1) The accused, Alice Chua, was convicted of illegal recruitment committed in large scale for recruiting and promising employment abroad to nine individuals without securing the required license from the Department of Labor. 2) Chua required each complainant to pay a placement fee but did not provide them with the promised jobs. 3) On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld Chua's conviction, finding the evidence established her guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimonies of witnesses and documents presented.

1. People Vs. Galit
March 20, 1985
FACTS:
The accused was arrested for killing the victim oil the occasion of a
robbery. He had been detained and interrogated almost continuously for five days, to no
avail. He consistently maintained his innocence. There was no evidence to link him to the
crime. Obviously, something drastic had to be done. A confession was absolutely
necessary. So the investigating officers began to maul him and to torture him physically.
Still the prisoner insisted on his innocence. His will have to be broken. A confession must
be obtained. So they continued to maltreat and beat him. They covered his face with a rag
and pushed his face into toilet bowl full of human waste. The prisoner could not take it
anymore. His body could no longer endure the pain inflicted on him and the indignities
he had to suffer. He admitted what the investigating officers wanted him to admit and he
signed the confession they prepared. Later, against his will, he posed for pictures as
directed by his investigators, purporting it to be a reenactment
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused was informed of his constitutional rights to
remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might make could be used against
him.
HELD:
The accused was acquitted. Such a long question followed by
monosyllabic answer does not satisfy the requirements of the law that the accused be
informed of his rights under the Constitution and our laws. Instead there should be
several short and clear questions and every right in simple words, in a dialect or language
known to the person under investigation. The accused is from Samar and no showing that
he understands Tagalog. Moreover, at the time of his arrest, accused was not permitted to
communicate with his lawyers, a relative, or a friend. In fact, his sisters another relatives
did not know that he been brought to the NBI for the investigation and it was only two
weeks after he had executed the statement that his relatives were allowed to visit him. His
statement does not even contain any waiver of right to counsel and yet during the
investigation one did not assist him. At the supposed reenactment, again counsel of his
choice did not assist accused. These constitute gross violations of his rights.

2. People Vs. Ordoo
June 29, 2000
FACTS:
In August 5, 1994 a decomposing body of 15 years old name Shirley Victore was
found among the bushes near a bridge in Barangay Poblacion, Santol, La Union who 3
days before reported as missing. According to the examination by a medico-legal officer
of NBI the victim was raped and strangle to death. Pacito Ordoo and Apolonio Medina
are the suspects and they were brought to the police station for questioning. However, for
the lack of evidence linking them to the crime so they were allowed to go home. On
August 10, 1994 both of the suspects returned to the police station one after another and
acknowledged that indeed committed the crime. Acting on their admission, the police
immediately conducted an investigation and put their confession in writing. The
investigators however could not get at once get the services of a lawyer to assist the two
accused because there were no practicing lawyer in the municipality of Santol because it
is a remote town of the province of La Union. The investigation was conducted with the
Parish Priest, the Municipal Mayor, the Chief of Police and officers in the attendance to
listen to and witness the giving of the voluntary statements of the two suspects who
admitted their participation in the crime. Also they were interview by radio reporter and
they confessed freely. But in the arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty.
ISSUE:
Whether or not their confession is inadmissible in evidence mainly the lack of
counsel to assist them during custodial investigation.
RULING:
The interview of the reporter was not in the nature of an investigation as response
of the accused was made in answer to questions asked by the radio reporter, not by the
police or any investigating officer. Hence the accused confess to the radio announcer that
will tantamount talking to a private citizen although their confession was uncounselled all
of it does not violate their constitutional rights. The evidence was admissible. The
accused was sentenced guilty of the felony.

3. People Vs. Lugod
February 21, 2001
FACTS:
At around 12:30 a.m. on September 15, 1997 Helen Ramos the mother of the
victim Nairube was awaken by her husband because he sense that there is someone going
down to the stairs of their house. She noticed that Nairube was no longer in her place she
was sleeping so she assumed that Nairube is just answering to the call of nature.
Nairube’s blanket was also no longer at the place where she sleep but her slippers were
still there. After 3 minutes waiting Helen stood up and began calling Nairube but there
was no answer. Thereafter, she went downstairs and she found out that the backdoor of
their house was open. She found a pair of slippers on the top of the wooden bench outside
the backdoor and it does not belong to any member of her family. In the morning of
September 16, 1997, she went to the police station to report the loss of her child and also
the slippers that she found to SP02 Quirino Gallardo. She then went home while the
police began their search for Nairube. At around 12:30 p.m., Alma Diaz requested her to
go with the searching, Helen found a panty and she recognized as that of her daughter.
After seeing the panty she cried. She was ordered to go home while others continued the
search. Thereafter, they continued the search and found a black collared T-shirt with
buttons in front hanging on a guava twig. Loreto Veloria informed him that Clemente
John Lugod wore the two items when he went to the house of Violeta Cabuhat.
ISSUE:
WON the Constitutional rights of the accused has been violated.
RULING:
Yes, the rights of the accused-appellant has been violated. The act of confession
of the accused that he raped and killed Nairube without the assistance of the counsel
cannot be used against him because it will tantamount for violation of his rights under
Bill of Rights. This is a basic tenet of our Constitution, which cannot be disregarded or
ignored no matter how brutal the crime is. On the other hand the act of pointing out of
the accused the location of the body of Nairube was also elicited in violation of the
accused right to remain silent. The same was an integral part of the uncounselled
confession and is considered a fruit of the poisonous tree. The accused was acquitted.

4. People Vs. Taboga
February 6, 2002
Facts:
Edralin Taboga was charge with Robbery and Homicie in an information which
reads that with intent to gain, and with violence against person, entered the house of one
Francisca Tubon, and once inside, with treachery and of abuse of superior strength,
assault, attacked and stabbed Tubon, thereby inflicting upon her a mortal wound which
necessarily caused the death of the said Tubon and took away several personal properties
belonging to Tubon. He was likewise indicted for Arson for setting the victim’s house on
fire. After finding the burnt house and charred body of Tubon and set her house on fire,
causing the whole house, including the dead body of the old woman, to be burned.
Taboga brought to the police station for further investigation. Mr. Contaoi, a radio
announcer of DZNS, went to the police station to interview the suspect. Again, Taboga
admitted killing the deceased and setting her and her house on fire. Upon arraignment
accused entered separate pleas of “Not Guilty” to the crimes charged and interposed an
alibi. Accused also claimed that he was maltreated by the policemen force him to admit
the crime. Regarding his admission to radio announcer Contaoi, he narrated that the
interview was held inside the investigation room of the police station where policemen
were present and that the reporter acted as an agent for the prosecution. Thus, he had to
admit the crime because he was afraid of the policemen. The RTC rendered judgment
finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both crimes.
Issue:
Whether or not confession made by the accused to a radio report, a private person,
can be admitted as evidence against him.
Held:
Yes, There is nothing in the record to show that the radio announcer collude with
the police authorities to elicit inculpatory evidence against accuse. Neither is there any
thing on the record, which remotely suggests that the police to the extract information
from him on the details of the crimes instructed the radio announcer. Indeed, the reporter
even asked permission from the officer-in-charge to interview accused. Nor was the
information obtained under duress. In fact, accused not only confessed to the radio
reporter but to several others.

5. People vs. Baloloy
381 SCRA 31
Facts:
At Barangay Inagasan, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur, on the evening of August 3
1996, the body of 11 years old Genelyn Camacho was found at the waterfalls at the said
barangay. Autopsy report found the 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. While in the
custody of authorities, 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. It is of no
moment that Ceniza and Dicon are not police investigators, for as public officials it was
incumbent upon them to observe the express mandate of the Constitution. While these
rights may be waiver executed in the presence of counsel. He concludes that his
extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence.
Issue:
Whether or not Juanitos extrajudicial confession before the barangay captain was
amissible.
Ruling:
Yes, as to his confession with the barangay captain Ceniza, it has been held that
the constitutional provision on custodial investigation does not apply to a spontaneous
statement, 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, Juanito voluntarily
narrated to Ceniza that he rapes Genelyn and thereafter threw her body into the ravine.
This narration was spontaneous answer, freely and voluntarily given in an ordinaty
manner. It was given before he was arrested or place under custody for investigation in
connection with the commission of the offense. Moreover, Juanito did not offer any
evidence of improper or ulterior motive on the party of Ceniza, which could have
compelled her testify falsely against him.

6. People vs. Bohol
July 28, 2008
Facts;
On March 7, 2003 the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, convicted
appellant Ricardo Bohol of Violating sections 11 (3) and (5), Article II, respectively of
Republic Act No. 9165 also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 200.
During the entrapment operation, PO2 Ferdinand Estrada, who acted as poseur-
buyer, was guided by their confidential informant to the house of Bohol where the
transaction for the sale of shabu was to take place. After the transaction was
consummated, PO2 Estrada signaled his companions and arrested Bohol. After frisking
him, PO2 Gutierrez recovered from him the buy-bust money and three plastic sachets
containing similar whit crystalline granules suspected to be shabu.
Bohol contends that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
He faults the trial for giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. He asserts that the only reason why he was arrested was because he was the
overseer of a “Video-Carrera”, The police officer filed the illegal drug trade and
possession against him because they failed to find any evidence to have him tried for
overseeing a “Video-Carrera” place. Lastly, he laments the failure of the prosecution to
present the confidential informant as a witness during trial, thereby preventing him from
confronting said witness directly.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution was able top established guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court discerns no improper motive on the part of the police officers
that would impel them to fabricate a story and falsely implicate Bohol in such serious
offense. In the absence of any evidence of the policemen’s improper motive, their
testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. Also, courts generally give full faith and
credit to officers of the law, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner. According, in entrapment cases, credence is given to the narration of an
incident by prosecution witnesses who are officers of the law and presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary.
As ruled by the appellate court, Bohol cannot insist on the presentation of the
informant. During trail, the informant’s presence is not a requisite in the prosecution of
drug cases. The appellate court held that the police authorities rarely, if ever, remove the
cloak of confidentiality with which they surround their poseur-buyers and informer’s
since their usefulness will be over the moment they are presented in court. Further, what
is material to prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti. Both requirements were sufficiently proven in this case. The police
officers were able to testify positively and categorically that the transaction or sale
actually took place. The prosecution when presented in the court likewise positively
identified the subject shabu. Hence, we agree that the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt has established Bohol’s guilt.

7. People vs. Chua
April 4, 2001
Facts:
On October 3, 1995, the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch V sentenced
accused Alice Chua, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment committed in
large scale.
On October 5, 1993, Assistant City Prosecutor Leocadio H. Ramos, Jr. of Manila
filed with the Regional Trial Court, Manila information against accused Alicia A. Chua
reading as follows:
“That in or about and during the period comprised between October 29, 1992 and
January 9, 1993, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
representing herself to have the capacity to the contract, enlist and transport Filipino
workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, for a fee,
recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad to the following persons, namely:
DOMINGO F. TERCENIO, MARTIN B. BERMEJO, EVANGELINE F. GAVINA.
DANTE F. BALUIS, EDUARDO V. ESTILLER, EDGAR B. ABONAL, VIOLETA F.
REGALADO, GLORIA J. RICAFRENTE and LONITO F. BALUIS, without first
having secured the required license or authority from the Department of Labor.
On the same date, the same prosecutor filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Manila, and nine other information against the accused for Estafa. When trial ensued, the
cases were consolidated and tried jointly. Chua required each complaint to pay a
placement