PEOPLE VS LAUGA
FACTS
 Appellant was accused of qualified rape of his 13 year old
daughter
 Rape and threatened her daughter after he had drinking spree
at their neighbor’s place
 The victim’s brother came back to the house after and took
AAA to their grandmother’s house where she encountered
her experience
 They sought the assistance of Moises Boy Banting from
Bantay Bayan
 Banting found appellant in their house and brought him to
the police where he admitted what he did because he “was
unable to control himself”
 Physical examination medical certificate from Dra Alsula
showed that AAA was indeed raped
 Appellant argues that even if he, indeed, confessed to Moises
Boy Banting, a bantay bayan, the confession was
inadmissible in evidence because he was not assisted by a
lawyer and there was no valid waiver of such requirement.
ISSUE/S
 WON a bantay bayan is considered a law enforcement
officer within the contemplation of ART 3, Section 12 of the
Constitution? YES.
 WON Lauga’s admission of raping his daughter was
admissible? NO
RULING: AFFIRMED
RATIO
Bantay bayan considered law enforcement officer within Art 3 Sec
12 of Consti
 People v. Malngan: Arguably, the barangay tanods,
including the Barangay Chairman, in this particular instance,
may be deemed as law enforcement officer for purposes of
applying Article III, Section 12(1) and (3), of the
Constitution.
 People v. Buendia: this Court had the occasion to mention
the nature of a bantay bayan, that is, a group of male
residents living in [the] area organized for the purpose of
keeping peace in their community[,which is] an accredited
auxiliary of the x x x PNP.
 The composition of the Committee includes, among others:
(1) the Punong Barangay as Chairman; (2) the Chairman of
the Sangguniang Kabataan; (3) a Member of the Lupon
Tagapamayapa; (4) a Barangay Tanod; and (5) at least
three (3) Members of existing Barangay-Based Anti-
Crime or neighborhood Watch Groups or a Non
Government Organization Representative well-known in
his community.
 This Court is, convinced that barangay-based volunteer
organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the case of
the bantay bayan, are recognized by the local government
unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of
peace and order at the barangay level.
Admission inadmissible
 without ruling on the legality of the actions taken by Moises
Boy Banting, and the specific scope of duties and
responsibilities delegated to a bantay bayan, particularly on
the authority to conduct a custodial investigation, any
inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function and
objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his
constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section
12 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda
Rights, is concerned.
 So extrajudicial confession without counsel is inadmissible
 BUt SC still affirms CA because there was evidence
showing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
 Testimonies of AAA and BBB are not contradicting