/Subject Matter:

Constitutional Interpretation: Purpose, Objective - Why A Constitution? Why do we need to “interpret” it?

Case:
JOSE D. FILOTEO, JR., petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents
G.R. No. 79543. October 16, 1996.

Ponente:
J. Panganiban

Facts:

Jose D. Filoteo, Jr. an awarded and commended police investigator of the Western Police District in Metro Manila,
with 3 co-accused police officers and 5 civilians, 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 of the Bureau of Postal at the point of their
guns, and then take, rob and carry away with them the following, to wit:

a) Postal Delivery Truck

b) Social Security System Medicare Checks and Vouchers
c) Social Security System Pension Checks and Vouchers
d) Treasury Warrants
e) Several Mail Matters from abroad in the total amount of P253,728.29 more or less

Filoteo admitted involvement in the crime and pointed to three other soldiers, namely ,Eddie Saguindel, Bernardo
Relator and Jack Miravalles (who turned out to be a discharged soldier), as his confederates. At 1:45 in the afternoon
of May 30, 1982, petitioner executed a sworn statement in Tagalog before M/Sgt. Arsenio C. Carlos and Sgt. Romeo P.
Espero detailing the confession.

Sandiganbayan found the accused guilty of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-
Highway Robbery Law of 1974.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of said Decision was denied by the Sandiganbayan in its challenged Resolution
of July 27, 1987.

Petitioner filed for certiorari and/or review on certiorari with the Supreme Court charging the Sandiganbayan with
having gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and with reversible error in arriving at
said Decision.

Petitioner sought that his confession be inadmissible evidence, saying that:

1) Extrajudicial confession executed by the accused was without the presence of his lawyer and based on the new law
the petitioner contends is to be applied retroactively, this is to be deemed inadmissible as the law should favor him
as an accused
2) The statements were also obtained through torture, duress, maltreatment and intimidation and therefore illegal
and inadmissible.
3) His arrest was warrantless and thus invalid.
4) The evidence is insufficient to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues

1) WON the written statements, particularly the extrajudicial confession executed by the accused without the
presence of his lawyer, admissible in evidence against him
2) WON said statements obtained through torture, duress, maltreatment and intimidation and therefore illegal and
inadmissible
3) WON petitioner’s warrantless arrest valid and proper?
4) WON the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to find the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
Holding

1) YES. Uncounseled waiver on the right to counsel relating to extrajudicial confession is admissible.

Uncounseled waiver no legal effect as a ‘judge-made law’’/judicial decision

The doctrine that an uncounseled waiver of the right to counsel is not to be given legal effect was initially a judge-
made one and was first announced on 26 April 1983 in Morales vs. Enrile and reiterated on 20 March 1985 in
People vs. Galit.

No retroactive application

While the Morales-Galit doctrine eventually became part of Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution, that doctrine
affords no comfort to appellant for the requirements and restrictions outlined in Morales and Galit have no
retroactive effect and do not reach waivers made prior to 26 April 1983 the date of promulgation of Morales.

Article 8 of the Civil Code which provides that “(j)udicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines,” and Article 4 of the same Code which states
that “(l)aws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided,” the principle of prospectivity of
statutes, original or amendatory, shall apply to judicial decisions, which, although in themselves are not laws, are
nevertheless evidence of what the law means.

Constitutional Provision vs. Penal Laws

While Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “(p)enal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar
as they favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal,” what is being construed here is a
constitutional provision specifically contained in the Bill of Rights (Article III, Section 12 of the 1987
Constitution) which is obviously not a penal statute.

2) NO. No sufficient evidence of torture, force or intimidation. Statements are admissible.

The allegation of torture was negated by the medical report 81 showing no evidence of physical injuries upon his
person.

In view of the foregoing, his extrajudicial confession is presumed to have been voluntarily made, in the absence of
conclusive evidence showing that petitioner’s consent in executing the same had been vitiated

3) YES. Objection to warrantless arrest is waived. Insufficient to invalidate judgment.

Must be made before entering plea

It is well-settled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition by
the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea,
otherwise the objection is deemed waived (People vs. Lopez, Jr).

Not sufficient to invalidate judgment

The illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient
complaint after trial free from error (People vs. Lopez, Jr).

4) YES. Culpability is proven through sufficient evidence.

The facts presented in the case sufficiently prove that it is beyond dispute that petitioner was a direct participant
in the commission of the crime. His alibi has been correctly considered by the Sandiganbayan to be weak and
implausible.
HOLDING:
Petition is DENIED.

With Modification*:
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principal in the crime of robbery as defined in Arts. 293 and
295 (previously Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of
1974 in the SandiganBayan decision) and penalized under Art. 294, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code.

* What was duly proven in the present case is one isolated hijacking of a postal van, thus a crime of robbery.
There was also no evidence of any previous attempts at similar robberies by the accused to show the
“indiscriminate” commission thereof to signify brigandage.

ALL CONCUR.

NO DISSENTING OPINION.

__________________________________________________________________________

NOTES:

ARTICLE III Bill of Rights:

Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of
his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against
him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Bill of Rights V. Penal Laws

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, on the other hand, 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. In other words, a penal law denotes punishment
imposed and enforced by the state for a crime or offense against its law.