128. G.R. No.

186228

March 15, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTONIO LAUGA Y PINA ALIAS TERIO

FACTS:
Appellant Lauga was charged of qualified rape by his daughter. Testimonies revealed that the
victim was left alone at home while his father was having drinking spree at the neighbors place. Her
mother decided to leave because appellant has the habit of mauling her mother every time he gets drunk.
Her only brother also went out with some neighbors.
At around 10pm, appellant woke up the victim, removed his pants and slid inside the blanket
covering the victim and removed her pants and underwear. Appellant had warned the victim not to shout
for help. He proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her daughter by threatening her with his fist and a
knife. Soon after, the victims brother arrived and saw her crying. Appellant claimed he scolded the victim
for staying out late. The two decided to leave the house.
While on their way to their maternal grandmothers house, victim recounted to her brother what
happened to her. They later told the incident to their grandmother and uncle who sought the assistance of
Moises Boy Banting. Banting found appellant in his house wearing only his underwear. He was invited to
the police station to which he obliged. Appellant admitted to Banting that he indeed raped her daughter
because he was unable to control himself.
The trial court convicted the accused for qualified rape. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed with
modification the ruling of the trial court. Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not appellants extrajudicial confession without counsel admissible in evidence?
HELD:
NO, Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the case of the "bantay
bayan," are recognized by the local government unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of
peace and order at the barangay level. Thus, without ruling on the legality of the actions taken by Moises
Boy Banting, and the specific scope of duties and responsibilities delegated to a " bantay bayan,"
particularly on the authority to conduct a custodial investigation, any inquiry he makes has the color of a
state-related function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights
provided for under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Miranda Rights, is
concerned.
Even if the extrajudicial confessions were not admitted as evidence, it does not warrant the
acquittal of the accused. The appellants conviction is upheld because of the strong evidence showing his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.