SEC.

12 – Available only during custodial investigation

PEOPLE VS ORDOO

GR NO. 132154

The body of a 15 year old girl was found decomposing among the bushes near a bridge in La
Union. It was revealed that the victim was raped and strangled to death. The police thereupon invited
the two (2) suspects, Pacito Ordoo and Apolonio Medina and brought them to the police station for
questioning. However, for lack of evidence then directly linking them to the crime, they were allowed to
go home.

On 10 August 1994 the accused Pacito Ordoo and Apolonio Medina returned to the police
station and acknowledged that they had indeed committed the crime. The police immediately
conducted an investigation and put their confessions in writing. The investigators however could not get
the services of a lawyer to assist the two (2) accused in the course of the investigation because there
were no practicing lawyers in the Municipality of Santol, a remote town of the Province of La Union.
Nevertheless, their statements were taken after both accused were acquainted in their own dialect of
their constitutional right to remain silent and to be assisted by a competent counsel of their choice.
Later on, the leading radio announcer of radio station DZNL visited and interviewed them. In the
interview which was duly tape-recorded, both accused admitted again their complicity in the crime and
narrated individually the events surrounding their commission there.

A couple of days later, the police brought the two (2) accused to the office of the PAO lawyer in
Balaoan, La Union, for assistance and counseling. PAO lawyer Oscar B. Corpuz apprised each of the
accused of his constitutional rights, explained the contents of their respective statements, and finally,
accompanied them to Judge Fabian M. Bautista. Upon such assurance that they had not been coerced
into giving and signing their confessions, Judge Bautista finally asked the accused Pacito Ordoo and
Apolonio Medina to affix their signatures/ thumbmarks on their respective confessions. On arraignment,
in a complete turnabout, the two (2) accused pleaded not guilty.

ISSUE: Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the two accused are admissible despite
the absence of assistance of a counsel.

No. For a confession to be admissible in evidence must satisfy four (4) fundamental
requirements: (a) the confession must be voluntary; (b) the confession must be made with the
assistance of competent and independent counsel; (c) the confession must be express; and, (d) the
confession must be in writing. The person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the
pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced confessions from the lips of the person undergoing
interrogation. Hence, if there is no counsel at the start of the custodial investigation, any statement
elicited from the accused is inadmissible in evidence against him. In the instant case, custodial
investigation began when the accused Ordoo and Medina voluntarily went to the Santol Police Station
to confess and the investigating officer started asking questions to elicit information and/or confession
from them. At such point, the right of the accused to counsel automatically attached to them.
Concededly, after informing the accused of their rights the police sought to provide them with counsel.
However, none could be furnished them due to the non-availability of practicing lawyers in Santol, La
Union. At that stage, the police should have already desisted from continuing with the interrogation but
they persisted and gained the consent of the accused to proceed with the investigation. Securing the
assistance of the PAO lawyer five (5) to eight (8) days later does not remedy this omission either
although there was a showing that the PAO lawyer made a thorough explanation of the rights of the
accused. The second affixation of the signatures/ thumbmarks of the accused on their confessions a few
days after their closed-door meeting with the PAO lawyer, in the presence and with the signing of the
MTC judge, the PAO lawyer and other witnesses, likewise did not make their admissions an informed
one. Admissions obtained during custodial investigation without the benefit of counsel although
reduced into writing and later signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the Constitution.

Police Line-Up

PEOPLE VS BOLANOS

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 accused-appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel.

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.

Right to be informed of such right

PEOPLE VS. NICANDRO

The Drug Enforcement Unit of Police Station No. 5 received complaints from concerned citizens
regarding the illegal sale of prohibited drugs by one alias 'Nel'. After verifying the complaints, an
entrapment with the confidential informant acting as the buyer of marijuana was organized. Upon being
investigated and after having been duly apprised of her constitutional rights, appellant orally admitted
having sold the four (4) sticks of marijuana cigarettes and the ownership of the marijuana flowering tops
taken from her pocket, but refused to reduce her confession to writing.
 ISSUE: Whether the evidence was obtained in violation of the accused constitutional rights.

Yes. When the Constitution requires a person under investigation “to be informed” of his right to remain
silent and to counsel, it must be presumed to contemplate the transmission of meaningful information
rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. As a
rule, therefore, it would not be sufficient for a police officer just to repeat to the person under
investigation the provisions of Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution. He is not only duty-bound to tell
the person the rights to which the latter is entitled; he must also explain their effects in practical terms,
e.g., what the person under interrogation may or may not do, and in a language the subject fairly
understands.

SEC. 13- Right to Bail (When invoked and by whom)

LAVIDES VS COURT OF APPEALS

Petitioner Manolet Lavides was arrested on April 3, 1997 for child abuse. His arrest was made
without a warrant as a result of an entrapment conducted by the police. On April 29, 1997, nine more
informations for child abuse were filed against petitioner by the same complainant In all the cases, it
was alleged that, on various dates mentioned in the informations, petitioner had sexual intercourse with
complainants who had been "exploited in prostitution and . . . given money [by petitioner] as payment
for the said [acts of] sexual intercourse." No bail was recommended. Nonetheless, petitioner filed
separate applications for bail in the nine cases.

ISSUE: Whether the approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment to
enable this Court to immediately acquire jurisdiction over the accused.

No. Bail should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused may be precluded from
filing a motion to quash. For if the information is quashed and the case is dismissed, there would then
be no need for the arraignment of the accused. In the second place, the trial court could ensure the
presence of petitioner at the arraignment precisely by granting bail and ordering his presence at any
stage of the proceedings, such as arraignment. Under Rule 114, 2(b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure,
one of the conditions of bail is that "the accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so
required by the court or these Rules," while under Rule 116, 1(b) the presence of the accused at the
arraignment is required. On the other hand, to condition the grant of bail to an accused on his
arraignment would be to place him in a position where he has to choose between (1) filing a motion to
quash and thus delay his release on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his
arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be
arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. These scenarios certainly undermine the accuseds
constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon valid complaint or information sufficient to charge
him with a crime and his right to bail.