G.R. No. L-44690 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-44690 March 28, 1980

People of the Philippines

vs Jose Tampus Y Ponce

Ponente: Aquino

Facts:

This is an automatic review of the CFI decision of sentencing Tampus of murder. Evidence show that 10am of January 14, 1976, Celso Saminado, a prisoner in Muntinlupa and a patient in the emergency ward of the prison hospital went to the toilet. After emerging from the toilet, Tampus and Avila surrendered to a prison guard with their knives. The motive of the killing was revenge.

The officer of the day investigated the incident right away. In his report he  stated that Avila stabbed Saminado when the latter was in the toilet. Two days after the killing, another prison guard investigated the incident and have obtained the confessions of Avila and Tampus. They both pledged guilty to the charge of murder. After the pleading, the court informed them that they may be punish with death penalty.

In his review of the death sentence, counsel de officio, assigned to defend Tampus contends that he was denied his right to public trial because the arraignment and hearing was done at the state penitentiary.

Answer: There is a ruling that the fact that for the convenience of the witnesses a case is tried in Bilibid Prison without any objection on the part of the accused is not a ground for reversal of the judgment of conviction. The accused may waive his right to have a public trial as shown in the rule that the trial court may motu propio exclude the public from the courtroom when the evidence to be offered is offensive to decency or public morals. The court may also, upon request of the defendant, exclude from the trial every person except the officers of the court and the attorneys for the prosecution and defense.

Counsel de officio also stated that the confession of Tampus was taken in violation of the right against self-incrimination.

Answer: The confession made was voluntary. It was made before the investigation, right after the killing.

Right to remain silent: court is not duty-bound to apprise the accused that he has the right to remain silent. If he does not claim it and he calls the accused to the witness stand, then he waives that right.