4. People vs.

Larry Mahinay
G.R. No. 122485 (February 1, 1999)
FACTS:
Larry, the responded herein is an employee of Elvira Chan, the mother of the Ma. Victoria Chan, 12 years old, who
is the owner of the unfinished big house being built. That on Sunday morning of 8AM, he was with Gregorio Rivera
in a drinking spree but went home when he already was drunk at around 10AM. At about 9PM, the respondent
herein showed up in the store of Norgina Rivera, sister in law of the mother of the accused, to buy lugaw. Norgina
asked Larry Mahinay why he appeared to be so uneasy and his hair was disarranged, he was also still drunk and
walking in a zigzagging manner.  Meanwhile, Elvira noticed that her daughter, Ma. Victoria, was missing.

On the following day, the respondent at about 2AM boarded a jeepney in Talipapa, and alighted at the top of the
bridge of the North Expressway and had thereafter disappeared. 

The same morning, a certain “Boy” found the body of Ma. Victoria Chan, in a septic tank and reported the matter to
her parents. 

The parents, with the policemen tried to look for Larry where he worked before, in Caloocan, but to no avail, was
not able to find him. 

It was in Batangas where Larry was apprehended. From then, Larry, with the assistance of the counsel, made an
extrajudicial confession. However, during the arraignment, he retracted his statement and testified that he made it
involuntary due to fear, which according to him that he would be salvage by the policemen who arrested him if he
would not admit the crime. Hence this petition. 

Issues:

1. Whether or not the appellant’s extra-judicial confession was validly taken and in accordance with his rights
under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights; and

2. Whether or not the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution sufficient to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:

The Court ruled that the appellant’s extrajudicial confession was taken within the ambit of the law as evinced by the
records and testimony of the lawyer who assisted, warned and explained to him his constitutionally guaranteed pre-
interrogatory and custodial rights.

As to the second issue, the appellant argues that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is
insufficient to warrant a conviction of his guilt. However, the Court ruled otherwise.

The Court recalled the Rule on Evidence and settled jurisprudence. Absence of direct proof does not absolve the
appellant because conviction may be had with the concurrence of the following requisites as stated in the Rules of
Court:

1. there is more than one circumstance;

2. the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
3. the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court recalled the ruling in People v. De Guia, 280 SCRA 141, all circumstances must be consistent with each
other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis
that he is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.

And also, in People v. Alberca, 257 SCRA 613 citing People v. Abitona, 240 SCRA 335, that facts and
circumstances consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence, constitute evidence which, in weight and
probative force, may surpass even direct evidence in its effect upon the court.

The Court agreed with the trial court’s decision in giving credence to several circumstantial evidence, which is more
than enough to prove appellant’s guilt beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

The Court also updated the Miranda rights with the developments in law that provided the rights of suspects under
custodial investigation in detail.

A person under custodial investigation should be informed:

1. In a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of
arrest, if any; Every other warnings, information or communication must be in a language known to and understood
by said person;

2. That he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him;

3. That he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer,
preferably of his own choice;

4. That if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer
may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person
arrested or one acting in his behalf;

5. That no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or after a
valid waiver has been made;

6. That, at any time, he has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient means – telephone, radio,
letter or messenger – with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate family, or any
medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be
visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-government organization. It shall be the
responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished;

7. That he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and
ensure that he understood the same;

8. That the waiver must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the
waiver is void even if he insists on his waiver and chooses to speak;

9. That he may indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be questioned with
warning that once he makes such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced,
or the interrogation must cease if it has already begun;

10. That his initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from
invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether he may have answered some questions or
volunteered some statements;

11. That any statement or evidence, as the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether
inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.