The accused was charged with rape and murder after his comb was found near the victim. He was invited to the police station by a childhood friend officer for questioning. The accused claimed he was tortured into admitting to the crimes. His statement was in English, which he could not read. The Supreme Court ruled his confession inadmissible because he was not afforded his right to counsel during custodial investigation and his confession may have been obtained through torture, in violation of his constitutional rights. Confessions obtained without following proper procedures regarding rights to counsel and against self-incrimination through torture cannot be used as evidence.
The accused was charged with rape and murder after his comb was found near the victim. He was invited to the police station by a childhood friend officer for questioning. The accused claimed he was tortured into admitting to the crimes. His statement was in English, which he could not read. The Supreme Court ruled his confession inadmissible because he was not afforded his right to counsel during custodial investigation and his confession may have been obtained through torture, in violation of his constitutional rights. Confessions obtained without following proper procedures regarding rights to counsel and against self-incrimination through torture cannot be used as evidence.
The accused was charged with rape and murder after his comb was found near the victim. He was invited to the police station by a childhood friend officer for questioning. The accused claimed he was tortured into admitting to the crimes. His statement was in English, which he could not read. The Supreme Court ruled his confession inadmissible because he was not afforded his right to counsel during custodial investigation and his confession may have been obtained through torture, in violation of his constitutional rights. Confessions obtained without following proper procedures regarding rights to counsel and against self-incrimination through torture cannot be used as evidence.
27. PEOPLE vs LUMAYOK, G.R. L-54016, October 1, 1985
FACTS: Lumayok was charged with the crime of Rape with Murder for allegedly raping Gloria Belmos, killing her afterwards to conceal the commission of the crime. This was denied by the accused. 200 hundred meters away from the scene of the crime, the accuseds comb was found. Thereafter, accused was invited by the police authorities of Hagonoy to the municipal building. Patrolman Bajao, a childhood friend of the accused, made a casual investigation. The accused allegedly admitted to the police officer that he indeed raped and killed the victim. The accused thereafter gave a statement to the police wherein he admitted having committed the crime; these statements where denied by the accused. According to him he was with Edwin Rico and the comb that was found near the victims handbag was borrowed by Edwin Rico who never returned it to him and he claimed that he was maltreated and tortured by the investigating policemen because he wouldnt admit in committing the crime. The police officers also allegedly told him that they would help him in court if he signs the information filed against him. Thus, due to being tortured and threatened, he was forced to admit in committing the crime by putting his thumb mark on the paper without knowing the contents as he was illiterate. ISSUE: Was the purported confession of the accused taken from him while he was under custodial investigation by the police authorities valid? RULING: NO. Said confession was obtained while the accused was detained and under custodial investigation without him being afforded the benefit of counsel or even any form of assistance from any member of his family. To begin with, it is dubious that appellant was truly informed of his constitutional rights against self- incrimination or that he was afforded opportunity to avail himself of assistance of a counsel as the confession, typewritten as it is in English could not have been understood by accused because he does not even know how to read and write. Nowhere in the statements of the accused is there any mention that the questions have been translated by anyone to a dialect or language known to the accused. Article 113, Section 7 of the Rules of Court states that: At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest, that he shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel and that any statement he might make could be used against him; the person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative or anyone he choose by the most expedient means. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf.. Considering the non-observance of the requisites above prescribed and the impairment of the basic right of the herein accused, his alleged confession is inadmissible evidence. Also, the fact that the same was obtained from the accused by means of torture and threats strongly militates the acceptance of the alleged confession.
Roger Peter Buehl v. Donald Vaughn, Superintendent of Sci-Graterford The District Attorney For Montgomery County The Attorney General of The State of Pennsylvania, 166 F.3d 163, 3rd Cir. (1999)