SEBASTIAN v GARCHITORENA

G.R. No. 114028

October 18, 2000
Art III Sec 12 (Custodial investigation, in general - definition)
FACTS:
An information for the crime of Malversation of Public Funds was filed against Salvador
Sebastian Sr. (a letter carrier), Rosita Pada (Regional stamps custodian) and other public officers in the
Postal Services Officer in Zamboanga City. This was in relation to the misuse and embezzlement of funds
(P649,290.05) from the misuse/disappearance of postage stamps in custody of Pada.
Sworn statements by the accused were offered as evidence, which was all admitted by the
Sandiganbayan through a Resolution. Appellant objected to this and filed a motion for reconsideration
which was also denied by a 2nd resolution by the Sandiganbayan.
Hence, this petition for certiorari seeking to annul said Resolutions.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON sworn statements of Salvador Sebastian and co-accused are admissible in evidence as part
of the testimony of the prosecution witnesss
2. WON his rights under Section12 were violated
HELD:
1. Yes, statements are admissible
Sworn statements are not hearsay evidence as contended by Sebastian. It is otherwise as its
purpose was to merely establish the fact that such written statements were actually made.
2. No, his rights under Sec 12 were not violated.
Petitioner claims to have been deprived of his Constitutional rights under Section 12 and 17, Art
III of the Constitution.
For Section 12:
The court held that the rights provided in Section 12, Article III of the Constitution may
be invoked only when a person is under "custodial investigation" or is "in custody
investigation." Custodial investigation has been defined as any 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.
In the present case, the fact-finding investigation was an administrative investigation,
hence accused may or may not be assisted by counsel. It has been held in the case of
Lumiqued v. Exevea that the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative
investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there
are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees,
with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.
** Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
**Additionally, a Petition for Certiorari is the wrong choice of action in the instant case. Resolutions are
interlocutory in nature and from which no appeal lies.

Prepared by: Kristine Joyce Alegre