GAMBOA VS CRUZ Facts of the case: On 19 July 1979, Gamboa was arrested for vagrancy, without a warrant of arrest,

by Patrolman Arturo Palencia. Thereafter, petitioner was brought to Precinct 2, Manila, where he was booked for vagrancy and then detained therein together with several others. During investigation among the lineup of five (5) detainees, including petitioner, on the following day, complainant Erlinda B. Bernal pointed to petitioner and said, "that one is a companion. On 23 July 1979, information for robbery was filed against the petitioner. On 22 August 1979, petitioner was arraigned. Thereafter, hearings were held. On 2 April 1980, the prosecution formally offered its evidence and then rested its case. On 14 July 1980, petitioner, by counsel, instead of presenting his defense, manifested in open court that he was filing a Motion to Acquit or Demurrer to Evidence. On 13 August 1980, petitioner filed said Motion predicated on the ground that the conduct of the line-up, without notice to, and in the absence of, his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. Ruling of the the respondent court: denied the Motion to Acquit: Hence, the instant petition. Petitioner contends that the order denying his Motion To Acquit, is null and void for being violative of his rights to counsel and to due process. Issues: 1. W/N the petitioner's right to counsel has been violated? 2. W/N the petitioner' s right to due process has been violated The court found no merit in the contentions of petitioner The instant petition is one for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, committed by the respondent judge in issuing the questioned order. It is basic, however, that for certiorari to lie, there must be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the very antithesis of judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law traditions. To warrant the issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari, the alleged lack of jurisdiction, excess thereof, or abuse of discretion must be so gross or grave, as when power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility, or the abuse must be so patent as to amount to anevasion of positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all, in contemplation of law. This is not the situation in the case at bar. The respondent court considered petitioner's arguments as well as the prosecution's evidence against him, and required him to present his evidence. The rights to counsel and to due process of law are indeed two (2) of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, whether it be the 1973 or 1987 Constitution. In a democratic society, like ours, every person is entitled to the full enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused. At such point or stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation, for the commission of an offense. Any person under investigation must, among other things, be assisted by counsel. As aptly observed, however, by the Solicitor General, the police line-up (at least, in this case) was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, petitioner was not yet entitled, at such stage, to counsel

On the right to due process, the Court finds that petitioner was not, in any way, deprived of this substantive and constitutional right, as he was duly represented by a member of the Bar. 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 WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

PEOPLE VS JUDGE AYSON Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines, assigned at its Baguio City station. It was alleged that he was 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. Section 20 of the 1987 constitution provides that the right against self-incrimination (only to witnesses other than accused, unless what is asked is relating to a different crime charged- not present in case at bar). This is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding. The right is not to "be compelled to be a witness against himself. It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry." the right can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. It is a right that a witness knows or should know. He must claim it and could be waived. Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in miranda v. Arizona: the rights of the accused include:

1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. 2) nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. 3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence. The individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. But unless and until such rights and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.

PEOPLE VS. MAQUEDA Facts: British Horace William Barker (consultant of WB) was slain inside his house in Tuba, Benguet while his Filipino wife, Teresita Mendoza was badly battered with lead pipes on the occasion of a robbery. Two household helpers of the victims identified Salvamante (a former houseboy of the victims) and Maqueda as the robbers. Mike Tabayan and his friend also saw the two accused a kilometer away from the house of the victims that same morning, when the two accused asked them for directions. Maqueda was then arrested in Guinyangan, Quezon. He was taken to Calauag, Quezon where he signed a Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein he narrated his participation in the crime. According to SPO3 Molleno, he informed Maqueda of his constitutional rights before he signed such document. Afterwards he was brought to the Benguet Provincial Jail. While he was under detention, Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant Bail. He stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering to be a State witness in the above entitled case, it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case." Maqueda also admitted his involvement in the commission of the robbery to Prosecutor Zarate and to Salvosa.

Issue: Whether or Not the trial court was correct in holding that the Sinumpaan Salaysay is admissible as evidence.

Held: No. The Sinumpaang Salaysay is inadmissible because it was in clear violation of the constitutional rights of the accused. First, he was not informed of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Second, he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. At the time of the confession, the accused was already facing charges in court. He no longer had the right to remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to refuse to be a witness and not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal. And yet, despite his knowing fully well that a case had already been filed in court, he still confessed when he did not have to do so.

The contention of the trial court that the accused is not entitled to such rights anymore because the information has been filed and a warrant of arrest has been issued already, is untenable. The exercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under Section 12(1) of the Bill of Rights are not confined to that period prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information but are available at that stage when a person is "under investigation for the commission of an offense." Pursuant to Section 12(3) of the Bill of Rights therefore, such extra-judicial admission is inadmissible as evidence. As to the admissions made by Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa, the trial court admitted their testimony thereon only to prove the tenor of their conversation but not to prove the truth of the admission because such testimony was objected to as hearsay. Maqueda voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the course of an investigation, but in connection with Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a state witness; and as to the other admission (Salvosa), it was given to a private person therefore admissible. Note: a distinction between a confession and admission has been made by the SC: Admission of a party. The act, declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Confession. The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.

PEOPLE VS BANDULA Facts: Six armed men barged into the compound of Polo Coconut Plantation in Tanjay, Negros Oriental. The armed men were identified by Security Guard, including accused. Salva and Pastrano, security guards were hogtied and accused proceeded to the Atty. Garay, counsel of plantation. They ransacked the place and took with them money and other valuables. Atty. Garay was killed. Accused-appellant is charged with robbery with homicide along with 3 others who were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Appellant was convicted. Now, appellant argues that the extrajudicial confessions he and accused Dionanao executed suffer from constitutional infirmities, hence, inadmissible in evidence considering that they were extracted under duress and intimidation, and were merely countersigned later by the municipal attorney who, by the nature of his position, was not entirely an independent counsel nor counsel of their choice. Consequently, without the extrajudicial confessions, the prosecution is left without sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime charged.

Issue: Whether or Not extrajudicial confessions of appellant is admissible as evidence against him.

Held: No. When accused-appellant Bandula and accused Dionanao were investigated immediately after their arrest, they had no counsel present. If at all, counsel came in only a day after the custodial investigation with respect to accused Dionanao, and two weeks later with respect to appellant Bandula. And, counsel who supposedly assisted both accused was Atty. Ruben Zerna, the Municipal Attorney of

Tanjay. On top of this, there are telltale signs that violence was used against the accused. Certainly, these are blatant violations of the Constitution which mandates in Sec. 12, Art. III. Irregularities present include: 1. The investigators did not inform the accused of their right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of their own choice, even before attempting to elicit statements that would incriminate them. 2. Investigators continuously disregard the repeated requests of the accused for medical assistance. Reason for Accused Sedigos "black eye" which even Pat. Baldejera admitted is not established, as well as Bandulas fractured rib. 3. Counsel must be independent. He cannot be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused.

PEOPLE VS LUCERO
Facts: Accused-appellant was convicted for robbery with homicide. While he was in custodial investigation the accused cannot afford a lawyer thus one was provided for him in the person of Atty. Peralta as his counsel. Counsel explained to the accused his constitutional rights but Atty. Peralta observed no reaction from the accused. He left to attend the wake of a friend and the police authorities started to take statements from the accused. Apparently during the custodial investigation no counsel was around while accused gave his extrajudicial confession which was used against him as evidence in court and merit his conviction. Issue: Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the accused may be admissible during the trial. Held: Appellant's conviction cannot be based on his extrajudicial confession. The constitution requires that a person under investigation for the commission of a crime should be provided with a counsel. This is a constitutional guarantee to protect the accused against the hostility and duress from the authorities during custodial investigation. Any confession or statement made without the presence of a counsel during the investigation is deemed to be inadmissible as evidence in court. It appears that when the accused was taken with his statements his counsel was not around. Therefore his extrajudicial confession cannot be used as evidence against the accused during his trial. The court erred in admitting it as evidence and as a basis of conviction therefore the accused is acquitted. PEOPLE VS. AGUSTIN Facts: Quiao, the gunman who killed the victims, confessed during the investigation conducted by Baguio City Fiscal Erdolfo Balajadia in his office that he was the triggerman. He implicated Abenoja, Jr., who engaged him to kill Dr. Bayquen for a fee, Cartel, who provided the armalite, and a certain "Jimmy." During the investigation, Wilfredo Quiao was assisted by Atty. Reynaldo Cajucom. Stenographic notes of the proceedings during the investigation as transcribed with the sworn statement of Quiao was signed, with the assistance of Atty. Cajucom, and swore to before City Fiscal Balajadia. The following day, Agustin was apprehended, and was investigated and was afforded the privileges like that of Quiao. Agustins defense interpose that he was forced to admit involvement at gunpoint at Kennon Road. He further declared that although he was given a lawyer, Cajucom (a law partner of the private prosecutor), he nevertheless, asked for his uncle Atty. Oliver Tabin, and that Atty. Cajucom interviewed him from only two minutes in English and Tagalog but not in Ilocano, the dialect he understands. The promise that he would be discharged as a witness did not push through since Quiao escaped. However the RTC convicted him, since conspiracy was established, hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellants extrajudicial statements are admissible as evidence to warrant conviction. Held: No. The statement of the accused is inadmissible as evidence in court. Despite asking for his uncle to represent him he was provided with an impartial counsel who is an associate of the private prosecutor. It also appears that some of the transcripts of the notes of the proceeding that show the extrajudicial statement made by the accused were not signed by him. By making his statements the accused voluntarily waived his right to remain silent but that was not put in writing either. It would be in violation of the mandate of custodial investigation to admit the statement of the accused when the process undertaken is one bereft of meeting the standard requirements of the due process that should be accorded to the accused in custodial investigation, hence he should be acquitted. PEOPLE VS PINLAC 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. PEOPLE VS BOLANOS Facts: Oscar Pagdalian was murdered in Marble Supply, Balagtas Bulacan. According to Pat. Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao, deceased was with two companions on the previous night, one of whom the accused who had a drinking spree with the deceased. When they apprehended the accused they found the firearm of the deceased on the chair where the accused was allegedly seated. They boarded accused along with Magtibay, other accused on the police vehicle and brought them to the police station. While in the vehicle Bolanos admitted that he killed the deceased. RTC convicted him hence the appeal. Issue: Whether or Not accused-appellant deprived of his constitutional right to counsel. Held: Yes. Being already under custodial investigation while on board the police patrol jeep on the way to the Police Station where formal investigation may have been conducted, appellant should have been informed of his Constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, more particularly par. 1 and par. 3.

NAVALLO VS SANDIGANBAYAN 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.
PEOPLE VS MACAM Facts: Prosecutions version: On Aug 18,1987, Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro, Eugenio Cawilan Jr., Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque went to the house of Benito Macam (uncle of Eduardo Macam) located at 43 Ferma Road QC. Upon the arrival of the accused, Benito invited the former to have lunch. Benito asked his maid Salvacion Enrera to call the companions of Eduardo who were waiting in a tricycle outside the house. A. Cedro, E. Cawilan and D. Roque entered the house while E. Roque remained in the tricycle. After all the accused had taken their lunch, Eduardo Macam grabbed the clutch bag of Benito Macam and pulled out his uncles gun then declared a hold up. They tied up the wife (Leticia Macam), children, maid (Salvacion) and Nilo Alcantara and brought them to the room upstairs. After a while Leticia was brought to the bathroom and after she screamed she was stabbed and killed by A. Cedro. Benito, Nilo and Salvacion was also stabbed but survived. The total value of the items taken was P536, 700.00. Defenses version: Danilo Roque stated that he being a tricycle driver drove the 4 accused to Benitos house for a fee of P50.00. Instead of paying him, he was given a calling card by Eduardo Macam so that he can be paid the following day. Upon arriving, he went with the accused inside the house to have lunch. Thereafter he washed the dishes and swept the floor. When Eugenio Cawilan pulled a gun and announced the hold-up, he was asked to gather some things and which he abided out of fear. While putting the said thins inside the car of Benito (victim) he heard the accused saying kailangan patayin ang mga taong yan dahil kilala ako ng mga yan. Upon hearing such phrase he escaped and went home using his tricycle. He also testified that his brother Ernesto Roque has just arrived from the province and in no way can be involved in the case at bar. On the following day, together with his brother, they went to the factory of the Zesto Juice (owned by the father of Eduardo Macam) for him to get his payment (50.00) . He and his brother was suddenly apprehended by the security guards and brought to the police headquarters in Q.C. They were also forced to admit certain things. After which, he together with all the accused, in handcuffs and bore contusions on their faces caused by blows inflicted in their faces during investigation, was brought to the QC General Hospital before each surviving victims and made to line-up for identification. Eugenio Cawilan was also charged with Anti-fencing Law but was acquitted in the said case.

Issue: Whether or Not their right to counsel has been violated. WON the arrest was valid. WON the evidence from the line-up is admissible. Held: It is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even before trial. A police line-up is considered a critical stage of the proceedings. 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 arrest of the appellants was without a warrant. HOWEVER, they are estopped from questioning the legality of such arrest because they have not moved to quash the said information and therefore voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a plea of not guilty and participating in trial. The court believed the version of the prosecution. Ernesto Roque, while remaining outside the house served as a looked out. Wherefore, decision of lower court is Affirmed. Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque is guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide as co-conspirators of the other accused to suffer reclusion perpetua. Things taken: 2 toygun, airgun riffle, CO2 refiller, TV, betamax tapes, betamax rewinder, Samsonite attache case, typewriter, chessboard, TOYOTA Crown Car Plate No. CAS-997, assorted jewelry. .22 gun and money.

PEOPLE VS DY

Facts: Pat. Padilla reported along with Benny Dy, with caliber .38 as suspect to the shooting incident at "Benny's Bar," at Sitio Angol, Manoc-Manoc Malay, Aklan (Boracay) situated on the Island which caused the death of Christian Langel Philippe, tourist, 24 years old and a Swiss nationale. He was charged with the Murder With the Use of Unlicensed firearms. Appellant alleges that he carried the victim to the shore to be brought to the hospital to save the latter, and who facilitated the surrender to Pat. Padilla a gun which his helper found the following morning while cleaning the bar. Accused posted bail which was granted. The accused denied having made any oral confession alleging that he went to Pat. Padilla not to report the incident but to state that a boy helper in the bar had found a gun on the sand floor while cleaning and that Pat. Padilla picked up the gun from the bar at his request. The Accused argues that even if he did make such a confession, the same would be inadmissible in evidence. He was found guilty in the RTC. Hence the appeal. Issue: Whether or Not the lower court correct in saying that the constitutional procedure on custodial interrogation is not applicable in the instant case. Held: YES. Appellant's assertion that the gun he had surrendered was merely found by a boy helper while cleaning the bar deserves no credence for, if it were so, it would have been absurd for him to have placed himself under police custody in the early morning after the incident. Sworn Complaint for "Murder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm" signed by the Chief of Police also attests to Appellant's oral confession. That Complaint forms part of the record of the proceedings before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Buruanga, Aklan, and is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Appellant's voluntary surrender implies no violation as "no warrant of arrest is issued for the apprehension of the accused for the reason that he is already under police custody before the filing of the complaint." What was told by the Accused to Pat, Padilla was a spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning, but given in ordinary manner. No written confession was sought to be presented in evidence as a result of formal custodial investigation.

PEOPLE VS ALICANDO

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. PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN Facts: All the accused were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu with three counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder in four Informations. The victim Jose Bantug was found with gunshots in the head, body, and skull. The other three informations charged them with the murder of Francisco Carteciano y Sorilla and Antonio S. Carteciano, and the frustrated murder of Lorna V. Carteciano. The other 8 accused were acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt, while Victor Nuez was found guilty. The facts shown by evidence are: One morning, Major Antonio Carteciano was driving his private jeep Camp General Arcadio Maxilom in Lahug, Cebu City where he was stationed as medical officer of the PC/INP Provincial Command. In the front seat with him is his wife Lorna, and at the backseat are his mother in law, son, brother Francisco, neighbor Bantug, and Bantugs son. Near the intersection, gunshots were heard from the left side of the street. Major Carteciano took his .45 cal pistol and fired. However, gunshots were fired in succession, and Major Carteciano, his brother Francisco, Jose Bantug, and his wife Lorna were hit. When the jeep stopped, several gunmen approached them. Nuez demanded Lorna to give Nuez her husbands pistol. Lorna asked to take her valuables instead. Then, Nuez shot Major Cartecianos head point blank. Then the gunmen hijacked another jeep and took off. Lorna, her mother Juanita Ricaplaza, and her son Reiser Carteciano positively identified the accused. Lorna identified Nuez as the one who shot her husband. Nuez claimed that his arrest was illegal and that he was deprived of his right to counsel when he was subjected to a paraffin test without the assistance of counsel.

Issue: Whether or not the accused Nuezs constitutional right was violated

Held: No. Nuez pleaded not guilty at the arraignment. Therefore, he is estopped from questioning the validity of his arrest. Furthermore, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error. The witnesses also positively identified the accused, so he cannot question the credibility of the witnesses. Regarding his right to counsel, the Supreme Court held that-- the right to counsel attaches only upon the start of an investigation, that is, when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the accused. At such point or stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation. In the case at bar, when accused was subjected to a paraffin test, he was not then under custodial investigation. Accused-appellant also argued that since his co-accused were acquitted, then their acquittal negates conspiracy among them, and he should not be convicted with the charges filed. However, the Court held that conspiracy was still proven by the evidence, and the other co-accused were acquitted only because there was reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused-appellant is still convicted of the four charges against him. We, therefore, find that the conviction of accused-appellant for the crimes charged has been established beyond reasonable doubt and the penalty imposed is in accordance with law. However, the civil indemnity imposed by the trial court should be increased to P50,000 in conformity with our recent rulings on the matter. WHEREFORE, except for the modification that the civil indemnity to be paid by accused-appellant Victor Nuez, Jr. to the heirs of each victim who died is hereby increased to P50,000, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with costs against accused-appellant

Republic Act No. 7438

April 27, 1992

AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:: Section 1. Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full respect for human rights. Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. (a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel. (b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.

(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever. (d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. (e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect. (f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fianc or fiance, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward. As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law. Section 3. Assisting Counsel. Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly affected by the case, those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the prosecution of crimes. The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the following fees; (a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with light felonies;lawphi1alf (b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with less grave or grave felonies; (c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with a capital offense. The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial investigation is conducted, provided that if the municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal or City Treasurer must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel before the province pays said fees. In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected person can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Section 4. Penalty Clause. (a) Any arresting public officer or employee, or any investigating officer, who fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years but not more than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been previously convicted of a similar offense.

The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee, or anyone acting upon orders of such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel. (b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring privately with him, or from examining and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).lawphi1 The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with custodial responsibility over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure his safety and prevent his escape. Section 5. Repealing Clause. Republic Act No. No. 857, as amended, is hereby repealed. Other laws, presidential decrees, executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly. Section 6. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in any daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. Approved: April 27, 1992.lawphi1