiracy in the illegal trade of shabu. 'llegedly, he

admitted that the source was Betty. >n the basis of that admission, =*')>, togetherwith >B1T, proceeded to the residence of Betty. )eedless to state, >B1T cannot be investigated foranything in relation to shabu while under custody without informing him of his rights to remain silent and

to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. 'ny waiver of such rightsshould be in writing and made in the presence of a counsel pursuant to %ection 03 0, 'rticle *** of the

Constitution. *t has been held that these rights attach from the moment the investigation starts, i.e. whenthe investigating officers begin to ask questions to elicit information and confessions or admissions fromthe suspect. *t 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 ofofficial acts does not prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. Hence, in the absence of

proof that the arresting officers complied withthese constitutional safeguards, e&traudicial statements,whether inculpatory or e&culpatory, made during custodial investigation are inadmissible and cannot beconsidered inthe adudication of a case. *n other words, confessions and admissions in violation of %ection

03 0, 'rticle *** of the

Constitution are inadmissible in evidence against the declarant and more so against third persons. This isso even if such statements are gospel truth and voluntarily given. %uch statements are useless e&cept asevidence against the very police authorities who violated the suspects rights.

%>=*')> admitted that the custodial investigation of >B1T was conducted without the presence of alawyer, and there is no proof that >B1T waived said right and the right to remain silent. )o waiver in

writing and in the presence of a counsel was presented.Thus, pursuant toparagraph 7 of %ection 03 of 'rticle *** of the Constitution anyadmission obtained from>B1T in the course of his custodial investigation was inadmissible against him and cannot beused as a

ustification for the search without a warrant.

*ssue 7

! ?hether or not the search of Betty@s house was consented to by Betty, hence lawful.

HeldI=atio! )o.

*n case of consented searches or waiver of the constitutional guarantee, against obtrusive searches, it is

fundamental that to constitute, a waiver, it must first appear that 0 the right e&istsG 3 that the personinvolved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the e&istence of such rightG and 7the said

person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.The third condition does not e&ist in the instant case. *n fact, Betty did ask for a search warrant.


3/15

)either can the search be appreciated as a search incidental to a valid warrantless arrest of either Betty or>B1T as intimated by the trial court.

$irst, Bettys arrest did not precede the search.

%econd, per the prosecutions evidence >B1T was not arrested for possession or sale of regulated or

prohibited drugs as a consequence of the buy#bust operation. He surrendered after taking hostage 1strellaand her two children, although he was thereafter held in custody for further questioning on illegal drugs.

There is no showing that the house occupied by Betty and the articles confiscated there from belong to>B1T. That >B1T pointed to =*')> the places where the articles were found

provides no sufficient basis for a conclusion that they belonged to him. 1ven if the articles thus sei2edactually belonged to him, they cannot be constitutionally and legally used against him to establish hiscriminal liability therefor, since the sei2ure was the fruit of an invalid custodial investigation.

3'5B6N (. $C86$ 6F B'$5' 6F 0$(6N(Jauary ), 1971Fera"o, J.

since si $ernando ang ponente, ang daming unnecessary discussions, na talaga naming hindi komaintindihanJ 5gh.K

$'CT%!


4/15

indicating that they were the initials. The doubt that must have occurred to the police officials ofMeycauayan is evident from their submitting a one#page statement, presumably signed by the same peopleand certified by the same Tecson, reading in fun as follows! -

O%asinumang Pinauukulan lpinabasa, ipinaalam at naintindihan ni

Testimonies of the witness doesn@t prove anything.There were no eyewitnesses, no property recovered from the accused, no state witnesses, and not even

fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime. The only evidence they have is the confession whichis inadmissible.

T')>)E!

*pinagbibigay#alam ko sa inyo ang inyong mgakarapatan sa ilalim ng %aligang#Batas ng and he got himself a lawyer. He wasreminded of his rights, with his


5/15

0. 'ccused#appellant@s confession, as quoted in the decision of the Court of 'ppeals, leaves no doubt as toits voluntariness and spontaneity. 'ccused#appellant does not deny that he surrendered to the police onAune8, 0440, almost three months after the fatal shooting of "ionesio 'lbores, and confessed to the crime

because he Qcould no longer bear a guilty conscience.R *n his testimony before the trial court, he admittedthat the signature on pages 0, 3, and 7 of his sworn confession 1&h. B was his without any claim that hewas forced, coerced, or threatened to make the confession. *ndeed, the details contained in his confession

could have been known to accused#appellant alone.

3. 'ccused#appellant claims that he gave the confession without being warned of his constitutional rights.

This is not true. The record shows that he was advised of his rights, particularly the right to remain silent,

not only once but thrice! first, by his counsel, 'tty. Meriam 'nggot of Gsecond, by%7 Maharlika Ddul2ura, the investigator who took accused#appellant@s confessionG and

lastly, by thebranch clerk of court of the =egional Trial Court of >roquieta City, 'tty. )ora Monteo#9umasag, beforewhom accused#appellant swore to the veracity of his confession. 1ach time, he was asked whether he was

willing to give a statement and he said he was. This is sufficient. Contrary to accused#appellant@scontention, there is no need for a separate and e&press written waiver of his constitutional rights. 'ccused#

appellant was not arrested. He presented himself to the authorities to confess to the crime because, he said,hew as being bothered by his conscience. By voluntarily e&ecuting his e&traudicial confession, which hedid in the presence of and with the assistance of counsel and after having been informed of his

constitutional rights, accused#appellant effectively waived his right to remain silent.

7. a lawyer in the present case satisfies the constitutional requirement of a competent andindependent counsel for the accused.

. )ot only was the confession signed by accused#appellant with the assistance of counsel, it was alsosworn to by him before the branch clerk of court who, before administering the oath to accused#appellant,

read the affidavit of confession to him and informed him of his rights and the consequences of hisconfession. 'ccused#appellant stood pat on his decision to tell it all.

0eo!e v. %ui"ato6ctober 1, 199*$o=ero, J.

$acts! ?hile having a drinking session, accused proposed to the Malita brothers 1ddie and =eynaldo torob and kill his father, Bernardo. 'rmed with a bolo they went to his house and hacked him and looked formoney in the aparador but couldn@t find anything and the left. 9eo /uildato confronted his brother the

appellant and he pointed to the Malita brothers. ?hen they were arrested, they also pointed back at/uildato. He Malita brothers were interrogated by now

=uling! *n indicting accused#appellant, the prosecution relied heavily on the affidavits e&ecuted by=eynaldo and 1ddie. The two brothers were, however, not presented on the witness stand to testify ontheir e&tra#udicial confessions. The failure to present the two gives these affidavits the character of

hearsay. *t is hornbook doctrine that unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm theaverments in their affidavits, the affidavits must be e&cluded from the udicial proceeding, beinginadmissible hearsay. The voluntary admissions of an accused made e&tra udicially are not admissible in

evidence against his co#accused when the latter had not been given an opportunity to hear him testify andcross#e&amine him. There is no conspiracy under rule 07;#QtKhe act or declaration of a conspirator

relating to the conspiracy and during its e&istence, may be given in evidence against the co#conspiratorafter the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.R The inapplicability of this

provision is clearly apparent. The confessions were made a fter the conspiracy had ended and after the

consummation of the crime. Hence, it cannot be said that the e&ecution of the affidavits were acts ordeclarations made during the conspiracy@s e&istence.

'ffidavits are inadmissible anyway# lawyerthe following day even if prior to the actual signing of the uncounseled confession does not cure the defect

of lack of counsel for the investigators were already able to e&tract incriminatory statements fromaccused#appellantS Thus, in ro City where he was detained whileAonelto 9antanas eluded arrest. The two cases were tried together.

The prosecution@s case was mainly anchored on the three

#page sworn statement e&ecuted by $eliciano, originally in Lisayan language, before the Cagayan de >roCity n March 0447, * participated in a hold#up of a certain driver Mr. =oman Mercado of Tablan whoowned a eep * useOdK to drive beforeand we got a car stereo including the eep. Then, we brought the

eep to Buntong, Camaman#an and the driver, however, we freed the driver later.

b. >n March 0447 we hold#up sic a collector of my brother whose name is Carmen Tan y $eliciano andwe were able to get cash of


6/15

d. How he, Bebot 9abtan, and Aonelto 9abtan stabbed and got some money from the driver of the ) the sworn statement of $eliciano is admissible in evidence# )>

=uling! 5nder 'rticle ***, %ection 03 of the 04:6 Constitution, the rights of persons under custodialinvestigation are provided as follows. Q0 'ny person under investigation for the commission of an

offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent andindependent counsel preferably of his own choice. *f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, hemust be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived e&cept in writing and in the presence of

counsel. 3 )o torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free willshall be used against him. %ecret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of

detention are prohibited. 7 'ny confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the precedingsection shall be inadmissible againsthim.R

?e find that accused#appellant $eliciano had been denied of his right to have a competent andindependent counsel when he was questioned in the Cagayan de >ro City ro City 5, J

'ccused#appellant =amil %amolde was charged, together with 'rmando 'ndres, with the crime of murder?hen arraigned on )ovember 34, 04:4, both accused pleaded not guilty, whereupon, trial was held. The

prosecution presented si& witnesses, namely, 1dgardoCabalin, =icardo )epomuceno, "r. "ario 9.

Eaardo,


7/15

%gt. Calderon said that 'ndres was not given a physical e&amination prior to the investigation. >n theother hand, accused#appellant, according to %gt. Calderon, was arrested on Aune 8, 04:4 in Bustos,Bulacan by )! chief of the intelligence operation of the aytay 9"1! testified that the victim, $eliciano )epomuceno, was his neighbor in Taytay. Headmitted harboring ill will and much bitterness towards the latter because he was an abusive policeman.

'ccording to %amolde, at around 6!7; in the evening of May 07, 04:4, hew as walking towards the marketwhen he met $eliciano )epomuceno. )epomuceno pointed a gun at him and called him a thief. %amoldesaid he parried the gun and stabbed )epomuceno with a carver, hitting the latter on the left side. ?hen the

gun fell to the ground, %amolde picked it up and shot )epomuceno. He then went to his brother@s house toask for money so that he could go to n cross#e&amination, accused#appellant testified that he was on his way to the Taytay market when hemet )epomuceno who, as he often used to, called him a thief. He reiterated that he stabbed )epomuceno

before shooting him with a service revolver. 'ccused#appellant said that as )epomuceno held a gun to his

face, he parried it and stabbed )epomuceno, causing the latter to drop his gun. 'ccused#appellant said hethen picked up the gun and shot )epomuceno twice. 'ccused#appellant denied he had a companion. Hetestified that during his detention, he was not allowed to be seen, lest visitors notice his swollen face. He

later told his parents thathe had been manhandled in ail, but the latter did not file a case against the policemen.'s regards his

counsel, accused#appellant stated that, contrary to what was stated in his e&traudicial confession, hislawyer did not really assist him. He was not informed of his constitutional rights when he e&ecuted hise&traudicial confession, and he did so only after he had been subected to some brutality by the police.

5pon inquiry by the trial court, accused#appellant stated that although he made two thrusts with his carverat )epomuceno, he failed to hit the latter

'CC5%1" ')"=1%! he earned his living by driving atricycle. He said that although he knew accused#

appellant =amil %amolde, they were not friends. 'ndres said he likewise knew the victim, $eliciano)epomuceno, but did not know where he lived. 'ndres claimed that on May 07,04:4, he was in %urbic,

*locos %ur, where he had been living with his sister. He learned that he was implicated in the killing of)epomuceno only when the police came to arrest him in *locos %ur on Aune 04, 04:4. 9ike accused#appellant, 'ndres also claimed he was beaten up by policeman at the Taytay ailG that the sworn statement

he gave had been prepared by the policeG that he was not given any opportunity to read it before he signeditG and that he did so because he was subected to torture and intimidation by the police. He said he couldnot remember whether he had a lawyer when he gave his sworn statement.

>n cross#e&amination, 'ndres e&plained that he knew accused#appellant because the latter used to ride on

his tricycle, but he denied that he and accused#appellant were close friends. He likewise denied being

acquainted with the victim )epomuceno, reiterating that he only knew the latter by face. He denied

shooting )epomuceno. He also disclaimed going to the house of a certain 9eandro )alo in'ntipolo, =i2al.He further denied burying in 'ntipolo )epomuceno@s .7: caliber revolver

TC! %amolde and 'ndres guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. >nly =amil %amolde has appealed.

He contends that! The Court erred in finding there is complicity bycircumstantial evidenceG and 'ccused#'ppellant was given ) the confession of %amolde can beused against him# )>

'ccused#appellant was not informed of his constitutionalrights before his statement was taken.The pertinent portions of his e&traudicial confession read! QT! >po.

3. T! *kaw ba ay mayroon abogado sa oras naito, upang makatulong mo sa imbestigasyon na ito(

%! Mayroon po, si 'tty. 1miliano Benito, nasiyang aking nagustuhan abogado, upang makatulong kosapagsisiyasat sa akin.

7. T! %a harap ng iyong abogado,nauunawaan mo bang lahat ang iyong mga karapatan naakingipinaliwanag sa iyo(

%! >po, kaya po ako kumuha o pumili ng akingabogado.

. T! Mailalagda mo ba ang iyong pangalan,bilang patunay na nauunawaan mo ang mga karapatan moatbilang patotoo na ikaw ay may katulong na abogado saoras ng pagsisiyasat sa iyo(

%! >po.

'ssisted by! %E". ='M*9%'M>9"1

%gd.'tty. 1miliano Benito)agsasalaysayR

Clearly, accused#appellant was not properly apprised of his constitutional rights. 5nder 'rt. ***, U030 of

the Constitution, a suspect in custodial investigation must be given the following warnings! Q0 He mustbe informed of his right to remain silentG 3 he must be warned that anything he says can and will be usedagainst himG and 7he must be told that he has a right to counsel, and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will

be appointed to represent him.R 's the above quoted portion of the e&traudicial confession shows,accused#appellant was given no more than a perfunctory recitation of his rights, signifying nothing more

than a feigned compliance with the constitutional requirements. This manner of giving warnings has beenheld to be Qmerely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect.R $or thisreason, we hold accused#appellant@s e&traudicial confession is invalid.

However, apart from the testimony of =icardo )epomuceno and the e&traudicial confession of accused#

appellant, there is sufficient evidence in the records showing accused#appellant@s guilt. 'ccused#appellant

confessed in open court that he had killed $eliciano )epomuceno. *t is this admission of accused#appellantwhich should be considered.


8/15

?e have held that a udicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order. The presumption is that nosane person would deliberately confess to the commission of acrime unless prompted to do so by truth andconscience. *ndeed, it is hard to believe that a person, of whatever economic status, would confess to a

crime that he did not commit for monetary considerations and thus barter away his liberty, and for thatmatter, even his life, for a mess of potage, for that is what the mere sum of n the other hand, the fact that accused#appellant felt bitter towards the victim for having tortured him inail was the motivating factor which made him kill the latter. The attempt of accused#appellant and 'ndres

to borrow a tear gas gun from a neighbor so that they could take the victim@s gun and their flight aftergetting their quarry, when taken together with accused# appellant@s udicial confession, place beyond theshadow of doubt the guilt of accused#appellant..

'nother circumstance to be taken against accused#appellant was his flight after the commission of thecrime. 'ccused#appellant was arrested in Bulacan. 'pparently, he went into hiding in Bulacan to avoid

arrest.

$inally, there was )> treachery * the case but there was 1L*"1)T n Auly 3:, 0440, the lifeless body of 1dmundo >ri2al was found in the rest house of =onnie Balao inBal2ain,Tuguegarao, Cagayan. *n an autopsy performed by "r.1dmundo Bora, Tuguegarao Municipal

Health >fficer, the victim was found to have sustained seven 6 gunshot wounds in the chest, abdomen,back, left and right thighs, and two 3 gra2ing wounds on the left arm and back.

*nvestigation by the Tuguegarao police station identifiedthe suspects in the murder of 1dmundo >ri2al as'rmandoEallardo y Eander, 'lfredo Columna y Correa, and Aessie Micate y >rte2a. The police received

information that the suspects were detained at the Camalaniugan


9/15

they were aware of their rights and the lawyer informed them of their rights and asked them if they weregiving their statements willingly after being informed of their rights. This is incompliance with theconstitutional guarantee of the rights of an accused during custodial investigation. >) E5*9T B1D>)"

=1'%>)'B91 ">5BT

There is no merit to the contention that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. The testimony of prosecution witness )elson Hidalgo remains uncontroversial. Thedefense was unable to produce any evidence to prove that )elson Hidalgo was biased and not credible.

>) *M)E=1%%M') '% TH1 M'%T1=M*)"

?e are however concerned with the statements of the accused that it was Congressman Tu2on whomasterminded the killing of 1dmundo >ri2al. The order of inquest Audge "ominador 9. Earcia droppingCongressman Tu2on and and E=1E>=*> told him they did not need the assistance of a lawyerand they were willing to give a statement. )evertheless, =odel called 'tty. =ideway Tanili, 'ssistant=egional 'ttorney of the , to assist them in signing a sworn statement

waiving their rights to counsel and to remain silent. 'tty. Tanili substantially corroborated this point. >n04 $ebruary 044;, H1='C91> and E=1E>=*> e&ecuted an e&tra#udicial confession in the presence of

$iscal Earcia, wherein they narrated their participation in the commission of the crime.

>n the other hand, the witnesses for the defense wereE=1E>=*>, H1='C91>, and =omarate at Bankerohan, "avao City, testified that on03 Aanuary 044;,Hermina Herrera told him to see her common#law husband =omarate. 9ater,

E=1E>=*> and H1='C91> met =omarate, who was having a drinking session with Butongand "ida"ae, =olando Corsolado, and Herrera. 't about 6!;; p.m., =omarate and his group stopped drinking. Heasked E=1E>=*> to accompany him in a buy#bust operation to be conducted at +M drug store.

E=1E>=*>and H1='C91> went with =omarate, Corsonado, Butong "ae, and Herrera. =omarate triedto buy at the =ose . E'B5D') was handcuffed and brought near a theater. Thereafter, =omarate went toward"5'D, poked a gun at him, and fr isked him for weapons. ' gun tucked in "5'Ds waist was confiscated

by =omarate."5'D and E'B5D') were brought to the residence of H1='C91>, where E=1E>=*> watched

=omarate, Corsonado, and Butong "ae tie the hands of "5'D and E'B5D') with wires and gag theirmouths with handkerchiefs to prevent them from shouting. Meanwhile, H1='C91> left to play

basketball.

E=1E>=*> further testified that at about 0;!;;p.m., E'B5D') and "5'D were brought near the r iver

situated 0+ meters from H1='C91>s house. He saw =omarate, Corsonado, and Butong "ae take turnsin repeatedly stabbing the two.He could not run away because =omarates gun was pointed at him. =omarate even ordered H1='C91>

to shoot "5'D whose body was thrown into the river. H1='C91> only fired a shot into the air. ' whilelater, =amon de 'sis arrived and wastold by =omarate that the victims were killed because they weremembers of the )! asserted that he had no participation in the killing of E'B5D') and "5'D. His testimonymostly corroborated that of E=1E>=*> concerning the incident of 03 Aanuary 044;. He confirmed thathe and E=1E>=*> voluntarily surrendered to the police on 06 $ebruary 044;,and that they e&ecuted a

sworn statement at the residence of 'tty. Tanili on the latters promise that they would not be implicatedin the crime but, instead, be utili2ed as state witnesses.

E=1E>=*> maintains that the oral admission and e&tra#udicial confession he gave before the policeauthorities cannot be used as evidence against him because his waiver of his rights to remain silent and tocounsel during custodial interrogation cannot be characteri2ed as one made knowingly, voluntarily, and

intelligently since! 0the sworn statement was written in 1nglish and there was no proof that thepreliminary questions and answers therein were translated, much less a translation after every question andanswer in his alleged waiver, into the Lisayan#Cebuano dialect, a language spoken and understood by himG

3 there was no proof that he, then only 0: years old and a th grader, clearly understood the import andconsequences of the waiver which wasR couched in broad and general terms-G 7 the sworn statement

related only to his alleged disinterest to be represented by a counsel but it did not signify an agreement tomake a confession of the crime with which he was chargedG he e&ecuted the sworn statement notknowing that an e&tra#udicial confession was attached thereto andG + the presence of his mother during

the signing of the waiver did not guarantee that the same was done voluntarily and intelligently.

*%%51! ?>) the e&tra#udicial confessions were e&ecuted in a lawful manner# )>, nevertheless,Eregorio and Heracleo are still not absolved from the crime of Murder.

%ec. 03 0. 'ny person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be

informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his


10/15

own choice. *f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. Thererights cannot be waived e&cept in writing and in the presence of the counsel.

This paragraph is reinforced by =.'. )o. 67:. 3+

'nent the aforementioned constitutional mandate, it is settled that ones right to be informed of the right toremain silent and to counsel contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than ust the

ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. *t is not enough for theinterrogator to merely repeat to the person under investigation the provisions of %ection 03, 'rticle *** ofthe04:6 ConstitutionG the former must also e&plain the effects of such provision in practical terms

Ve.g., what the person under interrogation may or may not doV and in a language the subect fa irlyunderstands. The right to be informed carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of the policeinvestigator to e&plain, and contemplates effective communication which results in the subect@s

understanding of what is conveyed. %ince it is comprehension that is sought to be attained, the degree ofe&planation required will necessarily vary and depend on the education, intelligence, and other relevant

personal circumstances of the person undergoing investigation. *n further ensuring the right to counsel, itis not enough that the subect is informed of such rightG he should also be asked if he wants to avail of thesame and should be told that he could ask for counsel if he so desired or that one could be provided him at

his request. *f he decides not to retain a counsel of his choice or avail of one to be provided for him and,therefore, chooses to waive his right to counsel, such waiver, to be valid and effective, must still be made

with the assistance of counsel, who, under prevailing urisprudence, must be a lawyer.

$inally, it is obvious that the so#called e&traudicial confession was not yet prepared when 'tty. Taniliwas approached to -assist- E=1E>=*>. 's clearly shown therein, another typewriter was used for typing

this so#called e&traudicial confession and then the same was merely attached as -page 3- of the waiver.

%ince the waiver of E=1E>=*> was intrinsically flawed and therefore, null and void, the allegede&traudicial confession, -1&h. $#3.- is inadmissible in evidence.

)onetheless, the nullity of the waiver and the e&purgation of the e&traudicial confession do not absolveE=1E>=*> from any criminal responsibility. The evidence on record satisfies us with moral certaintythat he and his co#accused conspired together to kill "5'D and E'B5D') and that E=1E>=*> was

not a mere witness to the acts of the othersG he himself materially contributed to the pursuant of theconspiracy.

Conspiracy among the accused having been sufficiently established in these cases, it matters not whoamong the accused actually inflicted the fatal blow on "5'D and E'B5D') since the criminal ac t may

be attributable to allof them and the act of one is the act of all.

However, E=1E>=*> is entitled to the benefit of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority

under the second paragraph of 'rticle 07 of the =evised nlyaccused was thus arraigned. 't his arraignment, accused entered a plea of not guilty. %ubsequently, trial

ensued.

The prosecution presented two 3 witnesses, namely, 7Aesus Eome2 and =enee 1ric M1! He said that he is an investigator of the "rug 1nforcement 5nit "15 of the ?estern $ 'CC5%1"! Maria 9uisa, Aerry and Marlene, in their respective testimonies, averred that

they were ordered to board one of the vehicles of the police operatives. They were brought to theheadquarters of the ?


11/15

*%%51! ?hether or not the guilt of accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the supremepenalty of death. i.e. *s the arrest of the accused done in a lawful mannerN)>, thus %'


12/15

appellants $elicisimo Aara, =eymund Lergara and =oberto Bernadas were all convicted of robbery withhomicide and an accompanying crime of parricide for the killing of the 'mparo and 9usia, for which theywere all sentenced the supreme penalty of death.

*%%51!?>) the evidence of guilt e&tra#udicial confession is admissible under the standards fi&ed bythe Constitution and, if not, does the quantum of proof still establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt

H19"!'s to Lergara and Bernadas, )>. Their e&tra#udicial confession being tainted with fatal constitutional and

procedural irregularities, it cannot be admissible as evidence. There being no other evidence against them,

they are hereby 'C/5*TT1" on the ground of reasonable doubt. 9ikewise as to Aara, the same e&tra#udicial confession pointing to him as the QmastermindR is inadmissible as evidence. )evertheless,

compellingcircumstantial evidence against him remains uncontested.His conviction perforce must be%5%T'*)1"

='T*>! There is no dispute that the confessions in these cases were obtained in the absence of counsel.'nd according to the records, there was a QwaiverR by the accused#appellants of their right to counsel.

These so#called QwaiversR came in the form of a QT 'L'9*" ?'*L1=. These pre#arranged

QpasubaliR or -advice- appearing in practically all e&tra#udicial confessions has seemingly assumed thenature of a -legal form- or model. H>?1L1=, its tired, punctilious, fi&ed, and artificially statelywordingIstyle does not create an impression of voluntariness or even understanding on the part of the

accused

The showing of a spontaneous, free, and unconstrained giving up of a constitutional right is thus missing

in this case. %ec 3;, 'rt *L of the 0467 Constitution provides! Q)o person shall be compelled to be awitness against himself. 'ny person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have theright to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. )o force, violence, threat,

intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. 'ny confessionobtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence.R ?henever a protection given bythe Constitution is waived by the person entitled to that protection, the presumption is always against the

waiver

Consequently, the prosecution must prove with convincing evidence that indeed the accused willingly andvoluntarily submitted his confession and knowingly and deliberately manifested that he was not interestedin having a lawyer assist him during the taking of that confession W this burden was not met by the

prosecution The %olEen, arguing for the


13/15

standing near his victim. $elicisimo@s denial and alibi cannot be given credence as they fail to meet therequisites established by law and urisprudence, further militated by his recidivism for having been

previously convicted of homicide. >n the other hand, the requirements for circumstantial evidence to

sustain a conviction are present in this case. The aforementioned circumstances constitute an unbrokenchain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the guilt of the accused $elicisimoAara beyond reasonable doubt.

0eo!e v. Nica"ro J. 0!aa 19*&/

%ometime in )ov 04:0, the "rug 1nforcement 5nit of the ?estern


14/15

*nitial investigation by the Central *ntelligence %erviceC*%, Camp Crame shows that during the ambush,Col.Aames =owe, was on board his gray Mitsubishi Ealant car which was being driven by Aoaquin Linuya.

They were at the corner of Tomas Morato and Timog ontheir way to the A5%M'E Compound whengunmen who were on board a red Toyota Corolla car suddenly firedat his car, killing Col. =owe andseriously wounding hisdriver, Aoaquin Linuya

5pon further investigation, the C*% agents established through a confidential informant C* theinvolvement of appellant Continente, an employee of the


15/15

detailed e&planation as to the nature of the investigation that is, regarding their suspected participations inthe ambush. More importantly, they also included an QadviceR that appellants may choose not to give anystatement plus a warning that any statement obtained from them may be used in favor or against them in

court.*n addition, they contained an QadviceR that the appellants may engage the services of a lawyer of theirown choice and that if they cannot afford the services of a lawyer, they will be provided with one by the

government for freeNall in a language clearly comprehended by both appellants Tagalog. $urther, theC*% investigator testified that despite the manifestation of the appellants of their intention to give a

statement even in the absence of counsel, he nevertheless requested the legal services of 'tty. Manansalaand 'tty. Corpu2 to counsel both appellants. Both lawyers also testified, corroborating the averments ofthe C*% investigator W they testified that the appellants conferred with them for about 7;minsbefore the

interrogation started where they e&plained to them anew their constitutional rights to silence and counseland the consequences of waiving these rightsG and that the appellants maintained their position to give

their statements even in the absence of counsel leading to their signing of the Qf significance here is the fact thatappellants never desired any counsel to begin with

*t has been ruled that while the initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a person under custodialinvestigation cannot afford the services of the lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the

accused really has the final choice as he may reect the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. 'lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused >)9D where he never raised anyobection against the formers appointment during the course of the investigation

The lawyers herein questioned cannot be faulted for not preventing the appellants from making their e&tra#

udicial confessions simply because said lawyers were merely complying with their oaths to abide by thetruth. The counsel should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth

>ther Matters =egarding the $inding of Euilt Beyond =easonable "oubt

The testimony of prosecution@s eyewitness ulueta confirms to a large e&tent the statements made by theappellants in their written confessions W for instance, *taas@s confession and uleta@s statement matched as

regards *taas@s position in the red car and the kind of weapon he fired

ulueta@s statement also matched Continente@s averments in his e&tra#udicial confession to the effect thatas he was tasked with the surveillance of the area before the planned ambush, he was always walkingaround the vicinity of the A5%M'E Compound for several days where he and ulueta would chance upon

each other at a carenderia nearby

ulueta@s testimony was never successfully refuted by the defense and the TC has rightfully conferredsubstantial weight to her testimony H>?1L1=, the TC has erred in finding conspiracy between the actsof herein appellants that resulted to the killing of the Col. =owe and serious inury of Linuya

W the mere fact that both Continente and *taas are members of the CC

Documents

COSNIA.CRIMPRO