RIGHTS DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION POLITICAL LAW REVIEW II

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO BALOLOY

G.R. No. 140740, April 12, 2002, Per Curiam.

FACTS: On the evening of August 3 1996, the body of 11-year-old Genelyn Camacho was
found at the waterfalls at Barangay Inagasan, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur. The autopsy report
found that Genelyn was raped before she was drowned. The one who caused its discovery was
accused-appellant Juanito Baloloy himself, who claimed that he had caught sight of it while he
was catching frogs in the nearby creek. While in the wake of Genelyn, Juanito confessed to the
barangay captain that he only wanted to frighten the girl but ended up raping and throwing her
body in the ravine.

Appellant Baloloy was put in custody of authorities, to which he was asked incriminating
questions by Judge Dicon who justified his actions saying that Juanito was not yet in custodial
investigation. Based on his alleged extrajudicial confession, coupled with circumstantial
evidence, the trail court violated Section 12 (1) of Article III of the barangay captain Ceniza and
Judge Dicon. According to him, the two failed to inform him of his Constitutional rights before
they took it upon themselves to elicit from him the incriminatory information. While these rights
may be waived in a written instrument executed and signed in the presence of counsel,
appellant concludes that his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not Baloloy’s extrajudicial confession before the barangay captain was
admissible.

RULING: YES. Appellant’s confession with the barangay captain Ceniza is admissible. It has
been held that the constitutional provision on custodial investigation does not apply to a
spontaneous statement or those not elicited through questioning by the authorities but given in
an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having committed the crime. Neither can
it apply to admissions or confessions made by a suspect in the commission of a crime before he
is placed under investigation. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of
incriminating facts or confessions.

In the instant case, Baloloy voluntarily narrated to Ceniza that he raped Genelyn and thereafter
threw her body into the ravine. This narration was spontaneous answer, freely and voluntarily
given in an ordinary manner. It was given before he was arrested or place under custody for
investigation in connection with the commission of the offense. Moreover, Baloloy did not offer
any evidence of improper or ulterior motive on the party of Ceniza, which could have compelled
her testify falsely against him.