Section XII 12/03/2012 1 AM

1. Rights in Custodial Investigation

People v. Timple 237 SCRA 52 http://bit.ly/YZoDy8
Facts: Timple et al were charged with robbery with homicide for their forcible with intent to gain by means of superior force upon
the persons of Ernesto and Zenaida Senacio in their home. Their personal belongings, money, jewelries and appliances and others
were stolen. And also they shot Ernesto and others in the same crime. illing Ernesto. Timple was identified as one of the assailants
by the witnesses in a police line!up.
Timple argues that his identification therefrom was null and therefrom was inadmissible because he had not been assisted by
counsel. "e contends that the line!up was an important part of the custodial in#estigation.
$ssue: %hether Timple&s contention is tenable.
"eld. 'o. $t has been held that the line!up is not part of the custodial in#estigation, where as here, the suspects had not yet been
held them to answer for the criminal offense which they were later charged and con#icted. The court has held that there is no real
need to afford a potential suspect the ser#ices of counsel at the police line!up, for the customary practice is that it is the witness
who is in#estigated not the accused.
Absence of counsel during the line!up did not affect the #alidity of it.
People v. Simon 23 SCRA 555 http://bit.ly/!v"#op
Facts: Herein accused-appellant Martin Simon y Sunga was charged on November 10, 1988 with a violation o the !angerous !rugs "ct in
#ampanga, he sold our tea bags o mari$uana to a %N"&'(M) poseur-buyer in consideration o the sum o #*0+00, which tea bags, when
sub$ected to laboratory e,amination, were ound positive or mari$uana+ -pon his arrest he was inormed o his rights but he waived his right
to counsel orally+ "ppellant.s conormance are declarations against interest and tacit admissions o the crime charged+ /hey were obtained in
violation o his right as a person under custodial investigation or the commission o an oense, there being nothing in the records to show
that he was assisted by counsel+

"lthough appellant maniested during the custodial investigation that he waived his right to counsel, the
waiver was not made in writing and in the presence o counsel, hence whatever incriminatory admission or conession may be e,tracted
rom him, either verbally or in writing, is not allowable in evidence+

0ssue1 'an Simon be ac2uitted on grounds that he made admissions together with evidential support without the presence o counsel3
Held1 No+ /he S' declared that he cannot thereby be e,tricated rom his predicament since his criminal participation in the illegal sale o
mari$uana has been suiciently proven+ /he commission o the oense o illegal sale o prohibited drugs re2uires merely the consummation
o the selling transaction

which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug rom the seller+ 0n the present case, and in light o the
preceding discussion, this sale has been ascertained beyond any peradventure o doubt+
People v. R"el$n 23% SCRA &5' http://bit.ly/T(7!7
4acts1
3 4ordito &uelan is the store helper o &icardo 5 &osa 6ardiel+ He stayed in the 6ardiel7s residence but he had separate 2uarters or sleeping
3 (ne day, &icardo awo8e to &osa leaving his room+ He saw &osa meet with &uelan at the gate o the house as they were about to open the store+ &osa
ordered &uelan to get an a,e to be used in repairing some i,tures and a sac8+
3 /hen &osa7s house dog got loose 5 went out towards the street+ &osa scolded &uelan while the latter pleaded that she stop berating him+ &osa didn7t heed
to his re2uest 5 &uelan got ed up 5 using his a,e, he struc8 &osa behind her right ear causing her to all ace down+ /hen, appellant dragged her to a grassy
portion at the side o the street 5 immediately let the place+
3 &uelan was thus charged by the &/' o the crime o murder and imposing on him the penalty o 9lie imprisonment+:
0ssues1
1+ ;(N he can be ound guilty beyond reasonable doubt o the crime charged based on the established acts, without the alleged written e,tra$udicial
conession
3 &uelan contends that his e,tra$udicial conession is inadmissible as he was never apprised o his constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel, 5 to be
inormed o such rights+
3 <ut a conession is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved 5 the burden o proo is upon the person ma8ing the conession+
3 0n this case, the presumption hasn7t been overcome+ Not only is the appellant7s conession replete with details only he could7ve supplied, but the
circumstances surrounding its e,ecution belie his claim
3 <y voluntarily e,ecuting his e,tra$udicial conession ater having been inormed by "tty+ =u> 'orte> o his constitutional rights, and in the presence o and
with the assistance o said counsel, appellant &uelan eectively waived his right to remain silent+
?+ ;(N trial court was correct in appreciating the presence o the three aggravating circumstances
3 Save only or the aggravating circumstances o abuse o superior strength, the prosecution ailed to prove treachery and evident premeditation alleged in
the inormation+
3 ;@ regard to abuse o superior strength, prosecution must prove that the assailant used purposely e,cessive orce out o proportion to the means o
deense available to the person attac8ed+
3 0n the instant case, appellant clearly too8 advantage o his superior strength as the victim was an elderly woman, AB yrs old, rail and o small build while
the appellant was then only ?0 years old, o good stature and build and was armed with an a,e with which to 8ill the victim+
3 However, the aggravating circumstance o abuse o superior strength cannot 2ualiy the 8illing o the victim and raise it to the category o murder because
the same was not alleged in the inormation+ " 2ualiying circumstance must be pleaded in the inormation or i it is not pleaded but proved, it shall only be
considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in the imposition o the correct penalty+
C+ ;(N imposition o 9lie imprisonment: by /' was proper+
N(+ #eople v+ <aguio c+ #eople v+ #enillos1 /he 'ode does not prescribe the penalty o 9lie imprisonment: or any o the elonies therein deined, that penalty
being invariably imposed or serious oenses penali>ed not by the &evised #enal 'ode but by special laws+ &eclusion perpetual entails imprisonment or at least
C0 years ater which the convict becomes eligible or pardon, it also carries with it accessory penalties, namely1 perpetual special dis2ualiication, etc+ 0t is not the
same as 9lie imprisonment: which, or one thing, does not carry with it any accessory penalty, and or another, does not appear to have any deinite e,tent or
duration+