Case Digest - focusing on Admissibility of DNA evidence in the Supreme Court of the Philippines.Full description
People vs AmaguinFull description
John Dy vs PeopleFull description
People vs. Camat FACTS: Amboy Camat and Willie Del Rosario were accused of roberry with homicide on a certain Nelson Sinoy and Gonzalo Penalver. Camat divested Penalver of a black leather clutch bag containing an electric tester valued at P150 and stabbed the victim. Del Rosario on the other hand stabbed Sinoy which caused the latter’s death, Penalver survived with serious injuries. Both accused admitted to Pat. Odeo Carino their involvement in the crime upon invitation in the police station. At their arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. After due hearing, the lower court rendered rendered judgment judgment 2 on June 19, 1987 finding both appellants guilty guilty beyond reasonable reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide. Appellants assigning in their brief a single error submitting that the court gravely erred in finding them guilty guilty beyond beyond reaso reasona nable ble doubt doubt of the crime crime of robbe robbery ry with with homici homicide de and frustr frustrate ated d homicide. In support of their lone assignment of error, appellants insist that the trial court cannot rely on the extrajudicial confession of appellant Camat as a basis for their conviction because such such conf confes essi sion on was was obta obtain ined ed duri during ng cust custod odia iall inve invest stig igat atio ion n in viol violat ation ion of thei theirr constitutional rights. ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in relying on the extrajudicial confessions of the accused as basis for their their conviction conviction because such confessio confession n was obtained in custodial custodial investigati investigation on in violation of their constitutional rights. HELD: Yes. Absent any showing that appellants were duly advised of the mandatory guarantees under the Bill of rights, their confessions made before Pat. Carino are inadmissible against them, and cannot be used in support of their conviction. However, SC still affirmed their guilt.