I.

Article III Section 12, Rights after Custodial Investigation:

People v. Alicando G.R. No. 117487

Facts:
On June 12, 1994, Romeo Penecilla, father of the four-year-old victim Khazie Mae, was drinking with
neighbors in their Iloilo home during the afternoon. Herein accused-appellant would dart in and out of the
drinking session of his neighbors, which ended at around 4:30 pm. According to a female neighbor named
Luisa Rebada, she saw the victim at the window of Alicando offering the latter yema. Soon thereafter, she
heard cries from the victim and when she peeped through a slight opening between the floor and door of
Alicando’s home, she saw Alicando naked on top of the four-year-old victim while simultaneously choking
the child. Out of fear, she gathered her children then informed a male neighbor who fled the scene out of
hostility and fear as well.
The Penecillas went searching for their child until the wee hours of the next day only to be informed by
another neighbor that their daughter’s lifeless body was under his house. It was then that Rebada had a
change of heart and she informed the Penacilla couple of what she saw. This led to the arrest of Alicando
and the swift verbal confession of the latter without counsel. The verbal confession led the police to recover
Khazie Mae’s green slippers, a buri mat, gold earrings, and a bloodstained pillow and shirt from Aicando’s
place. The trial court convicted Alicando of Rape with Homicide and sentenced him to death. Since, a
penalty of death warrants automatic review of the Supreme Court, Alicando’s case is now under review.
Issue: W/N Alicando’s unwritten and uncounselled confession under investigation is admissible?
Held:
NO. It is evident in the information gathered by the trial court that the police took Alicando’s verbal
confession without the presence of counsel. Yet, the prosecution employed Alicando’s confession of guilt
to justify the gathering of evidence in his home, which further implicated Alicando for the crime of Rape
with Homicide. As products from a poisonous tree, Alicando’s confession of guilt and the physical
evidence deduced from it are inadmissible and should not have been used by the prosecution. Added to this,
Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure was not taken into account by the judge as the
Information against Alicando was written in English, a dialect not known to Alicando. Concomitantly,
Alicando’s ratification or admission of guilt based on the content of the information, which he made before
the trial judge, shall also be deemed null and void, as the court did not go about it in a searching inquiry
required by section 3 of Rule 116. Several significant details of the Information were not extensively
explained to Alicando, which is tantamount to not being given due process of the law. Given these, the trial
court decision convicting Alicando of Rape with Homicide is SET ASIDE and his case is REMANDED to
the trial court for further proceedings.