People V. Mahinay Feb. 1, 1999. G.R. No.

122485
Per Curiam
Fac!" Larry Mahinay was Maria Isips houseboyone of his tasks was to take care
of Isips new house which was under construction and adjacent to her old house.
The victim, Ma. ictoria !han, "# years old, was Isip$s nei%hbor. &n the late evenin%
of #' (une "))', the victim was reported missin% by her mother. *e+t mornin%,
Mahinay boarded a jeepney and disappeared. ictorias body was found at around
,-./ am that same day. 0he was found in the septic tank of Isips compound yard,
wearin% her blouse and no underwear. 1n autopsy showed that she was raped and
was stran%led to death.

2pon re3e+aminin% the crime scene, policemen found a pair of dirty white short
pants, a brown belt and a yellow hair ribbon which was identified by the victims
mother to belon% to her dau%hter. They found a pair of blue slippers, as well as
underwear, a leather wallet, a pair of dirty lon% pants and pliers, all of which Isip
identified as belon%in% to Mahinay. 0everal nei%hbors testified that they had seen
the victim and Mahinay near Isips house under construction on the ni%ht of the the
victims disappearance, and that Mahinay was da4ed and drunk that ni%ht.
Mahinay was arrested5 he e+ecuted an e+trajudicial confession narratin% how he
committed the crime. alen4uela 6T! convicted him of the crime of rape5 Mahinay
was sentenced to death. This case is now before the 0! under automatic review.
Mahinay claims he confessed because he heard a police officers plan to 7salva%e8
him if he would not admit that he was the one who raped and killed the victim, and
that he was only assisted by counsel when he was forced to si%n the e+trajudicial
confession.
#!!ue" 9&* Mahinays ri%ht to lawful custodial investi%ation was violated.
$el%" No. Mahinays ar%ument is contradicted by the records as well as the
testimony of the lawyer who assisted, warned and e+plained to him his
constitutionally %uaranteed pre3interro%atory and custodial ri%hts. :is confession was
taken in the presence of his lawyer. The e+trajudicial confession taken from Mahinay
was within the re;uirement of Miranda ri%hts. &u%'men (FF#RM)*+ he a,ar% o-
ci.il in%emniy -or he heinou! rape i! #NCR)(/)* o P05,111.11, P23/
P51,111.11 moral %ama'e!.
Lesly 6odiel <ries
/)P(R(4) N54)" Miran%a Ri'h!
". The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investi%ation must be informed in a
lan%ua%e known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the
warrant of arrest, if any5 =very other warnin%s, information or communication must be in a lan%ua%e
known to and understood by said person5
#. :e must be warned that he has a ri%ht to remain silent and that anystatement he makes may be
used as evidence a%ainst him5
.. :e must be informed that he has the ri%ht to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an
independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice5
>. :e must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be
provided for him5 and that a lawyer may also be en%a%ed by any person in his behalf, or may be
appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one actin% in his behalf5
'. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed that no custodial
investi%ation in any form shall be conducted e+cept in the presence of his counsel or after a valid
waiver has been made5
?. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the ri%ht to communicate or confer
by the most e+pedient means 3 telephone, radio, letter or messen%er 3 with his lawyer @either retained
or appointedA, any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen
by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited byBconfer with duly
accredited national or international non3%overnment or%ani4ation. It shall be the responsibility of the
officer to ensure that this is accomplished5
,. :e must be informed that he has the ri%ht to waive any of said ri%hts provided it is made voluntarily,
knowin%ly and intelli%ently and ensure that he understood the same5
C. In addition, if the person arrested waives his ri%ht to a lawyer, he must be informed that it must be
done in writin% 1*D in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void
even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak5
). That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at any time or sta%e
of the process that he does not wish to be ;uestioned with warnin% that once he makes such
indication, the police may not interro%ate him if the same had not yet commenced, or the interro%ation
must ceased if it has already be%un5
"/. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his ri%ht to remain silent, the ri%ht to
counsel or any of his ri%hts does not bar him from invokin% it at any time durin% the process,
re%ardless of whether he may have answered some ;uestions or volunteered some statements5
"". :e must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may be, obtained in
violation of any of the fore%oin%, whether inculpatory or e+culpatory, in whole or in part, shall be
inadmissible in evidence.