People v. Albior (Digest)

7. People v. Albior G.R. No. L-75034.
June 30, 1988
FACTS: Francisco Albior, Carlos Manalangsang and two unidentified men were charge of the crime of
Robbery with homicide with rape. Based on the prosecution, the four conspired to rob the house of
Garces family taking with them valuables amounting to 10,000 pesos. One of the unidentified accused
raped and killed Dana Garces. Rodulfo Vasquez, on the other hand was charged as accessory to the
crime, after selling the stolen valuables.
The CIS Investigation Section made investigations which led them to the house of Vasquez. There they
"confronted" accused Manalangsang, Albior and Vasquez and "invited" them to the CIS headquarters for
questioning. Recovered from Vasquez’s house were the stolen items and the victim’s panty. The two
other accused were not there.
Agent Jamela, of the CIS Investigation section, testified that he took the statements of the accused
Manalangsang, Albior and Vasquez after their arrest, wherein Manalangsang and Albior, after having
been appraised of their constitutional rights, admitted that they acted as lookouts to the crime.
Upon arraignment, Albior, Manalangsang and Vasquez pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. The two other
unidentified accused remained at large. Subsequently, Manalangsang withdrew his plea of "not guilty"
and changed it to "guilty" and he was correspondingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim.
Accused-appellant Albior and accused Vasquez were duly tried. The trial court found both guilty. As
accused Vasquez had already served the term of his penalty as an accessory to the crime while under
preventive detention, he was released while accused-appellant was transferred to the National
Penitentiary for service of his sentence. Albior interposed an appeal.
ISSUE: Whether the sworn statement executed by Albior is admissible as evidence.
RULING: No. With regard to Albior’s sworn statement, the Court finds obvious defects that would render
it inadmissible in evidence.
In the case of People v. Galit, the Court, quoting from Morales, Jr. v. Enrile, said:
7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the
reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might make could be
used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or
anyone he chooses by the most expedient means — by telephone if possible or by letter or messenger.
It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No custodial
investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested,
by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself of by
anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made
with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down,
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
The lack of assistance of counsel in Albior’s waiver of his right to counsel is evident from the testimony
of the investigating officer.
“Attorney: Now, after you have informed the accused of his constitutional rights, what else did you do if
any?
Investigating Officer: He is willing to give a voluntary statement without assistance of counsel.
Attorney: What else did you do?
Investigating Officer: I then proceeded to get his statement. (TSN, August 29, 1984, p. 17.)”
It must also be noted that although Albior hardly speaks Tagalog, Cebuano being his native dialect, the
sworn statement is in Tagalog. It does not suffice that an interpreter, an agent of the CIS, was present
during the interrogation (as stated in the sworn statement) because by virtue of its being written in
Tagalog, Albior was deprived of the opportunity to comprehend through his own reading what he was
signing.
Finally, the testimony of Albior that he agreed to sign the sworn statement because he was promised
that he would be released adds to the conclusion that he did not understand what he was signing. No
reasonable person would believe the promise that he would be released if he knows that he had just
signed a statement admitting his participation in the commission of a very serious offense.
In view of the foregoing defects, the Court is constrained to hold Albior’s sworn statement inadmissible
in evidence.

People v. Albior (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Albior (Digest)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Albior (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7. People v. Albior G.R. No. L-75034.

June 30, 1988

ISSUE: Whether the sworn statement executed by Albior is admissible as evidence.

Investigating Officer: He is willing to give a voluntary statement without assistance of counsel.

Attorney: What else did you do?

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.