People Of The Phil. Vs.

Roberto Samontanez.
G.R. No. 134530.
December 4, 2000
 OBJECTIVES:

1. To identify the facts

2. To modify the issue of the case
3. To understand the ruling of the case
4. To have knowledge on how the case
being
 FACTS
 Rape with homicide on a sugar cane plantation.-
Claimant: Lolita-Samontañez’s confession was
illegally obtained by the police. When he was
detained at his office, he was not informed of his
constitutional rights. Throughout the custodial
investigation, no attorney was present.
 FACTS
The cops removed some of the
victim's personal items from
Samontañez bag.To the crime
alleged, the defendant entered a
guilty plea.
 ISSUE

Whether or not the victim's

personal items discovered in the
accused's bag may be utilized as
evidence. —- NO
 RULING
 The aforementioned pieces of evidence are not admissible in court
since they are regarded as "fruits of a poisonous tree," hence the
answer is yes. According to the records, Samontañez was taken into
custody by Cavite police at his place of employment. The appellant's
constitutional rights, which are protected by Article III, Section 12(1)
of the 1987 Constitution, were not made known to him during the
police custody inquiry, according to the record. He also did not
appear to have received legal assistance.
 Any confession received from Samontañez, together with any other
evidence collected by that confession, is inadmissible in evidence
without a valid waiver, even if it wasn't raised during the trial.
According to the libertarian exclusionary
principle known as the "fruits of the
poisonous tree," any secondary or derivative
evidence that is acquired from the initial
source (the "tree") and that was obtained
unlawfully is also inadmissible. Or, to put it
another way, illegally obtained evidence
was collected directly as a result of the
criminal conduct, whereas the "fruit of the
poisonous tree" was obtained indirectly.
Even when some of the illegally
obtained evidence is the "fruit of the
poisonous tree," it is nonetheless
inadmissible. The theory supporting
the rule is that since evidence
obtained by the State illegally taints
all subsequent evidence, it should
never be used to get new evidence.
 Thevictim's personal items discovered within
Samontañez’s luggage are therefore not admissible as
evidence because they were obtained through an illicit
confession. NOTE 1 (additional grounds for the trial
court's verdict):
 Carlito
Samontañez and Melecio Mendoza's statements,
which both just aim to show that the appellant was
present around the crime scene at or around the time
the crime was committed, are the only other pieces of
prosecution evidence.
In the end, the appellant's conviction for the
offence accused in the matter at hand was
principally based on his guilty plea, which
seemed to have been made carelessly and thus
in violation of Section 3, Rule 116 of the Revised
Rules of Court. After a defendant enters a plea
of guilty to a capital charge, the trial court is
required to do three (3) things in accordance
with Section 3, Rule 116.
 GROUP 3
 TIGUE, JOY
 STA.ANA, MARJORIE
 PETALLO, ANDREW
 LIM, CRESTOVIC
 ENOR, MARK RENIER
 GEMINO, MARK GEL
 TEMPORAL, DARREN
 SARMEINTO, JERRY
 BALILLA, JOHN DENVER
 RADAN, VINCENT N.