PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintif-Appellee, Plaintif-Appellee, vs. ANTONIO LAUGA Y PINA ALIAS TERIO, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 186228
March 15, 2010
Short !"#$t% FA&TS% A&TS% Appell Appellant ant Lauga Lauga was char charged ged o quali qualied ed rape rape by his daugh daughter ter.. Testionies Testionies revealed that the victi was let alone at hoe while his ather was having drin!ing spr spree ee at the neighbor"s place. #er other decided to leave because appellan appellantt has the habit habit o auling her other every tie he gets drun!. drun!. #er only brother also went out with soe neighbors. At around $%p, appellant wo!e up the victi, reoved his pants and slid inside inside the blan!e blan!ett covering covering the victi victi and reoved her pants pants and underwea underwearr. Appellant had warned the victi not to shout or help. #e proceeded to have carnal !nowledge o her daughter by threatening her with his st and a !nie. &oon ater, the victi"s brother arrived and saw her crying. Appellant claied he scolded the victi or staying out late. The two decided to leave the house. 'hile on their way to their aternal grandother"s house, victi recounted to her her brot brothe herr what what happ happen ened ed to her her. They They late laterr told told the the inci incide dent nt to thei theirr grandother and uncle who sought the assistance o (oises )oy )anting. )anting ound appellant in his house wearing only his underwear. #e was invited to the police station to which he obliged. Appellant aditted to )anting that he indeed raped her daughter because he was unable to control hisel. The trial court convicted the accused or qualied rape. *pon appeal, the +A ared with odication the ruling o the trial court. #ence this petition.
ISSUE% 'heth 'hether er or not appell appellant ant"s "s etra etraud udici icial al cones conessio sion n withou withoutt counse counsell adissible in evidence/ RULING% 0o. llant"s etraudicial etraudicial conession without counsel adissible in evidence/ #1L23 0egative.
)arangay-based volunteer organi4ations in the nature o watch groups, as in the case o the 5bantay 5 bantay bayan,5 bayan,5 are recogni4ed by the local governent unit to peror unctions relating to the preservation o peace and order at the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the legality o the actions ta!en by (oises )oy )anting, and the specic scope o duties and responsibilities delegated to a 5 bantay bayan,5 bayan,5 particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial investigation, any inquiry he a! a!es has has the the colo colorr o a stat state-r e-rel elat ated ed unc uncti tion on and and obe obect ctiv ive e inso insoa arr as the the entitleent o a suspect to his constitutional rights provided or under Article 666,
&ection $7 o the +onstitution, otherwise !nown as the (iranda 8ights, is concerned. 1ven i the etraudicial conessions were not aditted as evidence, it does not warrant the acquittal o the accused. The appellant"s conviction is upheld because o the strong evidence showing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Principle: The extrajudicial confession of appellant, which was taken without a counsel, inadmissible in evidence.