Case Digest (G.R. No. 221424)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Robelyn Cabanada y Rosauro, G.R. No. 221424, July 19, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant, Robelyn Cabanada, was charged with qualified theft in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 214, Mandaluyong City (Criminal Case No. MC-09-12269). The Information alleged that on or about 13 April 2009 Cabanada, a housemaid of private complainant Catherine Victoria, took cash and jewelry valued in the aggregate at P154,000.00 with grave abuse of confidence. Cabanada pleaded not guilty and trial on the merits followed.
The prosecution established that on 12 April 2009 the Victoria family left the house for Bulacan leaving Cabanada at home. On 13 April 2009 Victor Victoria discovered P20,000.00 missing from the glove compartment and Catherine found several jewelry items missing. When the police were called, Cabanada admitted to PO2 Maximo Cotoner, Jr. at the Victoria residence that she had taken money; she produced a pouch with P16,000.00 and a leather wallet containing the vehicle master key. She was brought to the Criminal Investigation Unit (CIU) for further questioning, apologized to Catherine, and told the police she had more jewelry at her residence; the police recovered several watches and a pair of earrings from her house.
Cabanada’s defense version was that she had been working as a stay-out housemaid, denied knowledge of the missing items, and that at the police station she was questioned without a lawyer and without being allowed to call relatives. She claimed her admissions were elicited during custodial interrogation and were therefore inadmissible because she was not apprised of her Miranda rights.
The RTC convicted Cabanada of qualified theft and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CR‑HC No. 05585 (Aug. 29, 2014) affirmed, holding that the admissions were given freely and spontaneously during a routine, noncustodial inquiry at the residence and therefore admissible. The CA disposed the appeal by affirming the RTC decision.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court for review of the CA decision. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a manifestation adopting its earlier brief; the Public Attorney’s Office lodged appellate briefs for Cabana...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Cabanada’s uncounselled admission (and subsequent statements) obtained during a custodial investigation such that they are inadmissible under Article III, Section 12(1) and (3) of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7438?
- Were the elements of qualified theft proven beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding the exclusion of the custodial confession?
- If convicted, what is the proper penalty range under Articles 3...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)