G.R. No.
79543 October 16, 1996
JOSE D. FILOTEO, JR., petitioner, vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Jose D. Filoteo, Jr. (Filoteo) was a police investigator of the Western Police District in
Metro Manila. He was charged with the following information: The petitioner was allegedly the mastermind
of the armed hijacking of a postal delivery van together with other accused. This happened on or about the
3rd day of May, 1982, in Bulacan, wherein the said accused, two of whom were armed with guns,
conspiring, confederating together and helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously with intent of gain and by means of violence, threat and intimidation, stop the Postal Delivery
Truck while it was traveling along the municipality of Meycauyan, at the point of their guns, and then take,
rob and carry away with them the following, to wit: (1) Postal Delivery Truck, (2) Social Security System
Medicare Checks and Vouchers (3) Social Security System Pension Checks and Vouchers (4) Treasury
Warrants, and (5) Several Mail Matters from abroad. The authorities confronted Filoteo about his
participation in the hijacking, telling him that his other co-accused had earlier volunteered the information
that petitioner furnished the Benz used in the hijacking. Thereupon, Filoteo admitted involvement in the
crime and pointed to three other soldiers who turned out to be a discharged soldier as his confederates.
The petitioner sworn statement wherein he attested to his waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code and the following facts: (a) that he was apprised of his constitutional rights under
Section 20, Article IV of the (1973) Constitution, that he understood all his rights thereunder, and that the
investigators offered him counsel from the CLAO-IBP but he refused to avail of the privilege. The
Sandiganbayan found them GUILTY as co-principals beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of Section
2 (e), in relation to Section 3 (b) of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti- Piracy and
Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974. On appeal to the SC, the petitioners claim that the rights of an
accused under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution which includes the right against an
uncounselled waiver of the right to counsel is applicable to him retroactively, even though his custodial
investigation took place in 1983 before the effectivity of the new Constitution. This is for the reason that it
is favorable to him as an accused pursuant to Art. 22 of the RPC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Article 3 Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution should apply to the accused retroactively.
RULINGS:
No. Article 3 Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution should not apply to the accused retroactively. Article III,
Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution has no retroactive effect since it was not a penal offense. What is
being construed here is constitutional provision specifically contained in the Bill of Rights which is
obviously not a penal statute. A bill of rights is a declaration and enumeration of the individual rights and
privileges which the Constitution is designed to protect against violations by the government, or by
individuals or groups of individuals. It is a charter of liberties for the individual and a limitation upon the
power of the state. Penal laws strictly and properly are those imposing punishment for an offense
committed against the state which the executive of the state has the power to pardon. A penal law
denotes punishment imposed and enforced by the state for a crime of offense against its law.
Furthermore, the petitioner has attended until fourth year college of Criminology and top-notch in the
police basic course, he should not be ignorant of his rights as an accused.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
