Political Law Bar Q and A

Political Law Bar Questions and Answers

Bar Q and A #26

1.) In his extrajudicial confession executed before the police authorities, Jose Walangtakot admitted killing his girlfriend in a fit of jealousy. This admission was made after the following A and question to wit: T - Ikaw ay may karapatan pa rin kumuha ng serbisyo ng isang abogado para makatulong mo sa imbestigasyong ito at kung wala kang makuha, ikaw ay aming bibigyan ng libreng abogado, ano ngayon ang iyong masasabi?" "S - Nandiyan naman po si Fiscal (point to Assistant Fiscal Aniceto Malaputo) kaya hindi ko na kinakailanganang abogado." During the trial. Jose Walangtakot repudiated his confession contending that it was made without the assistance of counsel and therefore Inadmissible in evidence. Decide.

The confession of Jose Walangtakot is inadmissible in evidence. The warning given to him is insufficient in accordance with the ruling in People v. Duero, 104 SCRA 379, he should have been warned also that he has the right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him. Besides, under Art. III, Sec. 12(1) of the Constitution, the counsel assisting a person being investigated must be independent. Assistant Fiscal Aniceto Malaputo could not assist Jose Walangtakot. As held in People v. Viduya, 189 SCRA 403, his function is to prosecute criminal cases. To allow him to act as defense counsel during custodial investigations would render nugatory the constitutional rights of the accused during custodial investigation. What the Constitution requires is a counsel who will effectively undertake the defense of his client without any conflict of interest. The A of Jose Walangtakot indicates that he did not fully understand his rights. Hence, it cannot be said that he knowingly and intelligently waived those rights.

Textbox

2.) Larry was an overnight guest in a motel. After he checked out the following day, the chambermaid found an attaché case which she surmised was left behind by Larry. She turned it over to the manager who, to determine the name and address of the owner, opened the attache case and saw packages which had a peculiar smell and upon squeezing felt like dried leaves. His curiosity aroused, the manager made an opening on one of the packages and took several grams of the contents thereof. He took the packages to the NBI, and in the presence of agents, opened the packages, the contents of which upon laboratory examination, turned out to be marijuana flowering tops, Larry was subsequently found, brought to the NBI Office where he admitted ownership of the attaché case and the packages. He was made to sign a receipt for the packages. Larry was charged in court for possession of prohibited drugs. He was convicted. On appeal, he now poses the following issues: a. The packages are inadmissible in evidence being the product of an illegal search and seizure; b. b. Neither is the receipt he signed admissible, his rights under custodial investigation not having been observed. Decide.

According to the ruling in People v. Mirantes, 209 SCRA 179, such receipt is in effect an extrajudicial confession of the commission of an offense. Hence, if it was signed without the assistance of counsel, in accordance with Section 12(3), Article IV of the Constitution, it is inadmissible in evidence. (People v. Duhan, 142 SCRA 100)

Textbox

3.) A, who was arrested as a suspect in a murder case was not represented by counsel during the "question and A" stage. However, before he was asked to sign his statements to the police investigator, the latter provided A with a counsel, who happened to beat the police station. After conferring with A, the counsel told the police investigator that A was ready to sign the statements. Can the statements of A be presented in court as his confession? Explain.

NO, the statements of A cannot be presented in court as his confession. He was not assisted by counsel during the actual questioning. There is no showing that the lawyer who belatedly conferred with him fully explained to him the nature and consequences of his confession. In People v. Compil 244 SCRA 135, the Supreme Court held that the accused must be assisted by counsel during the actual questioning and the belated assistance of counsel before he signed the confession does not cure the defect.

Textbox

4.) Mariano was arrested by the NBI as a suspect in the shopping mall bombings. Advised of his rights, Mariano asked for the assistance of his relative, Atty. Santos. The NBI noticed that Atty. Santos was inexperienced, incompetent and inattentive. Deeming him unsuited to protect the rights of Mariano, the NBI dismissed Atty. Santos. Appointed in his place was Atty. Barroso, a bar topnotcher who was in the premises visiting a relative. Atty. Barroso ably assisted Mariano when the latter gave a statement. However, Mariano assailed the investigation claiming that he was deprived of counsel of his choice. Was the NBI correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and appointing Atty. Barroso in his stead? Is Mariano's statement, made with the assistance of Atty. Barroso, admissible in evidence?

The NBI was not correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and appointing Atty. Barroso in his stead. Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution requires that a person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have no less than "competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice". This is meant to stress the primacy accorded to the voluntariness of the choice under the uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial investigation. The appointment of Atty. Barroso is questionable because he was visiting a relative working in the NBI and thus his independence is doubtful. Considering that Mariano was deprived of counsel of his own choice, the statement is inadmissible in evidence. (People v. Januario, G.R. No. 98252, February 7, 1997)

Textbox

5.) On October 1, 1985, Ramos was arrested by a security guard because he appeared to be "suspicious" and brought to a police precinct where in the course of the investigation he admitted he was the killer in an unsolved homicide committed a week earlier. The proceedings of his investigation were put in writing and dated October 1, 1985, and the only participation of counsel assigned to him was his mere presence and signature on the statement. The admissibility of the statement of Ramos was placed in issue but the prosecution claims that the confession was taken on October 1, 1985 and the 1987 Constitution providing for the right to counsel of choice and opportunity to retain, took effect only on February 2, 1987 and cannot be given retroactive effect. Rule on this.

The confession of Ramos is not admissible, since the counsel assigned to him did not advise him of his rights. The fact that his confession was taken before the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution is of no moment. Even prior to the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court already laid down strict rules on waiver of the rights during investigation in the case of People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465.

Textbox

6.) Rafael, Carlos and Joseph were accused of murder before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Accused Joseph turned state witness against his co-accused Rafael and Carlos, and was accordingly discharged from the information. Among the evidence presented by the prosecution was an extrajudicial confession made by Joseph during the custodial Investigation, implicating Rafael and Carlos who, he said, together with him (Joseph), committed the crime. The extrajudicial confession was executed without the assistance of counsel. Accused Rafael and Carlos vehemently objected on the ground that said extrajudicial confession was inadmissible in evidence against them. Rule on whether the said extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence or not.

According to People v. Balisteros, 237 SCRA 499, the confession is admissible. Under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, the confession is inadmissible only against the one who confessed. Only the one whose rights were violated can raise the objection as his right is personal.

Textbox

7.) A robbery with homicide had taken place and Lito, Badong, and Rollie were invited for questioning based on the information furnished by a neighbor that he saw them come out of the victim’s house at the time of the robbery/killing. The police confronted the three with this and other information they had gathered, and pointedly accused them of committing the crime. Lito initially resisted, but eventually broke down and admitted his participation in the crime. Elated by this break and desirous of securing a written confession soonest, the police called City Attorney Juan Buan to serve as the trio’s counsel and to advise them about their rights during the investigation. Badong and Rollie, weakened in spirit by Lito’s early admission, likewise admitted their participation. The trio thus signed a joint extrajudicial confession which served as the main evidence against them at their trial. They were convicted based on their confession. Should the judgment of conviction be affirmed or reversed on appeal?

The judgment of conviction should be reversed on appeal. It relied mainly on the extra judicial confession of the accused. The lawyer assisting them must be independent. City Attorney Juan Buan is not independent. As City Attorney, he provided legal support to the City Mayor in performing his duties which include the maintenance of peace and order (People v. Sunga, 399 SCRA 624)

Textbox

8.) Agnes was allegedly picked up by a group of military men headed by Gen. Altamirano, and was brought to several military camps where she was interrogated, beaten, mauled, tortured, and threatened with death if she would not confess her membership in the New People's Army (NPA) and point to the location of NPA camps. She suffered for several days until she was released after she signed a document saying that she was a surenderee, and was not abducted or harmed by the military. After she was released, and alleging that her rights to life, liberty and security had been violated and continued to be threatened by violation of such rights, she filed with the Supreme Court (the Court) a Petition for the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data with prayers for Temporary Protection Orders, Inspection of Place, and Production of Documents and Personal Properties. The case was filed against President Amoyo (who was the President of the Philippines when the abduction, beating, mauling and life threats were committed), General Altamirano, and several military men whom Agnes was able to recognize during her ordeal. The Court, after finding the petition to be in order, issued the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data and directed the respondents to file a verified return on the writs, and directed the Court of Appeals (CA) to hear the petition. The respondents duly filed their return on the writs and produced the documents in their possession. After hearing, the CA ruled that there was no more need to issue the temporary protection orders since the writ of amparo had already been issued, and dismissed the petition against President Amoyo on the ground that he was immune from suit during his incumbency as President. Agnes appealed the CA ruling to the Court. The appeal was lodged after President Amoyo's term had ended. Was the CA correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance of the temporary protection order?

YES. The writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent remedy that provides rapid judicial relief, as it partakes of a summary proceeding and requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate interim and permanent reliefs to the petitioner. It serves both preventive and curative reliefs in addressing extrajudicial abduction and torture. Temporary protection orders are merely intended to assist the Court before it can arrive at a judicious determination of the amparo petition. A temporary protection order, being an interim relief, can only be granted before final adjudication on the amparo case is made. The privilege of the writ of amparo, once granted, already entails the protection of the aggrieved party. Thus, since the writ of amparo was already granted and issued, there is no more need to issue a temporary protection order (Yano v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 186640, Feb. 11, 2010; Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. Nos. 191805 & 193160, Nov. 15, 2011)

Textbox

9.) Mrs. W supplies the Philippine National Police (PNP) with uniforms every year. Last month, he and two (2) other officers of the PNP conspired to execute a "ghost purchase", covered by five (5) checks amounting to ₱200,000.00 each, or a total of ₱1,000,000.00. An investigating committee within the PNP, which was constituted to look into it, invited Mrs. W, among others, for an inquiry regarding the anomalous transaction. Mrs. W accepted the invitation but during the committee hearing, she stated that she will not answer any question unless she be provided with the assistance of a counsel. The PNP officials denied her request; hence, she no longer participated in the investigation. (2019 BAR) (a) What is a custodial investigation? Under the 1987 Constitution, what are the rights of a person during custodial investigation? (b) Was the PNP’s denial of Mrs. W’s request violative of her right to counsel in the proceedings conducted before the PNP? Explain.

a.) Custodial investigation refers to any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody [People v. Basay, G.R. No. 86941, March 3, 1993]. The rights of a person under custodial investigation include the right to remain silent, the right to have competent and independent counsel, and the right to be informed of these rights. [Art. III, Sec. 12(1)]

b.) NO, PNP’s denial of Mrs W’s request is not violative of her right to counsel. In administrative proceedings need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding. Thus, while desirable, the right to counsel is not available in administrative proceedings. Since the proceedings involved in this case is an investigation being conducted by a PNP committee, which is administrative and not a custodial investigation, Mrs. W is not entitled to the assistance of counsel. [Cudia v. The Superintendent of the PMA, G.R. No. 211362, February 24, 2015].

Textbox

10.) : Johann learned that the police were looking for him in connection with the rape of an 18-year old girl, a neighbor. He went to the police station a week later and presented himself to the desk sergeant. Coincidentally, the rape victim was in the premises executing an extrajudicial statement. Johann, along with six (6) other suspects, were placed in a police lineup and the girl pointed to him as the rapist. Johann was arrested and locked up in a cell. Johann was charged with rape in court but prior to arraignment invoked his right to preliminary investigation. This was denied by the judge, and thus, trial proceeded. After the prosecution presented several witnesses, Johann through counsel, invoked the right to bail and filed a motion therefor, which was denied outright by the Judge. Johann now files a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals arguing that he is entitled to bail as a matter of right, thus the Judge should not have denied his motion to fix ball outright. Decide.

In accordance with Art. III. sec. 13 of the Constitution, Johann may be denied bail if the evidence of his guilt is strong considering that the crime with which he is charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua. It is thus not a matter of right for him to be released on bail in such case. The court must first make a determination of the strength of the evidence on the basis of evidence already presented by the prosecution, unless it desires to present some more, and give the accused the opportunity to present countervailing evidence. If having done this the court finds the evidence not to be strong, then it becomes the right of Johann to be admitted to bail. The error of the trial court lies in outrightly denying the motion for bail of Johann.

Textbox