EVIDENCE TOPIC An extrajudicial confession before a bantaybayan taken

without a counsel is inadmissible in

evidence.

TITLE

PEOPLE VS. PONENTE: CARPIO,

LAUGA J.
MBER:
PETITIONER: PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES
March 15, RESPONDENTS: ANTONIO LAUGA Y
TERIO

FACTS Antonio Lauga was accused of qualified rape committed against his 13-year old

daughter. One of the witnesses for the prosecution was Moises Boy Banting, a bantay
bayan in the barangay. Banting testified that after his assistance was sought, he
proceeded to Lauga's house and found the latter wearing only his underwear. He invited
Lauga to the police station, to which Lauga obliged. and admitted to him that he raped
his daughter AAA because he was unable to control himself. During the trial
proceedings, Lauga contested the admissibility of his alleged confession with Banting.
He argues that even if he actually confessed to Moises Boy Banting, a “bantay bayan,”
the confession was inadmissible in evidence because he was not assisted by a lawyer
and there was no valid waiver of such requirement.

ISSU
E

Whether or not the extrajudicial confession made before a bantay bayan without the
assistance of a lawyer admissible in evidence?

RULING

No. Bantay bayan is a group of male residents living in the area organized for the
purpose of keeping peace in their community. Barangay-based volunteer organizations
in the nature of watch groups, as in the case of the “bantay bayan,” are recognized by
the local government unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and
order at the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the legality of the actions taken by
Moises Boy Banting, and the specific scope of duties and responsibilities delegated to
a “bantay bayan,” particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial investigation, any
inquiry he makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the
entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights provided for under Article III, Section
12 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is
concerned. Therefore, the extrajudicial confession of appellant taken without
counsel was inadmissible in evidence.

Bohol Cases | 3E
2018-19