Case Digest: ROSARIO V. ASTUDILLO and FILIPINA M. ORELLANA v . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 509 SCRA 302 (2006)

ROSARIO V. ASTUDILLO and FILIPINA M. ORELLANA v . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 509 SCRA 302 (2006)

Written incriminatory statements made not in the course of custodial investigation are admissible in a criminal case filed against the confessant. Rosario Astudillo and Filipina Orellana were hired by Western Marketing Corporation (Western), as salespersons, while Roberto Benitez and Flormarie Robel were hired as floor manager and service-in-charge/cashier-reliever, respectively. In the course of preparing the monthly sales report of the branch, the Branch Accountant noticed discrepancies in the monthly sales report. The case of the missing invoices and the shortage of cash sales collection were then reported to Western‘s branch manager Lily Chan Ong (Lily). In a subsequent meeting with Lily, Filipina admitted having brought home some appliances while Benitez made a written admission asking for apology. In an inventory of stocks conducted at the branch office of Western, several other appliances were found missing. On the basis of the complaint of Western, Astudillo and Orellana were collectively charged with Qualified Theft, along with Flormarie Robel and Roberto Benitez. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Astudillo and Orellana guilty of Qualified Theft. The Court of Appeals affirmed affirmed the RTC‘s decision. Hence, this petitions for review on certiorari.

 
ISSUES:

Whether or not the employees‘ extra-judicial admissions taken before an employer in the course of an administrative inquiry are admissible in a criminal case filed against them.

HELD:

It bears noting, however, that when the prosecution formally offered its evidence, petitioners failed to file any objection thereto including their extra-judicial admissions. At any rate, the Court answers the issue in the affirmative.
The employee may, of course, refuse to submit any statement at the investigation; that is his privilege. But if he should opt to do so, in his defense to the accusation against him, it would be absurd to reject his statements, whether at the administrative investigation, or at a subsequent criminal action brought against him, because he had not been accorded, prior to his making and presenting them, his “Miranda rights” which, to repeat, are relevant in custodial investigations.
The Court of Appeals did not thus err in pronouncing that Astudillo and Orellana were not under custodial investigation to call for the presence of counsel of their own choice, hence, their written incriminatory statements are admissible in evidence.
Astudillo and Orellana at all events argue that their written statements were obtained through deceit, promise, trickery and scheme, they claiming that Lily dictated to them their contents. There is nothing on record, however, buttressing Astudillo and Orellana‘s claim other than their self-serving assertion. The presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience such that it is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved thus stands.