What law was enacted today?

Republic Act No. 7438             April 27, 1992
AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:Section 1. Statement of Policy. – It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full respect for human rights.

Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. –

(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.

(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.

(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumb marked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.

(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.

As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.

Section 3. Assisting Counsel. – Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly affected by the case, those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the prosecution of crimes.

The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the following fees;

(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with light felonies;

(b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with less grave or grave felonies;

(c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with a capital offense.

The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial investigation is conducted, provided that if the municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal or City Treasurer must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel before the province pays said fees.

In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected person can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

Section 4. Penalty Clause. – (a) Any arresting public officer or employee, or any investigating officer, who fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years but not more than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been previously convicted of a similar offense.

The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee, or anyone acting upon orders of such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel.

(b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring privately with him, or from examining and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00)

The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with custodial responsibility over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure his safety and prevent his escape.

Section 5. Repealing Clause. – Republic Act No. No. 857, as amended, is hereby repealed. Other laws, presidential decrees, executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 6. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in any daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

Approved: April 27, 1992

Labrador vs. Sps Perlas

G.R. No. 173900, August 8, 2010

GAUDENCIO LABRADOR, represented by LULU LABRADOR USON, as Attorney-in-Fact, Petitioner, vs. SPS. ILDEFONSO PERLAS and PACENCIA PERLAS and SPS. ROGELIO POBRE and MELINDA FOGATA POBRE, Respondents

Petitioner and respondents presented two different versions of the facts of this case.

Petitioner Gaudencio Labrador, represented by Lulu Labrador Uson as attorney-in-fact, alleges that he is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Bangan-Alalang, Barrio Amungan, Iba, Zambales, consisting of 53,358 square meters, and covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-3030 issued on 16 January 1973. Sometime between 1957 and 1958, Melecio Labrador (Melecio), petitioners father and predecessor-in-interest, was requested by respondent spouses  ldefonso Perlas and Pacencia Perlas (Spouses Perlas) to be allowed to live temporarily in a portion of the said parcel of land. Ildefonso Perlas was a relative of Casiana Aquino, the wife of Melecio. Melecio acceded to the request, on the condition that Spouses Perlas would vacate the occupied portion of land upon demand by Melecio or by any of his heirs or representatives. Later, Spouses Perlas requested Melecio to allow them to occupy another portion of the land to be used as vegetable plantation. Again, Melecio acceded to their request.

In 1979, without the knowledge and consent of petitioner, Spouses Perlas sold the portions of land they were occupying to respondent spouses Rogelio Pobre and Melinda FogataPobre (Spouses Pobre). Upon knowledge of the sale sometime in 1992, petitioner instructed his representative to demand that Spouses Perlas vacate the occupied portions of land, but the latter refused to do so.

On 20 October 1994, petitioner filed with the RTC of Iba, Zambales, a Petition for Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale, Recovery of Possession and/or Ownership, with Application for Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order and Damages, docketed as Civil Case No. RTC-1081-I.

Respondents, on the other hand, allege that since 1957, Ildefonso Perlas and his family had been living in a parcel of land situated in Sitio Bolintabog, Barangay Amungan, Iba, Zambales. Ildefonso improved and developed said land without the intervention of Melecio Labrador whose land is separate and distinct from that occupied by Ildefonso and his family. The subject land occupied by Ildefonso and his family was declared as alienable and disposable public land in a Certification dated 20 January 1983 issued by the Provincial Officer of the Bureau of Lands in Iba, Zambales. Respondents now claim that Spouses Perlas are the absolute owners of the subject land measuring 2,903.6 square meters and covered by Tax Declaration No. 001-1390 issued in 1994.

Issue: WON petitioner has a valid title over the property?

Held:

Petitioner has a valid title over his property (i.e., the land covered by OCT P-3030). As a registered owner, petitioner has a right to eject any person illegally occupying his property. This right is imprescriptible and can never be barred by laches. In Bishop v. Court of Appeals, we held, thus:

 As registered owners of the lots in question, the private respondents have a right to eject any person illegally occupying their property. This right is imprescriptible. Even if it be supposed that they were aware of the petitioners occupation of the property, and regardless of the length of that possession, the lawful owners have a right to demand the return of their property at any time as long as the possession was unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at all. This right is never barred by laches.

medel vs ca

[G.R. No. 131622. November 27, 1998]

LETICIA Y. MEDEL DR. RAFAEL MEDEL and SERVANDO FRANCO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES VERONICA R. GONZALES and DANILO G. GONZALES, JR., doing lending business under the trade name and style "GONZALES CREDIT ENTERPRISES", respondents.

On November 7, 1985, Servando Franco and Leticia Medel (hereafter Servando and Leticia) obtained a loan from Veronica R. Gonzales (hereafter Veronica), who was engaged in the money lending business under the name "Gonzales Credit Enterprises", in the amount of P50,000.00, payable in two months. Veronica gave only the amount of P47,000.00, to the borrowers, as she retained P3,000.00, as advance interest for one month at 6% per month. Servado and Leticia executed a promissory note for P50,000.00, to evidence the loan, payable on January 7, 1986.

On November 19, 1985, Servando and Leticia obtained from Veronica another loan in the amount of P90,000.00, payable in two months, at 6% interest per month. They executed a promissory note to evidence the loan, maturing on January 19, 1986. They received only P84,000.00, out of the proceeds of the loan.

On maturity of the two promissory notes, the borrowers failed to pay the indebtedness.

On June 11, 1986, Servando and Leticia secured from Veronica still another loan in the amount of P300,000.00, maturing in one month, secured by a real estate mortgage over a property belonging to Leticia Makalintal Yaptinchay, who issued a special power of attorney in favor of Leticia Medel, authorizing her to execute the mortgage. Servando and Leticia executed a promissory note in favor of Veronica to pay the sum of P300,000.00, after a month, or on July 11, 1986. However, only the sum of P275,000.00, was given to them out of the proceeds of the loan.

Like the previous loans, Servando and Medel failed to pay the third loan on maturity.

Servando and Leticia with the latter's husband, Dr. Rafael Medel, consolidated all their previous unpaid loans totaling P440,000.00, and sought from Veronica another loan in the amount of P60,000.00, bringing their indebtedness to a total of P500,000.00, payable on August 23, 1986. The executed a promissory note.

On maturity of the loan, the borrowers failed to pay the indebtedness of P500,000.00, plus interests and penalties. A complaint for collection of the full amount of the loan including interests and other charges was filed.

Issue: WON the stipulated rates of interest at 5.5% per month on the loan in the sum of P500,00 that plaintiffs extended to the defendant is usurious?

Held:

The SC agree with petitioners that the stipulated rate of interest at 5.5% per month on the P500,000.00 loan is excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. However, SC cannot consider the rate "usurious" because it has consistently held that Circular No. 905 of the Central Bank, adopted on December 22, 1982, has expressly removed the interest ceilings prescribed by the Usury Law and that the Usury Law is now "legally inexistent".

In Security Bank and Trust Company vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61 the Court held that CB Circular No. 905 "did not repeal nor in anyway amend the Usury Law but simply suspended the latter's effectivity." Indeed, we have held that "a Central Bank Circular cannot repeal a law. Only a law can repeal another law." In the recent case of Florendo vs. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated the ruling that "by virtue of CB Circular 905, the Usury Law has been rendered ineffective". "Usury has been legally non-existent in our jurisdiction. Interest can now be charged as lender and borrower may agree upon."

Nevertheless, SC find the interest at 5.5% per month, or 66% per annum, stipulated upon by the parties in the promissory note iniquitous or unconscionable, and, hence, contrary to morals ("contra bonos mores"), if not against the law. The stipulation is void. The courts shall reduce equitably liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.

Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the stipulation of the parties. Rather, we agree with the trial court that, under the circumstances, interest at 12% per annum, and an additional 1% a month penalty charge as liquidated damages may be more reasonable.