Gamboa v. Cruz | G.R. No. L-56291 | June 27, 1988 | Padilla, J.
| Article III – Section 12 |
Petitioners: Christopher Gamboa
Respondents:
Hon. Alfredo Cruz (Judge of the CFI of Manila)
Recit Ready Summary
Petitioner was arrested and detained for vagrancy. The next day he was made to be a part of a line up where he was
pointed out by the complainant as a companion in a robbery case. After that, he was asked to stay and sit in front of
the complainant while she gave her statement. Thereafter, an Information charging him of robbery was filed.
Arraignment and proceedings ensued. Issue is whether or not his right to counsel was violated. NO, the right to
counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation (when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit
information and/or confessions or admissions from the accused). The police line up was not yet part of the custodial
investigation. So, he was still not entitled to such right.
FACTS:
Petitioner was arrested without warrant, and booked for vagrancy and was detained in the precint of Manila. The
next day he was included in a line up of 5 detainees where the complainant (Erlinda Bernal) pointed to him and said
“that one is a companion.” Thereafter, the other 4 went back to their cells while the petitioner was made to stay.
While the police was interrogating Erlinda, he was told to sit down in front of her. 3 days passed and an Information
for robbery was filed against him. Arraignment and hearings followed. When prosecutor finally offered its evidence
and rested its case, petitioner filed a motion to acquit on the ground of the line-up without notice to and in the
absence of his counsel which violated his right to counsel and due process. Motion denied. Hence, this petition.
Petitioner contends in denying his Motion to Acquit, his rights to counsel and due process were violated. SC issued a
TRO for the meantime.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not petitioner’s right to counsel was violated? NO.
2. Whether or not petitioner’s right to due process was violated? NO.
HELD:
1. Right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation (when the investigating officer starts to ask
questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the accused). This is to avoid the
pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the accused undergoing
interrogation. In addition, while this right may be waiver, such waiver must be in writing and in the presence
of counsel.
- The police line up was not yet part of the custodial investigation. So, he was still not entitled to
such right.
- SC cited SolGen’s argument à When he was identified by Erlinda, he was not yet asked to answer for
a criminal offense. Line up was part of custodial inquest so he was not entitled to a counsel just yet.
Because when the process had not yet shifted from investigatory to accusatory as when investigation
does not yet elicit a confession, accused may not yet avail the services of a counsel. Confrontation
between State and petitioner had not yet begun. Police did not even interrogate him, he was only
asked to sit down while the complainant was being investigated.
- Nonetheless, SC reminds investigators that the moment there is a move or urge to elicit admissions,
confessions, or any information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, suspect should
then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives it, but waiver has to be in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
2. Petitioner not deprived of his substantive and constitutional right to due process.
- He was represented by a member of the Bar, accorded all the opportunities to be heard and present
evidence, but instead he opted to file a Motion to Acquit.
3. Petition is one for certiorari, alleging GAOD committed by respondent Judge in issuing the order that denied
his Motion to Acquit. However, for certiorari to lie, there has to be capricious, arbitrary, and whimsical
exercise of power and the abuse of discretion gross or grave, or so patent as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty, or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
- Not the case at bar. Judge considered petitioner’s arguments and the prosecution’s evidence
against him, and required him to present his own evidence.
4. In any event, Certiorari and prohibition are not the proper remedies against an order denying Motion to
Acquit.
- Rules of Court provides that upon arraignment, defendantr move to quash Information or plead, or do
both. If he moves to quash without pleading, and the motion is overruled or withdrawn, he should
immediately plead and trial proceeds. If after trial, judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, that is the time he
can appeal and raise the same defenses in his Motion to Quash which shall be reviewed by the
appellate court.
- If he chooses to plead, it means he waives all objections which are grounds for motion to quash,
except where the Information does not charge an offense, or court is without jurisdiction.
- Order denying Motion to Quash is only interlocutory and not a final one so it is not appealable.
- Petitioner only moved for Motion to Quash after prosecution rested its case, so he is deemed to have
waived all objections which are grounds for a motion to quash.
Additional note:
In US: Kirby v. Illinois, the right to counsel attaches only at or after the time that adversary judicial proceedings have
been initiated against accused.
In PH: It attaches at the start of investigation against an accused, and therefore, even before adversary judicial
proceedings against the accused have begun
DISPOSITION: Petition DISMISSED. TRO LIFTED. REMANDED
Separate Opinions
CJ Yap (Dissenting): After he was pointed out as one of the companions in the robbery, the investigatory part of
the proceedings started already when he was singled out and made to sit in front of the complainant while
she gave her statement. Right to counsel attaches from the moment he is under custodial investigation and not only
when a confession is being exacted from him.
J. Sarmiento (Dissenting): Accused was already in custody at the time although for vagrancy, it still left him with
little or no choice other than to face his accuser. It already reached the “critical stage” where confrontation becomes
an accusation rather than a routine procedure preliminary to a formal prosecution. He was in custody not for the
usual questioning but for an existing charge, although investigation was in relation to another offense. Confrontation
became adversarial and the assistance of a counsel was needed. He was under detention that made him
vulnerable to pressure. Due process was violated too because he was not apprised of his constitutional rights
when he was apprehended for vagrancy, then placed in a line up the next day upon complaint for robbery. He was
ready-made suspect for an offense in which no probable cause existed to warrant a custodial interrogation.
Comments
Post a Comment