G.R. No. L-56291 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-56291 June 27, 1988

Cristopher Gamboa

vs Hon. Alfredo Cruz, Judge of CFI-Manila

Ponente: Padilla

Facts:

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition, with prayer for TRO to annul and set aside the CFI decision against Gamboa.

Gamboa: he was arrested for vagrancy without warrant of arrest. He was brought to precinct 2, Manila, booked for vagrancy and then detained. The next day, he was identified as a companion to a robbery. He was arraigned. In the hearing, Gamboa filed a motion to acquit or demurrer to evidence presenting that his constitutional right to counsel and due process was violated. Court denied the motion. Hence this instant petition.

Ruling:

The instant petition is one for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, committed by the respondent judge in issuing the questioned order dated 23 October 1980. It is basic, however, that for certiorari to lie, there must be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the very antithesis of judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law traditions.

The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused. At such point or stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation, for the commission of an offense.

Answer: As aptly observed, however, by the Solicitor General, the police line-up (at least, in this case) was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, petitioner was not yet entitled, at such stage, to counsel. It was held that when the process had not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory as when police investigation does not elicit a confession the accused may not yet avail of the services of his lawyer.

On the right to due process, the Court finds that petitioner was not, in any way, deprived of this substantive and constitutional right, as he was duly represented by a member of the Bar. He was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense; only that he chose not to, and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case.