Rivera, Juan Rafael G. Zamora, Mavreen Icon R. I-N Mallory v.

United States (Case Digest)

L-130291 L-130292 September 24, 2013

Facts: A rape occurred at six p.m. on the basement of the apartment building inhabited by the victim. The petitioner together with his family also inhabited such basement. During the commission of the crime, the petitioner and his nephew disappeared and that two (2) masked men with similar features with that of the petitioner committed such crime. Later on, the accused and several suspects were apprehended and were brought to the police headquarters. There he was questioned but the petitioner denied his guilt. Later in the afternoon, he was made subject to a polygraph test where such petitioner agreed but the operator of such test was not found until two (2) hours later. The polygraph operator stated that the petitioner was responsible for the crime. And at about ten p.m. the petitioner gave his confession to the police officers and such officers attempted to reach the United States Commissioner for the purpose of arraignment. Failing this, he was confronted by the complaining witness and the Sex Squad and he repe ated his confession to the police officers and also to a typist. It was only until the next day where the petitioner was brought to the Commissioner. At the trial, his confession was presented as evidence and he was later on convicted of the crime of rape and was sentenced to death penalty.

Main Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules in Criminal Procedure requiring that the accused be presented without unnecessary delay to the U.S. Commissioner.

Sub-issue: Whether or not such confession is inadmissible as evidence because such confession was a result of the said delay.

Held: There was a violation of the Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules in Criminal Procedure violating rights of the petitioner and rendering such confession inadmissible thus making the decision reversed and remanded. As stated by Justice Frankfurter in the case at bar The duty enjoined upon arresting officers to arraign "without unnecessary delay" indicates that the command does not call for mechanical or automatic obedience. Circumstances may justify a brief delay between arrest and arraignment, as, for instance, where the story volunteered by the accused is susceptible of quick verification through third parties. But the delay must not be of a nature to give opportunity for the extraction of a confession.