G.R. No. L-56291 June 27, 1988
CRISTOPHER GAMBOA, petitioner, vs. HON. ALFREDO CRUZ, JUDGE of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Br. XXIX, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Cristopher Gamboa was arrested without a warrant for vagrancy on July 19, 1979. The following day, while detained, he was placed in a police lineup with four other detainees. The complainant, Erlinda B. Bernal, pointed to him and stated, “that one is a companion.” After the identification, Gamboa was made to sit in front of the complainant during her police interrogation. An information for robbery was subsequently filed against him. After the prosecution rested its case, Gamboa filed a Motion to Acquit (Demurrer to Evidence), arguing that the police lineup was conducted without notice to and in the absence of his counsel, violating his constitutional rights to counsel and due process.
The respondent judge denied the motion in an order dated October 23, 1980, finding it without merit and setting the case for the presentation of the defense evidence. Gamboa then filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the trial court’s order and to restrain further proceedings, contending the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the Motion to Acquit, which was based on the alleged violation of petitioner’s constitutional rights during the police lineup.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge. The Court clarified that the extraordinary writ of certiorari requires a showing of a capricious, arbitrary, and whimsical exercise of power, which was absent here. The respondent judge had duly considered the arguments and evidence before requiring the defense to present its case.
On the substantive constitutional issue, the Court ruled that the right to counsel under the 1973 Constitution, which was applicable, attaches only upon the start of a custodial investigation—when the investigating officer asks questions to elicit information, confessions, or admissions from the accused. A police lineup, by itself, is not a custodial investigation. It is merely a process for identification where the suspect is not subjected to interrogation. Therefore, the constitutional right to counsel does not yet apply at that stage. The Court emphasized that the proper remedy for the petitioner was to proceed with the trial, present his defense, and, if convicted, raise the alleged constitutional violations on appeal. The denial of a demurrer to evidence is an interlocutory order not subject to certiorari, as it does not finally dispose of the case.