RP vs. Alicando-case digest

People People of the Philippines vs. Arnel Alicando y Brio nes GR No. 117487, 12 December 1995

Facts:  Arnel Alicando was charged and later on convicted with the crime of rape with homicide, and sentenced to suffer death penalty. Alicando and his counsel appealed the decision of the trial court and cited 3 reasons for the said appeal. One of which was that some prosecution evidences were inadmissible. They assailed that said inadmissible evidence were gathered by the police as a result of custodial interrogation where Alicando confessed the crime without the benefit of counsel. Issue/s: 1.

2. 3.

Whether or not a verbal verbal confession confession made during custodial interrogation without the benefit benefit of counsel and the physical evidence derived therefrom may be admitted as evidence in court? What is the fruit of the poisonous tree ? What evidence is required for a valid waiver of the accused’s right to remain silent and right to counsel?

Ruling: 1.

No. SC held that uncounseled confession confession as well as physical physical evidence derived derived therefrom are inadmissible as evidence in court. The high court explained that the manner by which the evidences were derived was contrary to the Constitution, that such was a blatant violation of the accused’s accused’s constitutional right.

2.

SC explained that the “fruit of the poisonous tree” tree” is rule which indicates that once the primary source (tree) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary evidence or derivative evidence (fruit) derived from it is also inadmissible. SC also indicated that the said rule is based on the principle p rinciple that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.

3.

SC held that in order that a waiver of an accused’s right to remain silent and to counsel may be considered valid, there must be a clear and convincing evidence for the same. SC also held that the burden to prove that the accused waived said rights prior to making a confession under custodial interrogation lies with the prosecution. The high court also stated that the prosecution has the burden to show that the evidence derived from the confession is not tainted as “fruit of the poisonous tree”. The high court also emphasized that the Constitution provides for only one mode of waiver, to wit: it must be in writing and in the presence of counsel. In the case at bar, records show that the prosecution failed to discharge this burden. SC also highlighted that even the lack of timely objection of the appellant to the introduction of constitutionally proscribed evidence did not satisfy the heavy burden of proof that rested on the prosecution.