Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    People v. Baloloy

    Uploaded by

    Sei Kawamoto
    Juanito Baloloy confessed to barangay captain Ceniza that he raped and killed 11-year old Genelyn Camacho. Baloloy claimed his confession was inadmissible as his constitutional rights were not read to him. However, the court ruled Baloloy's confession was admissible as it was spontaneous and not elicited through questioning, and occurred before he was placed under investigation. The constitution only bars compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts obtained during custodial investigation. As Baloloy voluntarily confessed to the barangay captain before arrest, and did not prove any improper motive by the captain, his extrajudicial confession was deemed admissible.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Baloloy

    Uploaded by

    Sei Kawamoto
    96 views1 page
    Juanito Baloloy confessed to barangay captain Ceniza that he raped and killed 11-year old Genelyn Camacho. Baloloy claimed his confession was inadmissible as his constitutional rights were not read to him. However, the court ruled Baloloy's confession was admissible as it was spontaneous and not elicited through questioning, and occurred before he was placed under investigation. The constitution only bars compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts obtained during custodial investigation. As Baloloy voluntarily confessed to the barangay captain before arrest, and did not prove any improper motive by the captain, his extrajudicial confession was deemed admissible.

    Original Description:

    Political Review Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Juanito Baloloy confessed to barangay captain Ceniza that he raped and killed 11-year old Genelyn Camacho. Baloloy claimed his confession was inadmissible as his constitutional rights were not read to him. However, the court ruled Baloloy's confession was admissible as it was spontaneous and not elicited through questioning, and occurred before he was placed under investigation. The constitution only bars compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts obtained during custodial investigation. As Baloloy voluntarily confessed to the barangay captain before arrest, and did not prove any improper motive by the captain, his extrajudicial confession was deemed admissible.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    96 views1 page

    People v. Baloloy

    Uploaded by

    Sei Kawamoto
    Juanito Baloloy confessed to barangay captain Ceniza that he raped and killed 11-year old Genelyn Camacho. Baloloy claimed his confession was inadmissible as his constitutional rights were not read to him. However, the court ruled Baloloy's confession was admissible as it was spontaneous and not elicited through questioning, and occurred before he was placed under investigation. The constitution only bars compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts obtained during custodial investigation. As Baloloy voluntarily confessed to the barangay captain before arrest, and did not prove any improper motive by the captain, his extrajudicial confession was deemed admissible.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    RIGHTS DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION POLITICAL LAW REVIEW II

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO BALOLOY


    G.R. No. 140740, April 12, 2002, Per Curiam.

    FACTS: On the evening of August 3 1996, the body of 11-year-old Genelyn Camacho was
    found at the waterfalls at Barangay Inagasan, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur. The autopsy report
    found that Genelyn was raped before she was drowned. The one who caused its discovery was
    accused-appellant Juanito Baloloy himself, who claimed that he had caught sight of it while he
    was catching frogs in the nearby creek. While in the wake of Genelyn, Juanito confessed to the
    barangay captain that he only wanted to frighten the girl but ended up raping and throwing her
    body in the ravine.

    Appellant Baloloy was put in custody of authorities, to which he was asked incriminating
    questions by Judge Dicon who justified his actions saying that Juanito was not yet in custodial
    investigation. Based on his alleged extrajudicial confession, coupled with circumstantial
    evidence, the trail court violated Section 12 (1) of Article III of the barangay captain Ceniza and
    Judge Dicon. According to him, the two failed to inform him of his Constitutional rights before
    they took it upon themselves to elicit from him the incriminatory information. While these rights
    may be waived in a written instrument executed and signed in the presence of counsel,
    appellant concludes that his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Baloloy’s extrajudicial confession before the barangay captain was
    admissible.

    RULING: YES. Appellant’s confession with the barangay captain Ceniza is admissible. It has
    been held that the constitutional provision on custodial investigation does not apply to a
    spontaneous statement or those not elicited through questioning by the authorities but given in
    an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having committed the crime. Neither can
    it apply to admissions or confessions made by a suspect in the commission of a crime before he
    is placed under investigation. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of
    incriminating facts or confessions.

    In the instant case, Baloloy voluntarily narrated to Ceniza that he raped Genelyn and thereafter
    threw her body into the ravine. This narration was spontaneous answer, freely and voluntarily
    given in an ordinary manner. It was given before he was arrested or place under custody for
    investigation in connection with the commission of the offense. Moreover, Baloloy did not offer
    any evidence of improper or ulterior motive on the party of Ceniza, which could have compelled
    her testify falsely against him.

    You might also like