People vs. Joselito del Rosario – GR 127755, April 14, 1999 FACTS
The accuse accused-a d-appe ppella llant nt was convic convicted ted of the robber robbery y with with homici homicide de and senten sentenced ced to death. death. The The conviction of the accused was based on the testimony of a tricycle driver who claimed that the accused was the one who drove the tricycle, which the suspects used as their get-away vehicle. The accused was then invited by the police for questioning and he pointed to the location where he dropped off the suspects. When the police arrived at the supposed hide-out, a shooting incident ensued, resulting to the death of some of the suspects. After the incident, the accused was taken back to the precint where his statement was taken on May !, ""#. $owever, this was only subscribed on May %%, ""# and the accused was made to e&ecute a waiver of detention in the presence of '&-(udge Talavera. )t was noted that the accused was handcuffed through all this time upon orders of the fiscal and based on the authorities* belief that the accused might attempt to escape otherwise. ISS!S
+ + Whet Whethe herr the the Miranda rights of the accused-appellant were violated. +% Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant accused-appellant was was lawful. "!#$
+ '. '. )t was established established that the accused accused was not apprised apprised of his rights to remain remain silent silent and to have competent and independent counsel in the course of the investigation. The /ourt held that the accused should always be apprised of his Miranda rights from the moment he is arrested by the authorities as this is deemed the start of custodial investigation. )n fact, the /ourt included 0invitations1 by police officers in the scope of custodial investigations. )t is evident in this case that when the police invited the accused-appellant to the station, he was already considered as the suspect in the case. Therefore, the questions asked of him were no longer general inquiries into an unsolved crime, but were intended to elicit information about his participation in the crime. $owever, the Miranda rights may be waived, provided that the waiver is voluntary, voluntary, e&press, in writing and made in the presence of counsel. 2nfortunately, 2nfortunately, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused made such a waiver. +% 34. There There are certain certain situations situations when authorities authorities may conduct a lawful lawful warrantless warrantless arrest5 arrest5 +a when the accused is caught in flagrante delicto6 +b when the arrest is made immediately after the crime was committed6 and 7 when the one to be arrested is an escaped convict. The arrest of the accused in this case did not fall in any of these e&ceptions. The arrest was not conducted immediately after the consummation of the crime6 rather, it was done a day after. The authorities also did not have personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested had committed the offense because they were not there when the crime was committed. They merely relied on the account of one eyewitness. 2nfortunately, 2nfortunately, athough the warrantless arrest was not lawful, this did not affect the 8urisdiction of the /ourt in this case because the accused still submitted to arraignment despite the illegality of his arrest. )n effect, he waived his right to contest the legality of the warrantless arrest.
