People v Pinlac Facts: The accused was convicted for two separate criminal cases for robbery and

robbery with homicide. He assailed his conviction on the contention that the court erred in admitting his extrajudicial confession as evidence which was taken by force, violence, torture, and intimidation without having appraised of his constitutional rights and without the assistance of counsel. Issue: Whether or not due process was observed during the custodial investigation of the accused. Held: The court find it meritorious to declare that the constitutional rights of the accused was violated in the failure of the authorities in making the accused understand the nature of the charges against him without appraising him of his constitutional right to have a counsel during custodial investigation. Moreover the prosecution merely presented the extrajudicial confession of the accused which is inadmissible as evidence and the other evidences provided therein are merely circumstantial and subject for rebuttal. The court acquitted the accused. People v Bolanos Facts: Police authorities arrested the accused for murder. Together with the accused the police boarded a jeep to take him to their station. While on board the jeep the accused started admitting killing the deceased. This extrajudicial confession was used as evidence in court and the accused was convicted. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel. Held: Yes. The accused on board the police vehicle on the way to the police station is already under custodial investigation and should therefore be accorded his rights under the Constitution and be

informed of his Miranda rights. Any extrajudicial confession he makes without his counsel is deemed inadmissible to court. People vs Andan Navallo vs Sandiganbayan Facts: Petitioner is the collecting and disbursing officer of Numancia National Vocational School found to have misappropriated public funds for private benefit after a COA audit. He failed to restitute the amount despite COA demands. A warrant of arrest was issued but petitioner pleaded not guilty and invokes his right to custodial investigation since during the COA audit and actual cash count he was made to sign the certification on the fund shortage in the absence of a counsel. He further contends that the shortage of funds was due to the assurance of certain Macasemo to settle his unliquidated cash advance and his failure to do so resulted to the fund shortage. Issue: Whether or not the right to counsel be invoked during the COA audit Held: No, the right to counsel could not be invoked during the COA audit since the procedure is not within the ambit of custodial investigation. A person may be subject to malversation of funds even in the absence of direct proof of misappropriation as long as there is evidence of fund shortage which the petitioner failed to explain with convincing justification. People vs Dy Facts: Accused is the owner of Bennys Bar at Boracay Island and was sentenced with murder before the trial court for shooting a Swiss national in his bar. The accused contends the court erred in admitting the presentation of the prosecution of evidence that he came to a police officer and made a confession on the crime and informed said officer where to find the gun he used, a statement the accused denied to

have done. They assail its admissibility to the court on the grounds that such statement was not made in writing and is in violation of the due process required in custodial investigation. Issue: Whether or not the evidence presented by the prosecution be admissible to warrant guilt of the accused. Held: In view of the documentary evidence on record the defense lost its credibility before the court. An oral confession made by the accused to the officer and telling him the gun is in his bar which he wants to surrender can be held admissible in court as evidence against him. This is because such confession was made unsolicited by the police officer and the accused was not under investigation when he made the oral confession. Therefore there is no need to invoke compliance of the proper procedure in a custodial investigation at the case at bar. The rule on RES GESTAE is applicable where a witness who heard the confession is competent to satisfy the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such a case it must be given in substance. Thus the oral confession made by the accused outside the ambit of custodial investigation can be admissible in court and was given due credence to warrant the judgment of the accused being guilty of the crime. People vs Alilcando Facts: Accused was convicted with a crime of rape with homicide of a 4 year old girl. He was arrested and during the interrogation he made a confession of the crime without the assistance of a counsel. By virtue of his uncounseled confession the police came to know where to find the evidences consisting of the victims personal things like clothes stained with blood which was admitted to court as evidences. The victim pleaded guilty during the arraignment and was convicted with the death penalty. The case was forwarded to the SC for automatic review. Issue: Whether or not due process during the custodial investigation was accorded to the accused.

Held: Due process was not observed in the conduct of custodial investigation for the accused. He was not informed of his right to a counsel upon making his extrajudicial confession and the information against him was written in a language he could not understand and was not explained to him. This is in violation of section 1(a) of Rule 116, the rule implementing the constitutional right of the appellant to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The lower court also violated section 3 of Rule 116 when it accepted the plea of guilt of the appellant without conducting a search inquiry on the voluntariness and full understanding of the accused of the consequences of his plea. Moreover the evidences admitted by the court that warranted his convicted were inadmissible because they were due to an invalid custodial investigation that did not provide the accused with due process of the law. Thus the SC annulled the decision of the imposition of the death penalty and remanded the case back to the lower for further proceeding. People vs Reyes