Consti II case digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS SAMUEL MARRA, ET. AL.

Rights of Suspects under Custodial Investigation

When rights available

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 Tando 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.