Case No.

1113
PEOPLE v. CAMAT
G.R. No. 112262
April 1, 1996
FACTS OF THE CASE
While Gonzalo Penalver and his companion, both members of the AFP, were walking along the streets of
Metro Manila, accused (herein petitioner) stole the bag of the former which contained P150.00 worth of
tools and other things. Met with the resistance of the two officers, herein petitioner stabbed both Gonzalo
and his companion which resulted to the latters death. On the other hand, Gonzalo was able to survive
from the attack and was immediately brought to the hospital. A witness testified at the Paranaque police
station that he saw the incident that transpired that evening. During the said testimonial of the witness,
petitioner Camat was brought to the same police station for the reason that he was charged with acts of
lasciviousness. Subsequently, the witness at the police station to the petitioner as the one who robbed and
stabbed the victims.
During trial, petitioner invoked his constitutional rights, alleging that he was coerced to give an extrajudicial confession and that he was denied of his right to counsel. He argues that the same cannot be
admitted as evidence by the prosecution.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not the extra-judicial confessions of petitioner Camat can be admitted as evidence by the
prosecution against him
HELD/RATIO
No. The Supreme Court held that the extra-judicial confession of petitioner Camat is in violation of his
constitutional rights and, as a result, cannot be admitted in evidence by the prosecution. In the case at bar,
the prosecution failed to prove that the prior questioning was performed in accordance with the
constitutional rights of the accused. However, the Court held that the same was not overcame by the
prosecution. The records do not show that the petitioner was advised of his constitutional rights and
therefore cannot be held as admissible in evidence.

Prepared by: Antonio Dominic G. Salvador