1.46 Sebastian v.

Garchitorena
FACTS: Special Prosecution Officer III Teresita Diaz-Baldoz filed with the Sandiganbayan an Information for the crime
of Malversation of Public Funds against Sebastian. Sebastian entered into a plea of "Not Guilty" During interrogation,
they submitted sworn statements, among those offered as evidence were the sworn statements made by all the accused,
including that of petitioner. Petitioner contends that he and his co-accused were never presented as witnesses, thus, they
were not given the opportunity to identify and authenticate their respective sworn statements and on the grounds that the
subject sworn statements are hearsay evidence. Furthermore petitioner claims to have been deprived of his constitutional
rights under Sections 12 and 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution Petitioner alleges that nothing in his sworn statement
shows compliance with the constitutional provisions on the right to counsel, the right to remain silent and the right to
waive these rights in the presence of counsel.

ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners constitutional right to counsel have been violated?

RULING: No. Custodial investigation has been defined as any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way . The fact-finding
investigation relative to the missing postage stamps at the Postage Stock Section of Zamboanga City conducted by a
Enrique G. Saavedra, Chief Postal Service Officer, is not a custodial investigation. It is merely an administrative
investigation. that the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are
conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and
employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.

1.47 People v. Tan

FACTS: Tan and Amido were charged with the crime of highway robbery with murder. Lt. Carlos, on cross-examination,
testified that when he invited appellant to their headquarters, he had no warrant for his arrest. In the course thereof, he
informed the latter that he was a suspect, not only in the instant case, but also in two other robbery cases allegedly
committed in Lucena City. In the belief that they were merely conversing inside the police station, he admitted that he did
not inform appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel; nor did he reduce the
supposed confession to writing.

ISSUE: Whether or not the confession of the appellant, given before a police investigator upon invitation and without the
benefit of counsel, is admissible in evidence against him.

RULING: No. It is well-settled that the Constitution abhors an uncounselled confession or admission and whatever
information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as inadmissible in evidence against the confessant. R.A. No. 7438
reenforced the constitutional mandate protecting the rights of persons under custodial investigation. Under the
Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible must satisfy the following requirements:
(1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it must be
express; and (4) it must be in writing.

While the Constitution sanctions the waiver of the right to counsel, it must, however, be "voluntary, knowing and
intelligent, and must be made in the presence and with the assistance of counsel."

1.48 People v. Bandin

FACTS: AAA and her older sister, BBB,[7] went to sleep in their hut in Agora, Tagpangi, Cagayan de Oro City at about
7:00 p.m. AAA woke up at past midnight because she felt a heavy burden on top of her. It was a naked man who was
holding her tightly and who uttered in a commanding voice, Dont move! She recognized the mans voice as belonging to
her brother-in-law, the appellant in this case. Thereafter, appellant removed the victims short pants and underwear. AAA
covered her genitals with her right hand and pleaded with her brother-in-law to stop. Appellant, however, proceeded to
remove AAAs hand from her genitals, spread her legs and immediately inserted his penis inside her vagina. She shouted
for help several times but no one responded. She was too frightened to resist appellant because he was armed with a long
firearm which he placed beside her. Meanwhile, AAAs sister, BBB, was awakened because of the commotion. Fearing
that she would be appellants next victim, she ran out of the house. Finally, after having his way with the victim, appellant
warned her to keep silent about the incident; otherwise, he would kill her and her parents. Subsequently, appellant fled
from the scene, leaving the victim crying from the pain she felt in her vagina. The victim also reported the incident to her
father the following morning. AAA finally submitted herself a week later to a physical examination conducted by Dr. Diel.
The medical certificate revealed that there were healed lacerations at three and six oclock positions which were irregular,
sharp and coaptated.[8] Citing NBI[9] statistics, Dr. Diel stated that this indicated that sexual intercourse had indeed
occurred.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in finding accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

RULING: The Court affirmed the decision of the CA with modifications. It held that AAAs testimony was credible as
she delivered her testimony in a clear, direct and positive manner. Through his voice, she positively identified appellant as
the man who sexually abused her. Identification of an accused by his voice has been accepted, particularly in cases where,
as in this case, the victim has known the perpetrator for a long time. Consequently, appellants defense of denial and alibi
must crumble in the face of AAA's positive and clear identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime. Denial
and alibi cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative
matters. Positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is
credible and categorical.

1.49 People v. Lacbanes

FACTS: accused-appellant Cesar Lacbanes was arrested and charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. A buy-bust
operation was then set up after conducting surveillance on the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant was brought to the
police station where upon investigation, he allegedly admitted that the marijuana in his possession was for sale and that a
friend of his named Francing was the source of the prohibited drug. The witness testified that they informed accused-
appellant about his constitutional rights before the investigation and that the latter understood them. However, they
allegedly forgot to put down in writing accused-appellant's admission of guilt. Accused-appellant flatly denied selling the
three sticks of marijuana cigarettes. He testified that on said date, he was asleep in his house from two o'clock until past
four o'clock in the afternoon. He was awakened by his father who told him that a certain Lieutenant Boy Saranza, together
with Patrolmen Arpon and Buena, would like to take him to the police station to answer some questions. He denied
knowing PFC Rosales and stated that the latter was not with the arresting group. At the police station, when asked if he
knew the whereabouts of one Cresencio de la Cruz, he answered in the negative. He also testified that the investigators
forced him to affix his signature on a piece of paper, the contents of which he did not know at the time but which turned
out to be a receipt for property seized. The receipt showed that the item seized was from his possession.

ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners constitutional right to remain silent was violated.

RULING: Yes. This Court cannot accept as evidence the receipt for property seized purportedly signed by accused-
appellant as proof that the three sticks of marijuana cigarettes, as well as the two P5.00 bills, were seized from him, for the
prosecution failed to prove that he was assisted by counsel at the time. Neither does this Court condone such practice for
this is tantamount to an extra-judicial confession for the commission of the offense. This is a violation of the constitutional
right of appellant to remain silent. Here he was, in effect, made to admit the commission of the offense without informing
him of his right. Such a confession obtained in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in evidence.

1.50 People v. Morico

FACTS: The information against appellant charging him of violation Dangerous Drugs Act. Anti-Narcotics Command
(NARCOM) in Bacoor, Cavite received an information from their confidential informant that a certain "Sixto," a resident
of Barangay Sabutan, Silang, Cavite, was engaged in the sale of marijuana leaves. The team conducted a buy-bust
operation. The three hand-rolled sticks of marijuana leaves confiscated from appellant were found positive for marijuana
by the National Bureau of Investigation. He was manhandled and ordered to sign the "Receipt of Seized property"
without the assistance of counsel. He was threatened with bodily harm if be failed to sign the document. Appellant also
claimed that when he signed the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report (Exh. "D"), the same was never explained to him nor
was he assisted by counsel.
ISSUE: Whether or not the documents of Receipt of Property Seized signed by him is admissible as evidence?

RULING: No. Court held that the Receipt is inadmissible as evidence, as it was given without the assistance of counsel.
we stated that appellant's signature on this document is a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime
charged. Any admission taken from appellant, as a result of a violation of his constitutional right, is inadmissible in
evidence against him. But even disregarding this exhibit, the remaining evidence on record is sufficient to sustain
appellant's conviction.

1.51 People v. Ang Chun Kit

FACTS: ANG CHUN KIT, a Chinese national and reputed to be a member of a Hong Kong-based drug syndicate
operating in Metro Manila, was collared by NARCOM operatives in a buy-bust operation after he sold to an undercover
agent for P400,000.00 a kilo of methamphetaminehydrochloride known as shabu. His car also yielded more of the
regulated drug neatly tuckedin a Kleenex box. The accused refuted the charges. However, the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig, giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, found appellant Ang Chun Kit also known as
"Romy Ang" guilty of selling shabu in violation of Sec. 15, Art. III, R.A.No. 6425, as amended, sentenced him to life
imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine of P30,000.00. Hence this appeal. The accused maintains his innocence and
faults the trial court in not holding that the crimecould not have been committed under the circumstances narrated by the
arresting officersand that the alleged buy-bust operation was a frame-up and the evidence merely planted.He argues that
the prosecution was not able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubtsince every piece of evidence presented against
him is tainted with constitutional infirmities.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ang chun Kits action in signing in the booking sheet is an act admitting the commission of the
offense?

RULING: No. The act signing in the booking sheet at the police station is merely a statement of the accused being
booked and a fact of the date when the incident happened. It is only an accompaniment to the arrest. in People v. Morico
that when an arrested person signs a Booking Sheet and Arrest Report at a police station he does not admit the
commission of an offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance. The Booking Sheet is merely a statement of the
accused's being booked and of the date which accompanies the fact of an arrest. It is a police report and may be useful in
charges of arbitrary detention against the police themselves. It is not an extra-judicial statement and cannot be the basis of
a judgment of conviction." Still the alleged inconsistencies do not detract from the established fact that the accused was
caught in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation since the arresting agents were able to give an otherwise
clear and convincing account of the circumstances leading tothe arrest of the accused. And, the sale of illicit drug took
placebetween the seller and the poseur-buyer. Still holding Ang chun Kit guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

1.52 People v. De Las Marinas

FACTS: Raposas, received an information from a confidential informant who arrived at their office, that a certain
Lando and one Boy of Cabrera Street, were actively engaged in selling shabu to prospective buyers at the said
place. The team conducted a buy-bust operation whom they arrested Angel Torres and Orlando de las marinas,
after the accused were brought to the 13th Narcotics Unit for further investigation. They executed an affidavit of
arrest. Then he prepared the evidence (the shabu and the marked money) and turned them over to the Narcotics
Unit. He likewise prepared the Receipt for Property Seized and asked the accused to sign it which they did.
Appellant claims that Exhibits "F" and "F-1" which refer to a Receipt for Property Seized, signed by appellant and
Angel Torres acknowledging that they are the owners of the seized listed properties, is inadmissible in evidence for
having been taken in violation of the Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether of not the Trial court erred in admitting in evidence Receipt for Property Seized despite that they
were inadmissible for having been in violation of the constitution?

RULING: Yes. Obviously, accused-appellant was the victim of a clever ruse to make him sign the Receipt for
Property Seized which, in effect, is an extra-judicial confession of the commission of the offense. Indeed, it is
unusual for appellant to be made to sign said receipt for what were allegedly taken from him. It is the police officers
who confiscated the same who should have signed said receipt. No doubt this is a violation of the constitutional right
of appellant to remain silent. He was made to admit the commission of the offense without informing him of his
constitutional rights. Such a confession obtained in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in evidence.

1.53 People v. Castro

FACTS: Accused-appellant Victoriano Castro was charged for violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act
No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). Capt. Allyn Evasco together with Sgt. Rogelio Raguine, Sgt. Emilio
de Guzman and CIC Julian Discargar formed a team for the purpose of conducting a buy-bust operation. The
team went to their target area in San Roque, San Miguel, Pangasinan and proceeded to deploy themselves as
planned. Sgt. de Guzman who acted as poseur-buyer and civilian informer Discargar proceeded to Castro's
house. Sgt. Raguine, meanwhile, hid in a grassy spot near the house. Discargar introduced Castro to Sgt. de
Guzman who said that he wanted to purchase a kilo of dried marijuana leaves. After going inside the house,
Castro emerged with a plastic bag which he handed to Sgt. de Guzman who, in turn, paid him P 600.00. he
was arrested and the trial court rendered its decision finding Castro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense charged. Castro is now before this Court to assert his innocence by claiming that the trial court erred:
(a) "in giving credence to the unreliable testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in rejecting the more
credible evidence of the defense;" (b) "in admitting the Receipt of Property Seized as evidence against the
accused despite the fact that it was signed by the accused without assistance of counsel;" and (c) in convicting
him of the crime charged despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE: Whether or not Trial court erred in convicting him despite failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

RULING: No. Court emphasized that the prosecution firmly established the fact of Castro's valid entrapment by
the police operatives. Sgt. de Guzman, who acted as poseur-buyer, was presented in court and testified on
Castro's arrest and the reasons therefor. His testimony was bolstered by Sgt. Raguine who was present during
the buy-bust operation and the apprehension of Castro. The latter, on the other hand, did not have
any substantial defense other than his unsubstantiated and self-serving denial which is evidence unworthy of
any weight in law Moreover, it is worth emphasizing that mere denials cannot prevail against the positive
identification of an accused as the seller of prohibited drugs.

1.54 People v. Enriquez

FACTS: The accused-appellant, Antonio Enrique, Jr. was charged violation of Section 4, Art. II in relation to Section
2, par (e), No. 1 and par. (1), Article I of RA No. 6425, as amended otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972. Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty to the crime charged . In this appeal, the accused-
appellant vigorously insists in his innocence. He asserts that the arresting officers did not confiscate sticks of
marijuana or any marked money from him and that the evidences presented against him should have not been
admitted by trial court since there was no confiscation receipt shown; that the admission of evidence was erroneous
because the same were taken during custodial investigation and therefore, violative of the constitution. Lastly
appellant impugns the non-presentation of the NARCOM informer at the trial. He claims that he was denied the
opportunity to cross examine the alleged informer and that he concludes that such failure to present the informer as
a witness is proof of the prosecution's weak evidence

ISSUE: Whether or not non presentation of informer to testify violates due process law for not given the opportunity
to cross examine

RULING: No. Appellant's contention is unmeritorious. There was no need to present the testimony of the NARCOM
informer as the same would merely be corroborative and cumulative. Appellant completely misses the whole point of
his prosecution and ultimate conviction under RA 6425. He was caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana
cigarettes to a poseur-buyer in exchange for money. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of marijuana
requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction (People v. Macuto, G.R. No. 80112, August 25, 1989,
176 SCRA 762). What is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the appellant and
that the said cigarettes were presented in court as evidence (see Macuto case, Ibid). Having been caught in the act
of selling a prohibited drug, appellant's arrest was lawful under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, Section 5(a).
1.55 People v. De Castro
FACTS: Matuguina and Cornejo left their savings account passbooks with the accused who was working for the BPI as
bank teller. It was found that there were unauthorized withdrawals from her account. Zialcita upon complaint from the
clients reported her findings posthaste to her superiors. The accused initially denied the claims against her but when she
was asked to write her statement down, She was then confronted and confessed her guilt. the Regional Trial Court in
Pasay City (RTC) rendered its judgment, finding the petitioner guilty as charged. On appeal, the petitioner contended in
the CA that: (1) her conviction should be set aside because the evidence presented against her had been obtained in
violation of her constitutional right against self-incrimination; (2) her rights to due process and to counsel had been
infringed; and (3) the evidence against her should be inadmissible for being obtained by illegal or unconstitutional means
rendering the evidence as the fruit of the poisonous tree.

ISSUE: Whether or not her Constitutional Rights to remain silent was violated?

RULING: No. the CA stressed that the rights against self-incrimination and to counsel guaranteed under the Constitution
applied only during the custodial interrogation of a suspect. In her case, she was not subjected to any investigation by the
police or other law enforcement agents. Instead, she underwent an administrative investigation as an employee of the BPI
Family Savings Bank, the investigation being conducted by her superiors. She was not coerced to give evidence against
herself, or to admit to any crime, but she simply broke down bank when depositors Matuguina and Cornejo confronted her
about her crimes. The guilt of the petitioner for four counts of estafa through falsification of a commercial document was
established beyond reasonable doubt.