RULE 113 – ARREST
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. EDUARDO P. CAGUIOA Judge, Court of Fr!t I"!t#"$e of %u$#", %r#"$' (II, #"d PA)UITO *UPO, respondents. G.R. No. L+3-/, J#"u#r0 1, 1-, FERNANDO,
C.J.
FACTS2
Paquito Paquito Yupo Yupo y Gonzales Gonzales was charged charged with murder murder by b y the Provincial Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan Bulacan filed before the ourt of First !nstance of Bulacan, Bulacan, presided presided by b y respondent "udge. #he accused pleaded not guilty. $uring the trial, the prosecution had presented si% witnesses, including the father of the deceased, &iguel #ribol, and his common'law wife, (ydia Begnotia who allegedly received the ante mortem statement of the victim, v ictim, )odolfo #ribol. *t the hearing, the prosecution presented orporal onrado )oca of the &eycauayan Police $epartment, before whom a written statement of the accused Paquito Yupo and his alleged waiver of his right to remain silent and to be assisted by a counsel of his own choice was ta+en. *fter this witness had !dentified the statement of the accused and the waiver, he was questioned on the incriminating answers in such statement to the police, but there was an obection on the part of the defense counsel based on the ground of such statement being inadmissible in evidence, as the statement was ta+en by the police without any counsel assisting the accused in the investigation. )espondent "udge sustained the obection of the defense on the view that such udicial confession of the accused is inadmi inadmissi ssible ble in evidenc evidencee for being being unconst unconstitu ituti tional onal,, it appear appearing ing that that the accused accused was not assisted by a counsel when it was given. -e li+ewise stated that such right could not be waived. - pon his refuse to reconsider such ruling, this petition was filed. ISSUE2
/hether or not right to remain silent could be waived.
HELD2
!t was was not not show shown n that that the the alle allege ged d waiv waiver er was given given freel freely y and volu volunt ntar aril ily y. #he #he questioning was rather perfunctory. *n even more telling circumstance against such alleged waiver being given credence was that private respondent, a native of 0amar, then nineteen years old, was interrogated e%tensively in #agalog, no showing having been made that h is acquaintance with the language was such that he could fully understand the import of what was as+ed him. #he ourt ruled that there is no bar to a waiver of the right to counsel during custodial interrogation if made intelligently and voluntarily, with with full understanding o f its consequences. *s for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to e%ercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does not ma+e may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. #he defendant may waive effectuation of those rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, +nowingly and intelligently. !f, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before spea+ing, there can be no questioning. (i+ewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. #he mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the
right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.1 #hus, the alleged waiver falls far short. !t is clearly inadmissible.