G.R. No. 1332 – 2 Phil. 380 – Remedial Law – Criminal Procedure – Rights of the Accused – Right to Remain Silent
Political Law – Constitutional Law – Criminal Procedure – Bill of Rights – Rights of the Accused – Right to Remain Silent
In November 1900, three people went missing in Marilao, Bulacan. Two of the three missing persons reappeared after nine days and pointed Geronimo Luzon and his armed group as the persons responsible for their disappearance. Luzon was charged with illegal detention as punished under the old Penal Code.
In 1904, the judge found Luzon guilty of the crime charged, however, instead of imposing the penalty for illegal detention, what the judge imposed was the penalty for homicide. This is because under the old Penal Code, if the accused refused to testify as to the whereabouts of the person he abducted, if he is later found guilty of illegal detention, his penalty shall be aggravated to that of homicide. In this case, there was still one victim missing which Luzon never testified as to where that person’s body may be found.
ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty imposed is correct.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court abandoned this old practice. Apparently, in 1902 [by Congress – so apparently before, Rules of Court were determined by Congress] a new rules of procedure was passed. Under said rules, the silence of the accused in illegal detention cases as to the whereabouts of his victim will no longer cause the aggravation of his penalty if found guilty. This is to protect the accused’s right to remain silent. The accused has a perfect right to remain silent and his silence cannot be used as a presumption of his guilt. Neither can the sentence be increased by reason of the fact that the defendant fails to give proof in favor of or against his culpability; he cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that alleged in the complaint simply because he fails or refuses to testify.
