ASTUDILLO v.

PEOPLE
G.R. No. 159734, November 30, 2006
CARPIO MORALES, J.:

FACTS: Rosario Astudillo and Filipina Orellana were hired by Western Marketing Corporation
(Western), as salespersons, while Roberto Benitez and Flormarie Robel were hired as floor manager
and service-in-charge/cashier-reliever, respectively. In the course of preparing the monthly sales
report of the branch, the Branch Accountant noticed discrepancies in the monthly sales report.
The case of the missing invoices and the shortage of cash sales collection were then reported to
Western’s branch manager Lily Chan Ong (Lily). In a subsequent meeting with Lily, Filipina
admitted having brought home some appliances while Benitez made a written admission asking
for apology. In an inventory of stocks conducted at the branch office of Western, several other
appliances were found missing. On the basis of the complaint of Western, Astudillo and Orellana
were collectively charged with Qualified Theft, along with Flormarie Robel and Roberto Benitez.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Astudillo and Orellana guilty of Qualified Theft. The Court of
Appeals affirmed affirmed the RTC‘s decision. Hence, this petitions for review on certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether the employees’ extra-judicial admissions taken before an employer in the course
of an administrative inquiry are admissible in a criminal case filed against them.

RULING: It bears noting that when the prosecution formally offered its evidence, petitioners failed
to file any objection thereto including their extra-judicial admissions. At any rate, the Court answers
the issue in the affirmative.

The employee may, of course, refuse to submit any statement at the investigation; that is his
privilege. But if he should opt to do so, in his defense to the accusation against him, it would be
absurd to reject his statements, whether at the administrative investigation, or at a subsequent
criminal action brought against him, because he had not been accorded, prior to his making and
presenting them, his “Miranda rights” which, to repeat, are relevant in custodial investigations.

The Court of Appeals did not thus err in pronouncing that Astudillo and Orellana were not under
custodial investigation to call for the presence of counsel of their own choice, hence, their written
incriminatory statements are admissible in evidence.

Astudillo and Orellana at all events argue that their written statements were obtained through
deceit, promise, trickery and scheme, they claiming that Lily dictated to them their contents. There
is nothing on record, however, buttressing Astudillo and Orellana‘s claim other than their self-
serving assertion. The presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and
knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience such that it is presumed
to be voluntary until the contrary is proved thus stands.

PEOPLE v. BACOR
G.R. No. 122895. April 30, 1999
MENDOZA, J.:

FACTS: On the basis of his extrajudicial confession, Victor Bacor was found guilty with the murder
of Dionesio Albores. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, but from a penalty of reclusion
temporal as maximum, it sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE: Whether accused-appellant validly waived his right to remain silent, and therefore, whether
his confession is admissible in evidence against him.

RULING: By voluntarily executing his extrajudicial confession, which he did in the presence of and
with assistance of counsel and after having been informed of his constitutional rights, accused
effectively waived his right to remain silent.

Both the trial and appellate courts correctly convicted accused on the basis of the confession
since, as they noted, it was corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti which dove-tails with
the confession.

The Court of Appeals correctly sentenced accused to reclusion perpetua. When the crime of
murder was committed on March 17, 1991, the same was punishable under Art. 284 of the Penal
Code by reclusion temporal, in its maximum period to death. Each of the three distinct penalties
covered thereby forms a period and the penalty to be imposed is determined after reasonably
offsetting the attending mitigating and aggravating circumstances. In the instant case, the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender of the accused was offset by the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling considering that latter circumstance is not absorbed by the qualifying
circumstance of treachery.

MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 109242. January 26, 1999
MENDOZA, J.:

FACTS: On February 10, 1989, Jacinto Merete, a letter carrier in the Makati Central Post Office,
disclosed to his chief, Projecto Tumagan, the existence of a group responsible for the pilferage of
mail matter in the post office. Among those mentioned by Merete were Arnold Pasicolan, an
emergency laborer assigned as a bag opener in the Printed Matters Section, and Redentor
Aguinaldo, a mail sorter of the Makati Post Office.

For this reason, Tumagan sought the aid of the National Bureau of Investigation in apprehending
the group responsible for mail pilferage in the Makati Post Office. On February 17, 1989, NBI
Director Salvador Ranin dispatched NBI agents to Legaspi Village following a report that the group
would stage a theft of mail matter on that day. Tumagan accompanied a team of NBI agents
composed of Senior Agent Arles Vela and two other agents in a private car.

At 2:00 p.m., a postal delivery jeep, driven by one Henry Orindai, was parked in front of the
Esguerra Building on Adelantado Street. Pasicolan alighted from the jeep bringing with him a mail
bag. Upon reaching Amorsolo St., Pasicolan gave the mail bag to two persons, who were later
identified as Ronnie Romero and petitioner Lito Marcelo. The latter transferred the contents of the
mail bag to a travelling bag. Meanwhile, the NBI team led by agent Vela, upon seeing Pasicolan
going towards Amorsolo St., moved their car and started towards Amorsolo St. They were just in
time to see Pasicolan handing over the mail bag to Marcelo and Romero.

At that point, Atty. Sacaguing and Arles Vela arrested the two accused. The NBI agents followed
the postal delivery jeep, overtook it, and arrested Pasicolan. The NBI agents brought Pasicolan,
Marcelo, and Romero to their headquarters. Romero, Marcelo, and Pasicolan were asked to affix
their signatures on the envelopes of the letters. They did so in the presence of the members of the
NBI Administrative and Investigative Staff and the people transacting business with the NBI at that
time. According to Director Ranin, they required the accused to do this in order to identify the
letters as the very same letters confiscated from them. A case for qualified theft was filed before
the Sandiganbayan wherein the accused were declared guilty.

ISSUE: Whether the letters signed by the petitioner were inadmissible as evidence.

RULING: The Supreme Court held that the letters were valid evidence. It is known that during
custodial investigation, a person has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Any
admission or confession made in the absence of counsel is inadmissible as evidence. Furthermore,
no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

In the instant case, even though the petitioner was asked to sign the letters, the letters are still
admissible as evidence because the accused was convicted not only by means of these letters
but also by testimonies made by the NBI agents. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that the letters
were validly seized as an incident of a valid arrest and therefore can stand on their own. The
decision of the Sandiganbayan is affirmed.

COMMENDADOR v. DE VILLA
200 SCRA 80, August 2, 1991
CRUZ, J.:

FACTS: The petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 96948 who are officers of the AFP were directed to
appear in person before the Pre-Trial Investigating Officers for the alleged participation the failed
coup on December 1 to 9, 1989. Petitioners now claim that there was no pre-trial investigation of
the charges as mandated by Article of War 71. A motion for dismissal was denied. Now, their
motion for reconsideration. Alleging denial of due process.

In G.R. No. 95020, Ltc Jacinto Ligot applied for bail on June 5, 1990, but the application was denied
by GCM No.14. He filed with the RTC a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for
provisional liberty and a writ of preliminary injunction. Judge of GCM then granted the provisional
liberty. However he was not released immediately. The RTC now declared that even military men
facing court martial proceedings can avail the right to bail.

The private respondents in G.R. No. 97454 filed with SC a petition for habeas corpus on the ground
that they were being detained in Camp Crame without charges. The petition was referred to RTC.
Finding after hearing that no formal charges had been filed against the petitioners after more
than a year after their arrest, the trial court ordered their release.

ISSUES: (1) Whether there was a denial of due process. (2) Whether there was a violation of the
accused right to bail.

HELD: NO denial of due process. Petitioners were given several opportunities to present their side
at the pre-trial investigation, first at the scheduled hearing of February 12, 1990, and then again
after the denial of their motion of February 21, 1990, when they were given until March 7, 1990, to
submit their counter-affidavits. On that date, they filed instead a verbal motion for reconsideration
which they were again asked to submit in writing. They had been expressly warned in the
subpoena that "failure to submit counter-affidavits on the date specified shall be deemed a
waiver of their right to submit controverting evidence." Petitioners have a right to pre-emptory
challenge. (Right to challenge validity of members of G/SCM)
It is argued that since the private respondents are officers of the Armed Forces accused of
violations of the Articles of War, the respondent courts have no authority to order their release and
otherwise interfere with the court-martial proceedings. This is without merit. * The Regional Trial
Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against inferior courts and other bodies and on petitions
for habeas corpus and quo warranto.

Moreover, the right to bail invoked by the private respondents has traditionally not been
recognized and is not available in the military, as an exception to the general rule embodied in
the Bill of Rights. The right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to
bail does not exist.

On the contention that they had not been charged after more than one year from their arrest,
there was substantial compliance with the requirements of due process and the right to a speedy
trial. The AFP Special Investigating Committee was able to complete the pre-charge investigation
only after one year because hundreds of officers and thousands of enlisted men were involved in
the failed coup.

Accordingly, in G.R. No. 93177, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. In G.R. No. 96948, the
petition is granted, and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to exercise the right
of peremptory challenge under article 18 of the articles of war. In G.R. Nos. 95020 and 97454, the
petitions are also granted, and the orders of the respondent courts for the release of the private
respondents are hereby reversed and set aside. No costs.