Scribd
Upload
78 views2 pages

Invalid Confession & Arrest in Salcedo Case

This case involves the murder of Honorio Aparejado y Fideles. Several individuals including Noli Salcedo, Edison Banculo, Juanito Sual Jr., and Danilo Laurio were charged with the crime. The trial court convicted Salcedo as the principal and the others as accomplices. However, the Supreme Court ruled the confessions and warrantless arrests in the case were invalid and unconstitutional. Specifically, the confessions were obtained without informing the individuals of their right to remain silent or providing legal counsel, violating their constitutional rights. While law enforcement aims to solve crimes, it must do so through legal and constitutional means, otherwise efforts are meaningless and a waste of public funds

Uploaded by

Ellis Lagasca
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
78 views2 pages

Invalid Confession & Arrest in Salcedo Case

This case involves the murder of Honorio Aparejado y Fideles. Several individuals including Noli Salcedo, Edison Banculo, Juanito Sual Jr., and Danilo Laurio were charged with the crime. The trial court convicted Salcedo as the principal and the others as accomplices. However, the Supreme Court ruled the confessions and warrantless arrests in the case were invalid and unconstitutional. Specifically, the confessions were obtained without informing the individuals of their right to remain silent or providing legal counsel, violating their constitutional rights. While law enforcement aims to solve crimes, it must do so through legal and constitutional means, otherwise efforts are meaningless and a waste of public funds

Uploaded by

Ellis Lagasca
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PEOPLE VS.

SALCEDO

[G.R. No. 100920. June 17, 1997]

DOCTRINE:

A law enacted defining the rights of persons arrested, detained or under custodial investigation as well
as the duties of the arresting, detaining and investigating officers; and penalizing violations thereof. In spite
of these clear constitutional, jurisprudential and statutory guidelines, one still finds persistent infractions by
public investigators and police authorities that have resulted in acquittals which oftentimes are not
understood or appreciated by the public at large.
FACTS:

In an Information dated October 28, 1988, First Assistant Provincial Fiscal Andres B. Barsaga, Jr.
charged Accused-appellants Noli Salcedo, Edison Banculo, Juanito Sual, Jr. and Danilo Laurio, together
with Nonoy (Teodulo, Jr.) Esquilona, Reynaldo Cortes, Paco (Romarico) Manlapaz, Gemo Ibaez, Bolodoy
Calderon, Gil Rapsing, Jose Fernandez, Noe Albao, Ely Rapsing and Norie Huelva, with the crime of
murder
That on or about June 20, 1988, in the evening thereof, at Barangay Gabi, Municipality of Baleno,
Province of Masbate the said accused, conspiring together attack, assault and shot with a gun(,) hack with
a bolo Honorio Aparejado y Fideles, hitting the latter on the different parts of the body, that caused his
death. On May 6, 1991, the trial judge rendered judgment convicting Salcedo as principal; and Banculo,
Sual, Jr. and Laurio as accomplices in the crime of murder. Esquilona, Jr., Cortes and Manlapaz were
acquitted.
Evidence of prosecution presented P/Sgt. Jose Bajar of the Aroroy Police Station testified that he had
conducted the investigation of Accused Danilo Laurio, Juan Sual, Jr. and Edison Banculo on August 22,
1988. The investigation was in the form of questions and answers in the vernacular which were reduced
into writing. During cross-examination, he admitted that the three were not assisted by counsel when they
signed their respective waivers--neither during the investigation nor at the time they affixed their signatures
to their respective statements.
Pfc. Wencell Esquilona, member of the INP (now PNP) Baleno Police Station, was presented as a rebuttal
witness for the prosecution. He stated that he had effected the arrest of six of the accused,
namely: Manlapaz, Cortes, Esquilona, Jr., Laurio, Banculo and Sual. As to the latter three, Esquilona
admitted that he was not armed with a warrant for their arrest but that he had only received a wire from the
headquarters that the three were suspects in the murder of Aparejado. At the time of the arrest, he likewise
recovered one lantaka, an armalite revolver and fatigue uniforms at the house where the three were
arrested. He stated further that he did not maltreat any of them and was not present during their
investigation conducted by Sgt. Jose Bajar.
ISSUE: Whether or not the confessions and warrantless arrest conducted in the case at bar constitute to
be valid.

HELD:

No. Even assuming that in the instant case the extrajudicial confession made by appellant spoke the truth
and was not extracted through violence or intimidation, still the failure of the police investigators to inform
appellant of his right to remain silent, coupled with the denial of his right to a competent and independent
counsel or the absence of effective legal assistance when he waived his constitutional rights, rendered
the confession inadmissible under Sec. 12, par. 3, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution.

The Court understands the difficulties faced by law enforcement agencies in apprehending violators of the
law. It sympathizes with the public clamor for the bringing of criminals before the altar of justice. However,
quick solution of crimes and the consequent apprehension of malefactors are not the end-all and be-all of
law enforcement. Enforcers of the law must follow the procedure mandated by the Constitution and the
law. Otherwise, their efforts would be meaningless. And their expenses in trying to solve crimes would
constitute needless expenditures of taxpayers money. This Court values liberty and will always insist on
the observance of basic constitutional rights as a condition sine qua non against the awesome
investigative and prosecutory powers of government.

You might also like