PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ALBERT OLAES y AMOROSO, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 76547
July 30, 1990
FACTS: Olaes was charged with unlawfully selling six (6) lids of marijuana on March 27,
1978. Having pleaded not guilty, the appellant was duly arraigned and trial
on the merits ensued in the succeeding year. It was alleged in the prosecution’s
information that a certain Manuelito Bernardo was arrested for
possession of several lids of marijuana, after having been investigated. Bernardo
confessed that the source of the confiscated marijuana was from someone alias
“Abet” and his brother alias “Bonjing”. Bernardo agreed to
cooperate with the investigation through acting as a buyer and going to
the house, where the confiscated marijuana originated. After being
instructed, Bernardo and the officers all proceeded near the house of “Abet” at
No. 116 Jones Street, Olongapo City. Bringing with him marked money
amounting to P300, Bernardo consummated the deal on the marijuana and
came put and surrendered the same to the officers. They immediately entered
Abet’s house where the latter was found in the living room with some other people.
Abet was confronted, searched and was found to have the marked money and
lids of marijuana. He was also interrogated as to the whereabouts of the
marijuana, if any. They headed the next door at his brother Benjamin Olaes’
kitchen where they recovered 60 more lids of marijuana. Abet was thereafter brought
to CANU office for investigation and was fingerprinted. He was
identified as accused Albert Olaes.
However, Olaes’ testimony revealed that a certain Eling carrying a bag came to
their house asking for his brother Benjamin Olaes who was not at home
that time. He later on asked to be accompanied to 116 Jones Street, Olongapo
City, Room 2 where he left the bag in his brother’s room, specifically in the sink.
Olaes made the contention that he affixed his signature on his statement
because he was mauled by the investigator and was threatened to be killed.
It was further revealed in the cross-examination that he does not know
who among the investigators beat him up and neither does he know
who arrested him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction based on extrajudicial confession extracted is in
violation of due process and the Bill of Rights of the fundamental law
RULING: Yes. The extrajudicial confession of the appellant is inadmissible in evidence.
Regardless of the fact that he was informed of his constitutional rights to
remain silent and to be assisted by counsel during investigation, and he
waived his right to be assisted by a counsel, the waiver was made without
the assistance of counsel. The waiver must be made not only
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently but in the presence and with the
assistance of counsel. This omission gets to invalidate the confession.
Further, the unlawful intrusion into the sanctity of the appellant’s abode and the
unreasonable search and seizure was clear to have been committed. The
police operatives apparently did not have either a search warrant or warrant of
arrest. It came from the confession of the police officers themselves that
they did not have personal knowledge at all of what has transpired inside the
house and that the searches were proven to be not incidental to a lawful arrest.
