People v. Loveria | G.R. No. 79138 | July 2, 1990 | Cortes, J. | Article III, Section 12 |
Recit Ready Summary:
Loveria was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. One evening, he boarded a fully loaded
jeepney and shouted “hold-up”. Together with some companions, he stabbed Manzanero, the driver and other passengers, who
suffered multiple stab wounds. Loveria wants impugn further the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and appellant assails the
manner in which he was identified by Manzanero at the headquarters of the 225th Philippine Constabulary (PC) in Cogeo, Antipolo,
Rizal, claiming violation of his constitutional right to counsel. The issue in this case is W/N Loveria could, during the line-up, invoke
his right to counsel because he was not under custodial interrogation. Citing Gamboa v. Cruz, the Court ruled that the right to
counsel of a person under custodial investigation cannot be invoked until such time that the police investigators start questioning,
interrogating or exacting a confession from the person under investigation.
Doctrine: Defendant could not, during the line-up, invoke his right to counsel because he was not under custodial interrogation.
FACTS:
- Loveria was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide.
- On February 25, 1985, at around 7:00 in the evening, Cerilo Manzanero was driving a jeepney fully loaded with passengers
enroute from Cubao, Quezon City to Cogeo, Marikina, Metro-Manila. While crossing the bridge of Barangay Baranca, Marcos
Highway, Marikina, Metro Manila, accused shouted "hold-up" and Manzanero stopped his jeep. Accused who was seated
right behind Manzanero, poked a knife on the latter's right side of his nape and then pulled him off his seat with the
assistance of another companion into the inner rear portion of the jeep; at the same time, stabbing Manzanero with knives at
the front and back of his body.
- Manzanero and other passengers suffered multiple stab wounds.
- Loveria’s version of the story: attended live-in seminar at the Communication for Asia in Old Sta. Mesa, Manila. The duration
of the seminar was from February 18 to February 22, 1989. Between 8:00 and 8:30 o'clock in the evening of February 21,
1985, upon permission from their training officer, he went to the Farmers Market in Cubao to ask money from his mother for
transportation fare for the following day. When he failed to meet his mother, he decided to go back to the Communication
Foundation for Asia. Fortunately, at the loading zone for passenger vehicles bound for Sta. Mesa, he met his father who gave
him money. After that, he went back to the Communication Foundation for Asia and stayed there the whole evening
- Loveria wants impugn further the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and appellant assails the manner in which he was
identified by Manzanero at the headquarters of the 225th Philippine Constabulary (PC) in Cogeo, Antipolo, Rizal, claiming
violation of his constitutional right to counsel.
ISSUE: W/N defendant could, during the line-up, invoke his right to counsel because he was not
under custodial interrogation? NO.
HELD:
1. Miranda rights contained in the abovequoted constitutional provisions may be invoked by a person only while he is under
custodial investigation and may no longer be claimed by a defendant in a criminal case already pending in because he is no
longer under custodial investigation.
2. Custodial investigation: questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way
3. Gamboa v. Cruz: accused was arrested for vagrancy and taken to the police station and was placed on a line-up and a
female complainant pointed to him as one of the persons who robbed her.
- While on trial, the accused filed a motion to acquit or demurrer to evidence on the ground, among others, that he was
deprived of his constitutional right to counsel at the time the complainant was in the process of accusing or identifying
him for alleged]y committing a crime
- the right to counsel of a person under custodial investigation cannot be invoked until such time that the police
investigators start questioning, interrogating or exacting a confession from the person under investigation
- in the police line-up… it was the complainant who was being investigated and who gave a statement to the
police while the accused was not questioned at all.
4. Manzanero, upon learning that certain hold-up men were being detained at the 225th PC Companywent there to check and
identified the appellant among the detainees. Similar to the Gamboa case, Loveria was not investigated when Manzanero
was in the process of identifying him, he cannot claim that his right to counsel was violated because at that stage, he was
not entitled to the constitutional guarantee invoked.
5. Related rulings: But even assuming that the process of identification of the appellant by Manzanero at the PC headquarters
was attended by constitutional infirmities, only Manzanero's sworn statement (Exh. "B") where he identified appellant and
which was taken by Pat. Ayun, would be excluded for being inadmissible in evidence. These testimonies, taken together
with the other evidence on record, would be sufficient to sustain the trial court's judgment of conviction. The defense of alibi
put up by the appellant has not helped him any for it has not destroyed the damaging effects of the evidence for the
prosecution. Courts look upon the defense of alibi with suspicion and always receive it with caution, not only because it is
inherently weak but also because of its easy fabrication
DISPOSITION: Conviction AFFIRMED
Comments
Post a Comment