People vs Binamira

Armando Binamira y Alayon appeals the decision of the RTC of Makati convicting him of the crime of robbery with
homicide.

State’s Contention: Security Guard Nicasio Rosales together with his co-guards were alerted by a report regarding the
death of a woman. They immediately conducted a search of the immediate surroundings hoping to find the person
responsible for the killing and they saw a man wearing short pants, walking very fast. When the guards approached him,
the man who turned out to be herein appellant, casually pretended to be urinating. Suspicious, they searched him and
found a pair of pants and undershirt inside his bag soaked with blood. the guard brought appellant to the Galleria de
Magallanes Hall where he, as well as the bloodied clothings, were turned over to Police Investigator Wilfredo Cruz,
appellant was brought to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of the Makati Police Station for further investigation.

Cruz conducted an investigation of appellants complicity in the Magallanes robbery-killing incident. Before the
investigation proceeded, Pfc. Cruz first apprised appellant of his constitutional rights while under custodial investigation by
explaining to him his right to counsel, his right to remain silent and, that any statement that he would give during the
investigation may be used for or against him in any court of law, and that in case he did not have a lawyer, the State
would provide him with one who will assist him in the investigation. At this juncture, the services of Atty. Romeo P. Parcon
of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO) of Makati was offered to which appellant agreed

While being investigated with the assistance and presence of Atty. Parcon, appellant readily cooperated to give his
statements. He admitted that he stabbed the victim in the neck with a fan knife after divesting her of one (1) wristwatch
and a gold necklace. Appellant revealed that he killed the victim when she began screaming for help despite his
instructions to keep silent.

Accused’s Contention: He admitted his presence at Magallanes Village that fateful night but unequivocally denied
participation in the crime.

Coming from his work at Baclaran, Paranaque around 7:00 p.m, he went to Magallanes Village at the back of Bulwagang
Pilipino for taking a merienda. While walking all alone at the vicinity of Magallanes Village, hedid not notice any unusual
incident nor seen anybody until the security guards who, without legal and justifiable grounds searched and apprehended
him. He was brought by the security guards at their headquarters where they beat, mauled, maltreated and tied him to the
post. They forced him to admit that he was the one who killed the woman whose body was lying at their guardhouse. The
security guards then pointed to him a person lying at their guardhouse. They forced him to carry the dead body to be
placed inside the funeral car. Helpless, he followed their order. After he has placed the body at the funeral car, the
security guards ordered him to take off the clothes he was wearing. Afterwards, the security guards brought him once
more to their headquarters where he saw Pfc. Willy Cruz. From their headquarters, they brought him to the Criminal
Investigation Division (CID), Makati Police Station for interrogation.

When the investigation was being conducted by the police investigator, accused-appellant did not see one of his relatives
at the police station nor was he provided a lawyer of his choice. Subsequently, the police investigators blindfolded him. He
was thereafter mauled by the police investigators, forcing him to admit the commission of the crime which happened in
Magallanes Village. After maltreating the accused-appellant, they detained him and was made to sign a statement the
following day.

When his wife visited him at the detention cell, accused-appellant told her what the security guards and police officers did
to him during the apprehension and investigation. The wife, due to fear, did not report the maltreatment committed on the
accused-appellant to the higher authorities.

Issue: Whether there is a violation of the accused right to retain a counsel of his own choice during custodial investigation
renders his extrajudicial confession inadmissible.

Held: Clearly, the right to counsel preferably of ones own choice and the right to be informed thereof were extant when
Appellant Binamira was investigated by the Makati Police on October 3, 1985, or more than two years after the
promulgation of the judge-made law in Morales.
In the present case, Appellant Binamira was not adequately informed of his constitutional right to engage a counsel of his
own choice, much less afforded an opportunity to exercise such right. This much, we repeat, is admitted by the Solicitor
General.
Moreover, the extrajudicial confession itself shows that, in the course of the custodial investigation, Appellant Binamira
was not fully apprised of his constitutional rights. While he was perfunctorily informed of his right to be represented by
counsel, it was not explained to him that he may choose that counsel. More important, he was not given the chance to
actually retain such counsel of his choice. Furthermore, he was supposedly informed of these rights through two kilometric
sentences punctuated by similarly two terse answers of Opo initialed by him. It was not demonstrated that appellant
understood his constitutional rights; and the Pahiwatig itself, which is obviously of martial law vintage, shows that the
investigating officers did not exert sufficient effort to explain such rights. Verily, the right of a person under custodial
investigation to be informed of his rights contemplates an effective communication that results in an understanding of what
is conveyed. Short of this, there is a denial of the right, as it cannot truly be said that the accused has been informed of his
right
People vs Ordono

Facts: On 5 August 1994, the decomposing body of a young girl was found among the bushes near a bridge in Barangay
Poblacion, Santol, La Union. The girl was later identified as Shirley Victore, 15 years old, a resident of Barangay Guesset,
Poblacion, Santol, La Union, who 3 days before was reported missing.

Postmortem examination conducted by Dr. Arturo Llavore, a medico-legal officer of the NBI, revealed that the victim was
raped and strangled to death.

Unidentified sources pointed to Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina as the authors of the crime. Acting on this lead, the
police thereupon invited the 2 suspects 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, Ordoño and Medina returned to the police station one after another and acknowledged that they had
indeed committed the crime. Acting on their admission, the police immediately conducted an investigation and put their
confessions in writing. The investigators however could not at once get the services of a lawyer to assist the 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. Be that as it may, the statements of the 2 accused where nevertheless taken. But before doing
so, both accused were apprised in their own dialect of their constitutional right to remain silent and to be assisted by a
competent counsel of their choice. Upon their acquiescence and assurance that they understood their rights and did not
require the services of counsel, the investigation was conducted with the Parish Priest, the Municipal Mayor, the Chief of
Police and other police officers of Santol, La Union, in attendance to listen to and witness the giving of the voluntary
statements of the 2 suspects who admitted their participation in the crime.

After Medina said his piece, his wife and mother suddenly burst into tears. He then affixed his signature on his statement
and so did his wife, followed by all the other witnesses who listened to his confession. Pacito Ordoño narrated his story in
the afternoon. At the end of his narration Ordoño affixed his thumbmark on his statement in lieu of his signature as he did
not know how to write.

Thereafter, Medina and Ordoño were detained at the Santol police station. News about the apprehension and detention of
the culprits of the rape-slay of Shirley Victore soon spread that Roland Almoite, 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 thereof. According to Medina,
his remorse in having committed the crime was so great but his repentance came too late. He and Ordoño hoped that the
parents of Shirley Victore would forgive them. Upon conclusion of the interview, Roland Almoite immediately went to radio
station DZNL and played the taped interview on the air. The same interview was played again on the air the following
morning and was heard by thousands of listeners.

A couple of days later, the police brought the 2 accused to the office of the PAO lawyer in Balaoan, La Union, for
assistance and counseling. In a closed-door session, PAO lawyer Oscar B. Corpuz apprised each of the accused of his
constitutional rights and, even though their confessions were already written in their dialect, explained to them each of the
questions and answers taken during the investigation. He likewise advised them to ponder the consequences of their
confessions, leading them to defer the affixing of their second signature/thumbmark thereon.

After a week or so, the 2 separately went back to Atty. Corpuz and informed him of their willingness to affix their
signatures and thumbmarks for the second time in their respective confessions. Once again Atty. Corpuz apprised the 2
accused of their constitutional rights, explained the contents of their respective statements, and finally, accompanied them
to Judge Fabian M. Bautista, MTC judge of Balaoan, La Union, who further apprised the 2 accused of their constitutional
rights and asked them if they had been coerced into signing their confessions. They assured Judge Bautista that their
statements had been given freely and voluntarily. Upon such assurance that they had not been coerced into giving and
signing their confessions, Judge Bautista finally asked Ordoño and Medina to affix their signatures/thumbmarks on their
respective confessions, and to subscribe the same before him. Atty. Corpuz then signed their statements as their
assisting counsel, followed by a few members of the MTC staff who witnessed the signing. Ordono and Medina were
charged for rape with homicide. On arraignment, in a Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 41 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
complete turnabout, the 2 accused pleaded not guilty. On 11 December 1997, the trial court adjudged Ordoño and Medina
guilty of the crime of rape with homicide attended with conspiracy, and imposed upon each of them 2 death penalties on
the basis of their extrajudicial confessions. Hence, the automatic review.

Issue: The accused are now before us assailing their conviction on the ground that constitutional infirmities attended the
execution of their extrajudicial confessions, i.e., mainly the lack of counsel to assist them during custodial investigation
thereby making their confessions inadmissible in evidence.

Held: Under the Constitution and the rules laid down pursuant to law and jurisprudence, 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. Among all these requirements none is accorded the greatest respect than an accused's
right to counsel to adequately protect him in his ignorance and shield him from the otherwise condemning nature of a
custodial investigation. 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 the offense. 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. This exclusionary rule is premised on the presumption that the
defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and runs through menacing police interrogation procedures where the
potentiality for compulsion, physical and psychological, is forcefully apparent.

In providing that during the taking of an extrajudicial confession the accused's parents, older brothers and sisters, his
spouse, the municipal mayor, municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by
the accused may be present, RA 7438 does not propose that they appear in the alternative or as a substitute for counsel
without any condition or clause. It is explicitly stated therein that before the above-mentioned persons can appear two (2)
conditions must be met: (a) counsel of the accused must be absent, and, (b) a valid waiver must be executed. RA 7438
does not therefore unconditionally and unreservedly eliminate the necessity of counsel but underscores its importance by
requiring that a substitution of counsel with the above-mentioned persons be made with caution and with the essential
safeguards.

Hence, in the absence of such valid waiver, the Parish Priest of Santol, the Municipal Mayor, the relatives of the accused,
the Chief of Police and other police officers of the municipality could not stand in lieu of counsel's presence. The apparent
consent of the two (2) accused in continuing with the investigation was of no moment as a waiver to be effective must be
made in writing and with the assistance of counsel. Consequently, any admission obtained from the two (2) accused
emanating from such uncounselled interrogation would be inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding.

People vs Barasina

Facts: It was around 6:40 p.m. of 17 July 1988 when Fiscal Lino Mayo of Olongapo City succumbed to a single bullet on
his side of his face fired by a gunman from an unlicensed .45 caliber firearm while the former was walking at the VIP
parking lot of the Victory Liner Compound at Caloocan City. The gun man continued walking at the same time holding his
gun with two hands trying to cock it. After walking a few meters, the gun man tucked the gun in his right waist and began
running away.

Barangay Councilman Prudencio Motos and about four other men (among them, Ruel Ganiola and Michael Estapia, both
porters) chased the gun man. When the gun man was about to reach the LRT Station, they shouted at the policeman
conducting traffic in the area and pointed at the running man. The policeman, Pfc. Napoleon Francia, shouted at the gun
man, who stopped and raised his hands. Pfc. Francia then confiscated a .45 cal. pistol from the gun man. Afterwards, Pfc.
Francia, Councilman Motos and others brought the gun man to the Kalookan City Police Headquarters aboard a
passenger jeep. The gun man was identified later as Elias Barasina y Laynesa. Barasina was charged for violation of
Preisdential Decree 1866 (illegal possession of firearms). Barasina, "John Doe" and "Peter Doe" (true names, real
identities and present whereabouts of the last two mentioned accused, still unknown) were also charge for the crime of
murder. When haled to respond to the inculpations, Barasina was indifferent in entering any plea, thus the plea of not
guilty to the two criminal charges was entered by the trial court in his behalf. In the course of the trial, Barasina, through
counsel, filed a Motion to Quash on the ground of double jeopardy, i.e. in jeopardy of being convicted of two offenses —
Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms. In an Order, dated 17 August 1989, the Court denied the Motion to Quash. On
trial, one of the principal defenses set up by Barasina was that he was mauled, maltreated and forced to sign two
documents by the Caloocan policemen while he was inside a small cell inside the Caloocan City Police Headquarters.

Issue: Whether the affirming the ruling of the trial court admitting in evidence the extrajudicial confession of the herein
accused-appellant.

Held: Barasina makes reference to the manner the extrajudicial confession and waiver were extracted from him in the
absence of a lawyer of his own choice. He maintains that he procured the services of Atty. Romeo Mendoza in the course
of the custodial investigation but it was turned out that it was Atty. Abelardo Torres who assisted during the interrogation
upon the directive of P.Lt. Surara. Accused-appellant concludes that the extrajudicial statement can not thus be utilized
against him for want of competent, independent counsel of his own choice.

The phrase "competent and independent" and "preferably of his own choice" were explicit details which were added upon
the persistence of human rights lawyers in the 1986 Constitutional Commission who pointed out cases where, during the
martial law period, the lawyers made available to the detainee would be one appointed by the military and therefore
beholden to the military.

. . . As previously stated, the execution of these two documents were testified to by Cpl. Daniel del Rosario who prepared
Exhibits "P" and "Q". Exhibit "P" is actually a waiver signed by the accused by the investigator Cpl. del Rosario and by
Atty. Abelardo Torres. Exhibit "Q" is actually a confession signed by the accused and by Atty. Abelardo Torres, the
assisting counsel of the accused. Both Cpl. del Rosario and Atty. Torres described how the documents were prepared.
Atty. Torres related how he was called and how he actually assisted the accused in the preparation of the two documents.
Lt. Norberto Surara testified as to why he called Atty. Torres to assist the accused then. He identified his own sworn
statement marked as Exhibit "Z" to show his participation in the execution of the two documents. which observations were
correctly sustained by the Court of Appeals, through Justice Angelina S. Gutierrez of the Ninth Division in this wise:

The claim of herein appellant that he was assisted by counsel, not of his own choice, is belied by records. During the
custodial investigation, he failed to indicate in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with
an attorney of his own preference before speaking or giving any statement. Indeed, there is no showing that he
manifested any resistance when he was assisted by Atty. Torres. We are thus inclined to agree with the Solicitor General
that the hiring of Atty. Romeo Mendoza as counsel by the appellant after the custodial investigation is an afterthought.

Withal, the word "preferably" under Section 12[1], Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution does not convey the message that the
choice of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and independent
attorneys from handling his defense. If the rule were otherwise, then, the tempo of a custodial investigation will be solely
in the hands of the accused who can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of the interrogation by simply selecting lawyer
who for one reason or another, is not available to protect his interest. This absurd scenario could not have been
contemplated by the framers of the charter.

People vs Gonzales

Facts: This is an appeal from the decision, dated February 10, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region,
Branch 6, Mati, Davao Oriental, insofar as it finds accused-appellants Joel Gonzales and Romeo Bernaldez guilty as
principals of the complex crime of robbery with homicide.

At about 9:30 oclock in the evening of July 5, 1992, the spouses Nicanor and Carolita Suralta had visitors at their house
in Bagsac, Manikling, San Isidro, Davao Oriental. Nicanor was having drinks with Arsenio Abonales, Bobong Lamanilao,
and Nicasio Lamanilao when two armed men, one carrying a gun and the other a knife, suddenly entered the house
through the kitchen door.
The one carrying a gun had a bonnet over his face, with only his eyes exposed, while the other one carrying a knife had
the lower half of his face covered with a handkerchief. The knife-wielder held Chona, the third child of the Suralta
spouses, and announced a holdup. All persons in the house were ordered to go inside the bedroom, about two meters
away from the sala. There, the man with a gun demanded a gun and money from Nicanor.Nicanor answered that he had
no gun, but asked his wife to give money to the holduppers. Carolita gave P2,100.00, which was intended to be deposited
in the bank, to the knife-wielder, who placed it in his pocket. Then the knife-wielder ransacked the cabinet and took the
remaining amount of P325.00, which was intended for the school expenses of the Suralta children. In addition, he took the
familys Sanyo cassette recorder and some clothes. The holduppers also divested Arsenio Abonales, one of the guests, of
his Seiko divers wristwatch and then left. As the holduppers were leaving, two gunshots rang out. Carolita thought that the
first one was a mere warning shot, but later Nicanor was heard moaning. Carolita became hysterical after seeing her
husband lying in a pool of his own blood. Nicanor was immediately brought to the Lupon Emergency Hospital where he
was given first aid. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Tagum Regional Hospital but he eventually died.

Accused’s Contention: Accused-appellant Gonzales contends that during the interrogation and investigation, he and his
co-appellant Romeo Bernaldez were not informed of their rights to remain silent and to secure the services of counsel, in
violation of 2 and 12, Art. III of the Constitution. Hence, their admission of the commission of the crime is inadmissible in
evidence against them.

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PROSECUTION DURING THE TRIAL ARE INADMISSIBLE IN LAW

Held: This contention lacks merit.

Inspector Arnold Malintad testified that on July 14, 1992, accused-appellant Joel Gonzales was picked up at around 8:00
a.m. near his residence in Tandang Sora, Governor Generoso. Accused-appellant Gonzales had a handgun tucked in his
waistline and was wearing a wristwatch. According to Inspector Malintad, accused-appellant Gonzales admitted
participation in the crime upon interrogation and voluntarily surrendered the stolen goods to him.

To be sure, accused-appellants were already under custodial investigation when they made their admissions to the
police. At that point, the investigation had ceased to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and had began to focus
on the guilt of a suspect and for this reason the latter were taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom in a
substantial way. Hence, the admissions made by accused-appellants are inadmissible in evidence pursuant to Art. III, 2(1)
and (3) of the Constitution. However, the defense failed to raise its objections to the admissibility of these statements
immediately, as required by Rule 132, 36, when Inspector Malintad was presented as a witness for the prosecution or
when specific questions concerning the confession were asked of him. Consequently, accused-appellants are deemed to
have waived their right to object to the admissibility of Inspector Malintads testimony.Indeed, it was even the defense
counsel who provided the opportunity for Inspector Malintad to elaborate on the circumstances of accused-appellant
Gonzales admission in the course of his cross-examination of the said witness.

On the other hand, Capt. Sakkam testified that when he was in the Municipal Jail at the Police Station of Governor
Generoso in order to identify the suspects, he asked them who killed the victim and accused-appellant Romeo Bernaldez
answered that it was accused-appellant Joel Gonzales.Such admission by accused-appellant Bernaldez may be taken as
evidence against his co-appellant Joel Gonzales. For the constitutional provision on custodial investigation does not apply
to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby
the accused orally admitted having committed the crime.

Accused-appellant Joel Gonzales also contends that Inspector Malintad had no warrant when the latter conducted a
search of his residence. He contends that the alleged items taken during the robbery in the ACF bus compound and the
cassette recorder and wristwatch are inadmissible in evidence against him.This contention deserves no merit. As
explained by Inspector Malintad, accused-appellant Joel Gonzales voluntarily surrendered the stolen goods to him. When
he went to the house of accused-appellant Joel Gonzales, the watches, cassette recorder, chainsaw, and spare parts
were given to him. What thus happened was a consented search, which constitutes a waiver of the constitutional
requirement for a search warrant. It has been held that the right to be secure from an unreasonable search may be
waived either expressly or impliedly. And when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable search and
seizure, as in this case, the exclusionary rule (Art. III, 3(2)) in the Constitution does not apply.