Case: People v Peralta Relevance to Crim Pro: Section 5 and 6 of Rule 112 Facts: The Central Bank of the

Philippines filed a complaint against Peralta, Granados, Ulysses, de Leon, and Loyola charging them of the crime of qualified theft for stealing punctured currency notes for shredding in the total amount of P 194,190. The accused were Central Bank employees at the time the crime was allegedly committed hence they had free access to the property stolen. In particular Garcia was an armoured car driver. The same facts were reflected in the subsequent information. According to the prosecution, Garcia was arrested while he was waiting to board a bus to Central Bank. Under custody, Garcia allegedly gave 3 separate statements admitting his guilt, participation in the crime and the identity and participation of his cohorts and accomplices. It was on this basis that the prosecution filed the information of qualified theft against Garcia. However, according to Garcia, he was arrested without a warrant, he was illegally searched and tortured using among others water cure and forced to make the 3 statements under custodial investigation without assistance of counsel. This was proven by the admission of Atty. Sanchez that he was absent when the statements/confessions were taken from Garcia. Three P100.00 perforated notes were allegedly confiscated from the wallet of Garcia after his arrest. The RTC, based on the statements and confiscated perforated currency notes, convicted Garcia and his co-accused arguing that Garcias version of the facts were self-serving. Garcia, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court arguing among other that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove their guilt because they statements and notes were inadmissible for violating their rights against warrantless arrest and rights under custodial investigation. Second, Garcia questioned the propriety of the denial of their demurer to evidence. Issue: WON Garcia and his co-accused were guilt of Qualified Theft. Held: NO. The court held that the charges against Garcia were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented were inadmissible because of several reasons. While the prosecution succeed in proven that the crime of theft was committed, they failed to prove that Garcia and his coaccused committed them. The statements obtained from Garcia were inadmissible for violation of his right against arbitrary arrest or warrantless arrest. He did not commit, was not committing or was not about to commit a crime to be under warrantless arrest. Second, he was not assisted by counsel when he gave the three extrajudicial statements which violated his rights under custodial investigation. Although, Garcia waived his right to object the legality of his arrest after he voluntarily entered his plea that only cured the illegality of his arrest. It fails to make right the violation of his rights under custodial investigation. The admission by Atty. Sanchez that he was only present to sign the statement as witness and was absent when the confessions were taken are not to be taken as Garcias waiver of his right to counsel under Sec 12 of Article 3 of the Constitution nor should it cure the illegal search made against Garcia. The perforated notes confiscated from Garcia violated his rights against illegal search because they did not fall under any exemptions allowed by the law. The SC, that the trial court did not err in dismissing the demurer to evidence filed by Garcias coaccused because there was no apparent graver abuse of discretion, the confessions by Atty Sanchez, that the confessions were obtained without his assistance, that only happened after the motion were filed and dismissed by the trial court.