PEOPLE VS ORDOÑO
FACTS
 The records show that on 5 August 1994 the decomposing
body of a young girl was found among the bushes near a
bridge in Barangay Poblacion, Santol, La Union.
 The girl was later identified as Shirley Victore, fifteen (15)
years old, a resident of Barangay Guesset, Poblacion, Santol,
La Union who was reported missing 3 days before.
 Post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Arturo Llavore,
a medico-legal officer of the NBI, revealed that the victim
was raped and strangled to death.
 On 10 August 1994 the accused Pacito Ordoo and Apolonio
Medina returned to the police station one after another and
acknowledged that they had indeed committed the crime.
 The police immediately conducted an investigation and put
their confessions in writing. The investigators however could
not at once get the services of a lawyer to assist the accused
in the course of the investigation because there were no
practicing lawyers in the Municipality of Santol, a remote
town of the Province of La Union.
 Still, the statements of the two accused where nevertheless
taken. But before doing so, both accused were apprised in
their own dialect of their constitutional right to remain silent
and to be assisted by a competent counsel of their choice.
 Upon their acquiescence and assurance that they understood
their rights and did not require the services of counsel, the
investigation was conducted with the Parish Priest, the
Municipal Mayor, the Chief of Police and other police
officers of Santol, La Union, in attendance to listen to and
witness the giving of the voluntary statements of the two (2)
suspects who admitted their participation in the crime.
 The 2 were brought to the PAO office and the lawyer
appraised each of them of their constitutional rights and
explained the consequences of their confessions.
 But in arraignment both accused suddenly pleaded not guilty
of the crime and claimed that they were threatened and
coerced by the police to say that they committed the crime.
ISSUE/S:
W/N confessions to the police are inadmissible as evidence because
they had no counsel to assist them during custodial investigation -
YES however, their confession to the radio broadcaster is admissible
RULING: AFFIRMED
RATIO
 For confession to be admissible, there are 4 fundamental
requirements
 Voluntary confession
 Made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel
 Express confession
 Confession in writing
 In the case, custodial investigation began when they
voluntarily went to the police station to confess
 When they couldnt find a lawyer, the police should have
desisted from continuing the interrogation.
 The presence of the Mayor, priest etc and the PAO lawyer
days after did not cure the absence of counsel during
invetigation
 RA7438 does not propose that they appear in the alternative
or as a substitute for counsel without any condition or clause.
It is explicitly stated therein that before the above-mentioned
persons can appear two (2) conditions must be met: (a)
counsel of the accused must be absent, and, (b) a valid
waiver must be executed.
 Valid waiver needs counsel’s presence so without counsel,
no valid waiver and RA7438 cannot be applied
 Regarding the radio interview, the Radio announcer testified
that their interviews were not altered and those were their
 actual voices admitting the crime they committed. They even
expressed their remorse.
 The interviews were admissible because it was not made
voluntarily by accused to the reporter and it was between
private persons not between the accused (private person) and
an investigating officer.
 What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of
incriminating facts or confessions. The rights enumerated
under Sec. 12, Art. III, are guaranteed to preclude the
slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the
accused to admit something false, not to prevent him from
freely and voluntarily telling the truth.