COURT RULINGS AND CLIPPINGS

EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION:

PWEDE BANG GAMITING EBIDENSYA ANG PAHAYAG SA TELEBESYON?

1) Ang mga kailangan upang tanggapin ang extra-judical confession bilang

ebidensya ay (1) boluntaryo; (2) ginawa nang may pagtulong ng isang may
kakayahan at kasarinlan na abogado at ito ay higit na mabuti na pinili ng
isang akusado; (3) hayag; (4) at nakasulat. (People vs Porio G.R. No. 117202,
13 February 2002).

2) Kung ang akusado ay nasa custodial investigation at umamin ngunit hindi

nasapatan ang mga elementong nasa itaas, ang extra-judical confession ay
hindi maaaring gamiting ebidensya laban sa kanya.

3) Ang confession na ginawa sa media bilang tugon sa mga tanong ng isang

news reporter, hindi ng isang pulis o iba pang investigating officer, ay
tinatanggap bilang ebidensya. (People vs Andan, 269 SCRA 95).

4) Ang extra-judicial confession na ibinigay ng akusado sa isang radio

announcer ay balido na ebidensya laban sa kanya. (People vs Taboga, G.R.
No. 144086-87, 06 February 2002).

5) Ganoon din ang pag-amin ng isang akusado sa isang tao na hindi kagawad
ng pulisya ay maaaring tanggapin bilang ebidensya sapagkat ito ay hindi
sakop ng Section 12 (1) at (3), Article III ng ating Bagong Saligang Batas,
sapagkat ang pag-amin ay ibinigay samantalang siya ay wala naman sa ilalim
ng custodial investigation. (People vs Suela, G.R. No. 133570-71, 15 January
2002).

6) The claim that extra judicial confession was extracted through compulsion
and duress would be belied by the facial expression of the accused appearing
on the photograph of reenactment indicating they were acting voluntarily.
People vs Ty Sui Wong, m83 SCRA 125.

CRIMINAL LAW (CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY)

Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide – Accused-appellant was wrongly

charged with Robbery with Double Homicide. Such crime does not exist in our
statute books. Article 294 Paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code imposes only
one penalty for the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide regardless of
the number of persons killed. This special complex crime does not limit the
Homicide to one victim as to make the killings in excess of that number
punishable as separate offenses. All the Homicides are merged in the composite,
integrated whole that is Robbery with Homicide so long as the killings were
perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the Robbery. (Justice Puno vs
Fabula, G.R. No. 115401, December 16, 1996).

HEARSAY EVIDENCE:

Hearsay Evidence means all evidence which is not founded upon the personal
knowledge of the witness from whom it is elicited. In one case, the court ruled
that it is hearsay evidence if the testimony of a witness is predicted upon what
he has heard other persons say on the facts in dispute. People vs Sarmiento, 64
SCRA 351.
ADAMANT TO TESTIFY:

a) If a person who saw the commission of a crime and knew who is the
perpetrator, but kept silent and did not report it to the authorities is not liable
even as accessory. People vs Callapag 21 Phil. 262.

b) On the other hand, the court said, “If an informant went to the authorities
and volunteered false information which tended affirmatively to deceive the
prosecuting authorities and thus, to prevent the detection of the guilty parties
and to aid them in escaping discovery and arrest, he is liable as accessory.”
US vs Romulo 15 Phil 408.

SWORN STATEMENT TAKING:

a) A document, like a statement taken by the investigator, has original and

duplicate copies, which are equally signed. Each signed copy is regarded as
an original. Section 2, Rule 130.

b) Statement made through interpreter is not hearsay, where the interpreter has
been selected by common consent of the parties endeavoring to converse. It is
naturally held that the party against whom the statements were offered in
evidence had made the interpreter his agent, and therefore was found within
the ordinary rules of principal and agent. People vs Chin Sing, 242 N.Y. 419.

c) A statement that fails to qualify as a dying declaration because it was not

made under a consciousness of an impending death may be admitted as part
of res gestae. People vs Reyes, 52 Phil. 538.

d) Statements of a person from which an inference may be drawn as to the state

of mind of another person, that are, knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad
faith of the latter may be testified to by a witness without violating the
hearsay rule. People vs Wood 126 N.Y. 294.

e) Delayed testimony of witness cannot erase the impression that his testimony
was fabricated and concocted to favor the prosecution. The court held, it
would be highly injudicious to rely on such testimony because blanket
acceptance thereof might result in the conviction of an innocent person.
People vs Moreno, 85 SCRA 651.

CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS:

The court held, “If evidence is to be believed, it must not only proceed from the
mouth of credible witness but it must be credible by itself, in conformity with the
common experience and observation of mankind. People vs Alvarez, 55 SCRA 82;
People vs Salazar, GR-114291, 14 May 1997.

WARRANT OF ARREST:

a) The fiscal (prosecutor) cannot issue a warrant of arrest or of commitment or

temporary confinement of a person surrendered to legalize the detention of a
person arrested without warrant. Sayo vs Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 860.

b) The City Fiscal has no authority to issue warrants of arrest, and is powerless
to validate an illegal detention by merely filing of information or by any order
of his own, either expressed or implied. Lino vs Fugaso, 77 Phil. 934.

c) Only a Judge may issue warrants of arrest and search warrants. (Guanzon vs
De Villa, 181 SCRA 623).
 d) The Police Officer is not liable for arbitrary detention if the continued
detention of the arrested person is upon inducement ordered by the Fiscal to
hold and not to release the prisoner after the expiration of the period as
prescribed by law. Sayo vs Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 863.

e) Formal charges must be filed against the person arrested within the
prescribed period of twelve (12), eighteen (18) or thirty-six (36) hours,
depending upon the gravity of the offense committed. Failure to comply to this
mandate makes the detention arbitrary. (Executive Order Number 272).

f) To justify arrest on mere suspicion must be based on reasonable ground, for a

person must not be disturbed in his peaceful enjoyment of personal liberty,
unless authorized by law. (Taruc vs Carlos, 78 Phil. 876).

g) The warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed party is void, except in case
where it contains a “descriptio personae” as will enable the offender to identify
the accused. The description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper
person upon whom the warrant is to be served. People vs Veloso, 48 Phil. 170.

h) If the person to be arrested procures the warrant from the person charged
with its execution upon the pretense of reading it and thereafter refuses to
return the same, such refusal upon demand is serious disobedience. US vs
Tabiana, 37 Phil 515.

SEARCH WARRANT:

a) A Search and Seizure without a Warrant is allowed in buy-bust operations,

the circumstances being among those which can be considered exceptional.
(People vs Asio, 177 SCRA 250).

b) Saturation drives are not among accepted instances when searches/arrests

may be made without a warrant. In saturation drives, police officers are
fishing for evidence of offenses, hence a warrant is necessary. (Guanzon vs De
Villa, 181 SCRA 623).

c) An arresting officer may take from the person arrested any money or property
found upon his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was
the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with a means for
committing violence or escaping or which may be used in evidence in the trail
of the case. (People vs Aballe, 183 SCRA 196).