8 - People vs.

Marra (1994)

FACTS:

Jimmy Din and Nelson Tandoc were conversing with each other in front of the hotel owned by Din’s father
when a man passed by on the opposite side of the street waving a dirty sign with his finger. Din and Tandoc
followed until they caught up with the man and demanded an explanation but they were not given any. They
were joined by two other men and a brawl ensued when Tandoc slapped one of them. The fight ended when
their opponents ran away.

When Din and Tandoc were on their way to the hotel, they men with whom they just had a fight ran after them
which pressed them to hide in the annex of the hotel. After a few minutes, thinking that there was no longer any
danger, Tandoc decided to go home. However, he was shot by a revolver by a man wearing a security guard’s
uniform when he opened the door. Din witnessed the shooting and was able to take a good look at the man who
fatally shot Tandoc.

Samuel Marra was identified as the man who shot Tandoc and was approached by responding policemen while
he was eating at an eatery shortly after the incident. A series of questions were asked, particularly his tour of
duty and where his issued firearm might be. He brought the policemen to his house and showed them his
revolver with five live bullets and an empty shell. Marra denied shooting Tandoc at first but admitted to the
crime and said that he did so in self-defense. He was then taken to the police station where he was positively
identified by Din and was consequentially detained.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was violation of rights of suspects under custodial investigation when policemen asked the
appellant questions prior to his arrest.

RULING:
In the case at bar, appellant was not under custodial investigation when he made the admission. There was no
coercion whatsoever to compel him to make such as statement. He could have refused to answer questions from
the very start. The police inquiry had not yet reached a level wherein they considered him as a particular
suspect. Thus, there was no violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution or the constitutional
procedure on custodial investigation.

In addition, the law provides that the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged
or of any offense necessarily included therein may be given in evidence against him and, in certain
circumstances, this admission may be considered as part of the res gestae or the facts that may be admitted as
evidence.

The judgment finding accused-appellant Samuel Marra guilty of the crime of murder was affirmed.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo finding accused-appellant Samuel Marra y Zarate guilty of the
crime of murder and imposing upon him the penalty and civil liabilities therein stated is hereby AFFIRMED.
 9 - People of the Philippines vs Ting Lan Uy
G.R. No. 157399
November 17, 2005
Facts:
The accused, Uy, Gamus and Ochoa, public officers being employed by the National Power Corporation
(NAPOCOR), was charged for allegedly diverting and collecting funds of the National Power Corporation
(NPC) intended for the purchase of US Dollars from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) for the amount
of P183,805, 291.25 was indicted before the Sandiganbayan for the complex crime of Malversation through
Falsification of Commercial Documents for conspiring, confederating with the private co-accused where they
falsify or cause to be falsified the NPC's application for the managers check with the Philippine National Bank
(PNB). Sandigan Bay a decision acquitting Uy, and Ochoa being found guilty for the said crime and is ordered
to pay the equal amount malversed solidarily with Uy. Ochoa then appealed, He claims that his conviction was
based on the alleged sworn statement and the transcript of stenographic notes of a supposed interview with
appellant NPC personnel and the report of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Appellant maintains that
he signed the sworn statement while confined at the Heart Center and upon assurance it would not be used
against him. He was not assisted by counsel nor was he apprised of his constitutional rights when he executed
the affidavit.
Issue: Whether or not the constitutional rights of the accused were violated?
Held:
The decision of the Sandiganbayan is affirmed. Considering that his statement was taken during the
administrative investigation of NPC's audit team and before he was taken into custody. As such inquest was still
a general inquiry into an unsolved offense. Appellant cannot claim that he is in police custody because he was
co Heart Center and he gave this statement to NPC personnel, not to police authorities. The interview where the
sworn statement is based was conducted by NPC personnel for NPC's administrative investigation. Any
investigation conducted by the NBI is a separate proceeding, distinct and independent from the NPC inquiry
and should not be confused or lumped together with the latter.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of Sandiganbayan is affirmed. Accused Jaime B. Ochoa is hereby found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation thru falsification of Commercial Document and is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine equal to the amount malversed which
P183,805,291.25 solidarily with accused Jose Ting Lan Uy, Jr. Accused Ochoa shall also suffer the penalty of
perpetual disqualification.