You are on page 1of 15

G.R. No. 157399 November 17, 2005 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JOSE TING LAN U , JR.

!A"#$%&&e'(, ERNESTO GA)US * SOTELO, JAI)E O+HOA, ,-- o. &/e N,&%o0,- Po1er +or2or,&%o0, ,0' RAUL GUTIERRE3 ,-%,4 R,$- N%"o-,4, A-%,4 Geor5e A6o0$evo, ,-%,4 ),r, A6o0$evo !A& -,r5e(, A""$4e'. JAI)E O+HOA, Appellant. FACTS: For allegedly diverting and collecting funds of the National Power Corporation (NPC intended for the purchase of !S "ollars fro# the !nited Coconut Planters $an% (!CP$ , &ose Ting 'an !y, &r., (rnesto )a#us,* &ai#e +choa and ,aul )utierre- were indicted .efore the Sandigan.ayan for the co#ple/ cri#e of 0alversation through Falsification of Co##ercial "ocu#ents 1n his defense, appellant clai#s that his conviction was .ased on the alleged sworn state#ent and the transcript of stenographic notes of a supposed interview with appellant .y the NPC personnel and the report of the National $ureau of 1nvestigation (N$1 . Appellant #aintains that he signed the sworn state#ent while confined at the Philippine 2eart Center and upon assurance that it would not .e used against hi#. 2e was not assisted .y counsel nor was he apprised of his constitutional rights when he e/ecuted the affidavit. 1SS!(: 3+N appellant should .e ac4uitted since his conviction was .ased on his sworn state#ent, transcript of stenographic notes fro# which the sworn state#ent was ta%en and the N$1 ,eport, which are inco#petent evidence and that his sworn state#ent was ta%en without the .enefit of counsel, in violation of his constitutional right under Section *5, Article 111 of the *678 Constitution. 2('": Paragraph *, Section *5, Article 111 of the *678 Constitution states that 9 Section *5. (* . Any person under investigation for the co##ission of an offense shall have the right to .e infor#ed of his right to re#ain silent and to have co#petent and independent counsel prefera.ly of his own choice. 1f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he #ust .e provided with one. These rights cannot .e waived e/cept in writing and in the presence of counsel. The :investigation: under the a.ove;4uoted provision refers to a :custodial: investigation where a suspect has already been taken into police custody*< and the investigating officers .egin to as% 4uestions to elicit infor#ation and confessions or ad#issions fro# the suspect. *= 0ore specifically 9 Custodial investigation involves any 4uestioning initiated .y law enforce#ent authorities after a person is ta%en into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedo# of action in any significant #anner. And, the rule .egins to operate at once as soon as the investigation ceases to .e a general in4uiry into an unsolved cri#e and direction is then ai#ed upon a particular suspect who has .een ta%en into custody and to who# the police would then direct interrogatory 4uestion which tend to elicit incri#inating state#ents.*8

Succinctly stated, custodial investigation refers to the critical pre;trial stage when the investigation ceases to .e a general in4uiry into an unsolved cri#e .ut has .egun to focus on a particular person as a suspect.*7 Such a situation conte#plated has .een #ore precisely descri.ed thus where 9 After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation .egins a confrontation arises which at .est #ay .e ter#ed une4ual. The detainee is .rought to an ar#y ca#p or police head4uarters and there 4uestioned and cross;e/a#ined not only .y one .ut as #any investigators as #ay .e necessary to .rea% down his #orale. 2e finds hi#self in a strange and unfa#iliar surrounding, and every person he #eets he considers hostile to hi#. The investigators are well;trained and seasoned in their wor%. They e#ploy all the #ethods and #eans that e/perience and study has taught the# to e/tract the truth, or what #ay pass for it, out of the detainee. 0ost detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their constitutional rights. And even if they were, the inti#idating and coercive presence of the officers of the law in such an at#osphere overwhel#s the# into silence....*6 Clearly, therefore, the rights enu#erated .y the constitutional provision invo%ed .y accused; appellant are not availa.le before govern#ent investigators enter the picture.5> Thus we held in one case5* that ad#issions #ade during the course of an ad#inistrative investigation .y Philippine Airlines do not co#e within the purview of Section *5. The protective #antle of the constitutional provision also does not e/tend to ad#issions or confessions #ade to a private individual,55 or to a ver.al ad#ission #ade to a radio announcer who was not part of the investigation,5? or even to a #ayor approached as a personal confidante and not in his official capacity.5@ Along the sa#e vein, we held that a videotaped interview showing the accused un.urdening his guilt willingly, openly and pu.licly in the presence of news#en is not covered .y the provision although in so ruling, we warned trial courts to ta%e e/tre#e caution in further ad#itting si#ilar confessions .ecause we recogni-ed the distinct possi.ility that the police, with the connivance of unscrupulous #edia practitioners, #ay atte#pt to legiti#i-e coerced e/traAudicial confessions and place the# .eyond the e/clusionary rule .y having an accused ad#it an offense on television.5< Neither does the constitutional provision on custodial investigation e/tends to a spontaneous state#ent, not elicited through 4uestioning .y the authorities, .ut given in an ordinary #anner where.y the accused orally ad#its having co##itted the cri#e, 5= nor to a person undergoing an audit e/a#ination .ecause an audit e/a#iner is not a law enforce#ent officer.58

PEOPLE V. MOJELLO Ynares-Santiago, J. March 9, 2004

RATIO DECIDENDI: The phrase preferably of his own choice !oes not con"ey the #essage that the choice of a lawyer by a person $n!er in"estigation is e%cl$si"e as to precl$!e other e&$ally co#petent an! in!epen!ent attorneys fro# han!ling the !efense.

QUICK FACTS: 'ppellant who was acc$se! of the cri#e of rape with ho#ici!e is assailing the a!#issibility of his confession beca$se allege!ly the confession was not freely, intelligently an! "ol$ntarily entere! into an! that he was not assiste! by a co$nsel. The (o$rt con"icte! appellant of rape b$t is ac&$ite! as to the )illing.

FACTS: *ogelio *ayco was ha"ing so#e !rin)s with a gro$p. +n his way ho#e, he saw his niece, ,enlen with appellant -in!o Mo.ello, a nephew of *oger (apacito, wal)ing together. Since he was $se! to seeing the# together, he !i! not fin! anything strange abo$t this. The following !ay, the *ayco fa#ily was infor#e! that the bo!y of ,enlen was fo$n!. Mo.ello was arreste! while atte#pting to boar! a #otor la$nch. +n an in"estigation con!$cte! by S/+2 0i!$cos, he a!#itte! to the rape an! the )illing. 1is confession was witnesse! by 2arangay (aptains 2astobalanos an! ,an!ao. 2atobalanos testifie! that after it was e%ec$te!, the contents of the !oc$#ent were rea! to the appellant who later on "ol$ntarily signe! it. 'ppellant3s e%tra.$!icial confession was sworn before J$!ge Jaca. 'ppellant Mo.ello was charge! with the cri#e of rape with ho#ici!e. The trial co$rt ren!ere! .$!g#ent fin!ing appellant g$ilty of the cri#e of rape with ho#ici!e. 'ppellant alleges that the lower co$rt gra"ely erre! in a!#itting e"i!ence the allege! e%tra.$!icial confession. 'ppellant a"ers that the confession which he e%ec$te! was not freely, intelligently an! "ol$ntarily entere! into. 1e arg$es that he was not )nowingly an! intelligently apprise! of his constit$tional rights before the confession was ta)en fro# hi#.

ISSUES: 4+5 the e%tra.$!icial confession e%ec$te! by appellant is a!#issible in e"i!ence 4+5 appellant is g$ilty beyon! reasonable !o$bt of the cri#e of rape with ho#ici!e

DECISION: -ecision '667*M8- with M+-767('T7+5. 'ppellant Mo.ello fo$n! 097,TY of stat$tory rape.

HELD: The e%tra.$!icial confession e%ec$te! by appellant applying 'rt. 777, Sec. :2, par : of the (onstit$tion in relation to *' 5o. ;4<=, Sec. 2 co#plies with the strict constit$tional re&$ire#ents on the right to co$nsel. 7n other wor!s, the e%tra.$!icial confession of the appellant is "ali! an! therefore a!#issible in e"i!ence. 'ppellant was $n!o$bte!ly apprise! of his Miran!a rights $n!er the (onstit$tion. The co$rt obser"e! that the confession itself e%pressly state! that the in"estigating officers infor#e! hi# of s$ch rights. 'tty. 0i!$&$io testifie! that while he was atten!ing a Sangg$niang 2ayan session, he was re&$este! by the (hief of /olice to assist appellant. 'ppellant #anifeste! on recor! his !esire to ha"e 'tty. 0i!$&$io as his co$nsel, with the latter categorically stating that before the in"estigaion was con!$cte! an! appellant3s state#ent ta)en, he a!"ise! appellant of his constit$tional rights. 'tty. 0i!$&$io represente! appellant !$ring the initial stages of the trial of the present case. The phrase preferably of his own choice !oes not con"ey the #essage that the choice of a lawyer by a person $n!er in"estigation is e%cl$si"e as to precl$!e other e&$ally co#petent an! in!epen!ent attorneys fro# han!ling the !efense. +n cross-e%a#ination, appellant Mo.ello clai#e! his life was threatene!, thereby in!$cing hi# to e%ec$te an e%tra.$!icial confession, yet he neither file! any case against the person who threatene! hi#, nor !i! he report this to his co$nsel. 1e f$rther clai#e! that he !i! not $n!erstan! the contents of the confession which was rea! in the >isayan !ialects, yet he a!#its that he $ses the >isayan !ialect in his !aily !isco$rse. The pres$#ption of "ol$ntariness of appellant3s confession re#ain $nreb$tte! by his fail$re to present in!epen!ent e"i!ence that the sa#e was coerce!. The categorical a!#ission of the appellant to the cri#e of rape, co$ple! with the corp$s !elicti as establishe! by Me!ico-,egal *eport an! the testi#ony of *ogelio *ayco, lea!s the (o$rt to no other concl$sion than that of appellant3s g$ilt for the rape of ,enlen. 1owe"er, the recor!s !o not a!e&$ately show that

appellant a!#itte! to )illing the "icti#. 5either is the circ$#stantial e"i!ence s$fficient to establish that by reason or on the occasion of the rape a ho#ici!e was co##itte! by the appellant.

G.R. No. 135562 November 22, 1999 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENITO BRAVO, accused-appellant.

FACTS: On May 25, 1994 an nf!"#ati!n f!" "ape $it% %!#icide appellant

$as filed a&ainst %e"ein accused-

'!t% c!unsels f!" t%e accused-appellant and t%e appellee plead f!" t%e ac(uittal !f t%e accused. '!t% t%e accused-appellant and t%e appellee inv!)e t%e c!nstituti!nally &ua"ded p"esu#pti!n !f inn!cence in fav!" !f t%e accused and t%e latte"*s "i&%t t! "e#ain silent and t! c!unsel. T%e testi#!ny !f t%e p!lice#an t%at t%e accused ad#itted %e $as $it% t%e victi# !n t%e evenin& !f +anua"y 12, 1994 ,ut t%e latte" $as t!! d"un) t! "e#e#,e" $%at %appened s%!uld %ave ,een %eld inad#issi,le ,y t%e t"ial c!u"t in vie$ !f t%e p!lice#an*s !$n ad#issi!n in c!u"t t%at alt%!u&% %e inf!"#ed t%e accused t%at %e is a suspect in t%e "ape and )illin& !f !ne +uanita Ant!lin %e did n!t inf!"# t%e accused !f %is c!nstituti!nal "i&%ts ,ef!"e %e as)ed %i# !f %is pa"ticipati!n in t%e c"i#e unde" investi&ati!n. '!t% t%e appellant and t%e appellee a"e in a&"ee#ent t%at t%e t"ial c!u"t &"iev!usly e""ed in findin& t%e accused &uilty ,ey!nd "eas!na,le d!u,t ,ased !n t%e s!le ci"cu#stantial evidence t%at t%e victi# $as last seen ,y %e" c!usin in t%e c!#pany !f t%e accused $%e"eas t%e -ules !f C!u"t clea"ly "e(ui"es t%e p"esence !f at least t$! p"!ven ci"cu#stances t%e c!#,inati!n !f $%ic% c"eates an un,"!)en lin) ,et$een t%e c!##issi!n !f t%e c"i#e c%a"&ed and t%e &uilt !f t%e accused ,ey!nd "eas!na,le d!u,t. T%e sin&le ci"cu#stance p"!ven ,y t%e p"!secuti!n t%at t%e victi# $as last seen c!nve"sin& $it% t%e accused t$! days ,ef!"e s%e $as f!und dead cann!t se"ve as ,asis f!" any c!nclusi!n leadin& t! t%e &uilt !f t%e accused !f t%e c"i#e c%a"&ed. T%e evidence f!" t%e p"!secuti!n falls s%!"t !f t%e (uantu# !f evidence "e(ui"ed ,y t%e -ules t! esta,lis% &uilt !f t%e accused ,ey!nd "eas!na,le d!u,t. n su#, ,!t% t%e appellant and t%e appellee p"!fess t%at t%e p"esu#pti!n !f inn!cence !f t%e accused $as n!t successfully !ve"tu"ned ,y t%e p"!secuti!n. ./01: 2e "es!lve t! ac(uit 'enit! '"av!. Sec. 12 !f A"ticle !f t%e 1934 C!nstituti!n e#,!dies t%e #andat!"y p"!tecti!n aff!"ded a pe"s!n unde" investi&ati!n f!" t%e c!##issi!n !f a c"i#e and t%e c!""elative duty !f t%e State and its a&encies t! enf!"ce suc% #andate. t states: Sec. 12. 516 Any pe"s!n unde" investi&ati!n f!" t%e c!##issi!n !f an !ffense s%all %ave t%e "i&%t t! ,e inf!"#ed !f %is "i&%t t! "e#ain silent and t! %ave c!#petent and independent c!unsel p"efe"a,ly !f %is !$n c%!ice. f t%e pe"s!n cann!t aff!"d t%e se"vices !f c!unsel, %e #ust ,e p"!vided $it% !ne. T%ese "i&%ts cann!t ,e $aived e7cept in $"itin& and in t%e p"esence !f c!unsel. 516 8! t!"tu"e, f!"ce, vi!lence, t%"eat, inti#idati!n !" any !t%e" #eans $%ic% vitiate t%e f"ee $ill s%all ,e used a&ainst %i#. Sec"et detenti!n places, s!lita"y, inc!##unicad!, !" !t%e" si#ila" f!"#s !f detenti!n a"e p"!%i,ited. 526 Any c!nfessi!n !" ad#issi!n !,tained in vi!lati!n !f t%is !" secti!n 14 %e"e!f s%all ,e inad#issi,le in evidence a&ainst %i#.

596 T%e la$ s%all p"!vide f!" penal and civil sancti!ns f!" vi!lati!ns !f t%is secti!n as $ell as c!#pensati!n t! and "e%a,ilitati!n !f victi#s !f t!"tu"e !" si#ila" p"actices, and t%ei" fa#ilies. T%e #antle !f p"!tecti!n unde" t%is c!nstituti!nal p"!visi!n c!ve"s t%e pe"i!d f"!# t%e ti#e a pe"s!n is ta)en int! cust!dy f!" investi&ati!n !f %is p!ssi,le pa"ticipati!n in t%e c!##issi!n !f a c"i#e !" f"!# t%e ti#e %e is sin&led !ut as a suspect in t%e c!##issi!n !f a c"i#e alt%!u&% n!t yet in cust!dy. 17 T%e e7clusi!na"y "ule sp"an& f"!# a "ec!&niti!n t%at p!lice inte""!&at!"y p"!cedu"es lay fe"tile &"!unds f!" c!e"ci!n, p%ysical and psyc%!l!&ical, !f t%e suspect t! ad#it "esp!nsi,ility f!" t%e c"i#e unde" investi&ati!n. t $as n!t intended as a dete""ent t! t%e accused f"!# c!nfessin& &uilt, if %e v!lunta"ily and intelli&ently s! desi"es ,ut t! p"!tect t%e accused f"!# ad#ittin& $%at %e is c!e"ced t! ad#it alt%!u&% unt"ue. 1 0a$ enf!"ce#ent a&encies a"e "e(ui"ed t! effectively c!##unicate t%e "i&%ts !f a pe"s!n unde" investi&ati!n and t! insu"e t%at it is fully unde"st!!d. Any #easu"e s%!"t !f t%is "e(ui"e#ent is c!nside"ed a denial !f suc% "i&%t. 19 C!u"ts a"e n!t all!$ed t! distin&uis% ,et$een p"eli#ina"y (uesti!nin& and cust!dial investi&ati!n p"!pe" $%en applyin& t%e e7clusi!na"y "ule. Any inf!"#ati!n !" ad#issi!n &iven ,y a pe"s!n $%ile in cust!dy $%ic% #ay appea" %a"#less !" inn!cu!us at t%e ti#e $it%!ut t%e c!#petent assistance !f an independent c!unsel s%!uld ,e st"uc) d!$n as inad#issi,le. 2! t %as ,een %eld, %!$eve", t%at an ad#issi!n #ade t! ne$s "ep!"te"s !" t! a c!nfidant !f t%e accused is n!t c!ve"ed ,y t%e e7clusi!na"y "ule. 21 T%e ad#issi!n alle&edly #ade ,y t%e appellant is n!t in t%e f!"# !f a $"itten e7t"a-:udicial c!nfessi!n; t%e ad#issi!n $as alle&edly #ade t! t%e a""estin& !ffice" du"in& an <inf!"#al tal)< at t%e p!lice stati!n afte" %is a""est as a p"i#e suspect in t%e "ape and )illin& !f +uanita Ant!lin. T%e a""estin& p!lice#an testified t%at t%e appellant ad#itted t%at %e $as $it% t%e victi# !n t%e evenin& !f +anua"y 12, 1994, t%e p"!,a,le ti#e !f t%e c!##issi!n !f t%e c"i#e and t%at %e ca""ied %e" !n %is s%!ulde" ,ut t%at %e $as t!! d"un) t! "e#e#,e" $%at su,se(uently %appened. T%e a""estin& p!lice#an ad#itted t%at %e did n!t inf!"# t%e appellant !f %is c!nstituti!nal "i&%ts t! "e#ain silent and t! c!unsel. 2e n!te t%at t%e alle&ed ad#issi!n is inc"i#inatin& ,ecause it places t%e accused in t%e c!#pany !f t%e victi# at t%e ti#e t%e c"i#e $as p"!,a,ly c!##itted. T%e e7clusi!na"y "ule applies. T%e accused $as unde" a""est f!" t%e "ape and )illin& !f +uanita Ant!lin and any state#ent alle&edly #ade ,y %i# pe"tainin& t! %is p!ssi,le c!#plicity in t%e c"i#e $it%!ut p"i!" n!tificati!n !f %is c!nstituti!nal "i&%ts is inad#issi,le in evidence. T%e p!lice#an*s appa"ent atte#pt t! ci"cu#vent t%e "ule ,y insistin& t%at t%e ad#issi!n $as #ade du"in& an <inf!"#al tal)< p"i!" t! cust!dial investi&ati!n p"!pe" is n!t tena,le. T%e appellant $as n!t invited t! t%e p!lice stati!n as pa"t !f a &ene"al in(ui"y f!" any p!ssi,le lead t! t%e pe"pet"at!"s !f t%e c"i#e unde" investi&ati!n. At t%e ti#e t%e alle&ed ad#issi!n $as #ade t%e appellant $as in cust!dy and %ad ,een a""ested as t%e p"i#e suspect in t%e "ape and )illin& !f +uanita Ant!lin. T%e e7clusi!na"y "ule p"esu#es t%at t%e alle&ed ad#issi!n $as c!e"ced, t%e ve"y evil t%e "ule stands t! av!id. Supp!"tive !f suc% p"esu#pti!n is t%e a,sence !f a $"itten e7t"a-:udicial c!nfessi!n t! t%at effect and t%e appellant*s denial in c!u"t !f t%e alle&ed !"al ad#issi!n. T%e alle&ed ad#issi!n s%!uld ,e st"uc) d!$n as inad#issi,le.

G.R. No. 13!1 9 "#$e 25, 1999 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. %O&INGO R. &'LETA, accused-appellant. FACTS: 1!#in&! -. Muleta appeals t%e 1ecisi!n !f t%e -e&i!nal T"ial C!u"t !f Mal!l!s, 'ulacan, '"anc% 14, in C"i#inal Case 8!. 92=4-M-99, findin& %i# &uilty !f t%e c!#ple7 c"i#e !f "ape $it% %!#icide

First Issue: Validity of Extrajudicial Confession T%e appellant clai#s t%at <it is n!t t"ue t%at >%e? %ad e7ecuted an e7t"a-:udicial c!nfessi!n< 1(. As c!""ectly p!inted !ut ,y t%e s!licit!" &ene"al, %!$eve", t%e appellant actually ad#its t! t%e e7ecuti!n !f t%e said c!nfessi!n, al,eit $it%!ut t%e assistance !f c!unsel. T! ,e accepta,le, e7t"a:udicial c!nfessi!ns #ust c!nf!"# t! c!nstituti!nal "e(ui"e#ents. A c!nfessi!n is n!t valid and n!t ad#issi,le in evidence $%en it is !,tained in vi!lati!n !f any !f t%e f!ll!$in& "i&%ts !f pe"s!ns unde" cust!dial investi&ati!n: t! "e#ain silent, t! %ave independent and c!#petent c!unsel p"efe"a,ly !f t%ei" !$n c%!ice, t! ,e p"!vided $it% c!unsel if t%ey a"e una,le t! secu"e !ne, t! ,e assisted ,y suc% c!unsel du"in& t%e investi&ati!n, t! %ave suc% c!unsel p"esent $%en t%ey decide t! $aive t%ese "i&%ts, and t! ,e inf!"#ed !f all t%ese "i&%ts and !f t%e fact t%at anyt%in& t%ey say can and $ill ,e used a&ainst t%e# in c!u"t. n People v. Santos, 16 $e %eld: A c!nfessi!n is n!t ad#issi,le unless t%e p"!secuti!n satisfact!"ily s%!$s t%at it $as !,tained $it%in t%e li#its i#p!sed ,y t%e 1934 C!nstituti!n. Secti!n 12, A"ticle t%e"e!f, p"!vides: 516 Any pe"s!n unde" investi&ati!n f!" t%e c!##issi!n !f an !ffense s%all %ave t%e "i&%t t! ,e inf!"#ed !f %is "i&%t t! "e#ain silent and t! %ave c!#petent and independent c!unsel p"efe"a,ly !f %is !$n c%!ice. f t%e pe"s!n cann!t aff!"d t%e se"vices !f c!unsel, %e #ust ,e p"!vided $it% !ne. T%ese "i&%ts cann!t ,e $aived e7cept in $"itin& and in t%e p"esence !f c!unsel. 777 777 777 596 Any c!nfessi!n !" ad#issi!n !,tained in vi!lati!n !f t%is !" secti!n 14 %e"e!f s%all ,e inad#issi,le in evidence a&ainst %i#. f t%e e7t"a:udicial c!nfessi!n satisfies t%ese c!nstituti!nal standa"ds, it is su,se(uently tested f!" v!lunta"iness, i.e., if it $as &iven f"eely @ $it%!ut c!e"ci!n, inti#idati!n, induce#ent, !" false p"!#ises; and c"edi,ility, i.e., if it $as c!nsistent $it% t%e n!"#al e7pe"ience !f #an)ind. A c!nfessi!n t%at #eets all t%e f!"e&!in& "e(uisites c!nstitutes evidence !f a %i&% !"de" ,ecause n! pe"s!n !f n!"#al #ind $ill )n!$in&ly and deli,e"ately c!nfess t! ,e t%e pe"pet"at!" !f a c"i#e unless p"!#pted ,y t"ut% and c!nscience. 17 Ot%e"$ise, it is dis"e&a"ded in acc!"dance $it% t%e c!ld !,:ectivity !f t%e e7clusi!na"y "ule. 1 5citati!ns !#itted6

Fla&"antly vi!lated in t%e p"esent case $e"e t%e appellant*s "i&%t t! ,e inf!"#ed !f %is "i&%ts unde" cust!dial investi&ati!n, %is "i&%t t! c!unsel, as $ell as %is "i&%t t! %ave said c!unsel p"esent du"in& t%e $aive" !f %is "i&%ts unde" cust!dial investi&ati!n. The Right to Be pprised of Constitutional Rights T%e "i&%t t! ,e inf!"#ed !f !ne*s c!nstituti!nal "i&%ts du"in& cust!dial investi&ati!n "efe"s t! an effective c!##unicati!n ,et$een t%e investi&atin& !ffice" and t%e suspected individual, $it% t%e pu"p!se !f #a)in& t%e latte" unde"stand t%ese "i&%ts. Ande"standin& $!uld #ean t%at t%e inf!"#ati!n t"ans#itted $as effectively "eceived and c!#p"e%ended. .ence, t%e C!nstituti!n d!es n!t #e"ely "e(ui"e t%e investi&atin& !ffice"s t! <inf!"#< t%e pe"s!n unde" investi&ati!n; "at%e", it "e(ui"es t%at t%e latte" ,e <inf!"#ed.< 19 T%e (uesti!ns p"!p!unded t! t%e appellant did n!t satisfy t%e st"ict "e(ui"e#ents #andated ,y t%e C!nstituti!n. 21 Suc% <te"se and pe"funct!"y state#ents< 22 i#plied a supe"ficial "eadin& !f t%e "i&%ts !f t%e accused, $it%!ut t%e sli&%test c!nside"ati!n !f $%et%e" %e unde"st!!d $%at $as "ead t! %i#. The Right to Counsel T%e p"!secuti!n c!ntends t%at t%is c!nstituti!nal "e(ui"e#ent $as satisfied ,ecause appellant e7ecuted t%e c!nfessi!n $it% t%e assistance and in t%e p"esence !f Atty. 1e,!"a% 1a(uiB. 2( 1espite A&ent T!lentin!*s clai# t%at t%e c!nfessi!n !f t%e accused sta"ted t! ,e ta)en !n Septe#,e" 19, 1999 and c!ntinued t%e ne7t day, t%e s$!"n state#ent itself clea"ly s%!$ed t%at $%at ,e&an !n t%e 19t% !f Septe#,e" ended !n t%e sa#e day. 2e n!te t%at t%e %eadin& !f t%e s$!"n state#ent "efe"s t! t%e sa#e date: Septe#,e" 19, 1999. t is t%us dayli&%t clea" t%at t%e pu"p!"ted s$!"n state#ent !f t%e appellant $as p"epa"ed p"i!" t! t%e a""ival !f %is 8' -p"!cu"ed c!unsel. 29 n !t%e" $!"ds, t%e s$!"n state#ent $as e7ecuted and c!#pleted !n Septe#,e" 19, 1999, $%ile Atty. 1a(uiB a""ived !nly t%e f!ll!$in& day, Septe#,e" 2C, 1999. T%us, $%en t%e appellant e7ecuted and c!#pleted %is pu"p!"ted e7t"a:udicial c!nfessi!n !n Septe#,e" 19, 1999, %e T%e failu"e !f t%e p"!secuti!n 32 t! p"esent Atty. 1a(uiB t! testify !n t%e validity !f t%e c!nfessi!n su,stantiates t%e c!nclusi!n t%at t%e s$!"n state#ent is c!nstituti!nally suspect and invalid. n "elati!n t! t%is, $e st"ess t%at t%e "i&%t t! c!unsel "efe"s t! c!#petent and independent la$ye"s p"efe"a,ly c%!sen ,y t%e accused pe"s!ns t%e#selves. 33 T%is C!u"t, as $ell as t%e c!u"t a !uo, did n!t %ave t%e !pp!"tunity t! dete"#ine t%e c!#petence and t%e independence !f t%e 8' -p"!cu"ed la$ye" ,ecause, despite t%e denial !f t%e accused t%at %e $as assisted ,y c!unsel, t%e p"!secuti!n failed t! p"esent Atty. 1a(uiB. 3( Ande" t%e p"esent factual #ilieu, 1!#in&! Muleta s%!uld %ave ,een acc!"ded t%e "i&%t t! c!unsel 5and all t%e c!nstituti!nal "i&%ts !f t%e accused6, f"!# t%e ti#e t%at %e $as ,"!u&%t t! t%e 8' !ffice in Manila. "o Valid #aiver T%e ille&ality !f t%e alle&ed c!nfessi!n is fu"t%e" de#!nst"ated ,y t%e fact t%at appellant e7e"cised n! satisfact!"y $aive" !f %is "i&%ts. As stated in !u" ea"lie" discussi!ns, since %e $as n!t assisted ,y a la$ye" $%en t%e $aive" $as #ade, t%e"e $as n! valid $aive" t! spea) !f. 36 Fu"t%e"#!"e, even if $e $e"e t! assu#e t%at t%e appellant $as assisted ,y c!unsel $%en %e $aived %is li&%ts, t%e $aive" itself $as la#enta,ly insufficient. Afte" Atty. 1a(uiB $as alle&edly called t! assist t%e appellant, s%e p!sited t%is (uesti!n: <Dust! #! ,an& tali)dan an& iy!n& #&a )a"apatan na i,ini,i&ay sa iy! n& atin& E!nstitusy!nF< 37 T! t%is appellant "eplied: <Tinatali)dan )! na p! iy!n da%il &ust! )! nan& ipa&tapat an& pan&yaya"i )ay C.A- TO 1/0DA1O na pa#an&)in )!.< 3

T! t%e C!u"t, t%is $as n!t t%e $aive" t%at t%e C!nstituti!n clea"ly and st"ictly "e(ui"ed. Suc% $aive" failed t! s%!$ %is unde"standin& !f %is "i&%ts, %is $aive" !f t%!se "i&%ts, and t%e i#plicati!ns !f %is $aive". T%e $aive", in !"de" t! ,e valid, s%!uld %ave ,een in a lan&ua&e t%at clea"ly #anifested %is desi"e t! d! s!. 39 T%e pa"t !f t%e s$!"n state#ent in $%ic% t%e accused <$aived< %is "i&%ts "efe""ed t! t%e# as <#&a )a"apatan na i,ini&ay sa iy! n& atin& E!nstitusy!n< and <iy!n< @ $!"ds t%at $e"e utte"ly va&ue and insufficient t! satisfy t%e C!nstituti!nal "e(ui"e#ents. (! As p"esented, t%e p"!secuti!n $!uld %ave us "efe" t! t%e fi"st pa"t !f t%e s$!"n state#ent f!" &uidance, as if it $e"e a f!!tn!te sayin& <Glease see fi"st pa"t.< Suc% st"ata&e# is $!efully insufficient t! c!nstitute a $aive" !f "i&%ts c%e"is%ed and ens%"ined in !u" ,asic la$. M!"e!ve", Atty. 1a(uiB "aised !nly !ne (uesti!n: $%et%e" appellant $!uld li)e t! $aive %is "i&%ts. T%is $as !dd, ,ecause s%e %ad ,een called t! assist appellant in #a)in& %is c!nfessi!n, n!t %is $aive". Atty. 1a(uiB #ade n! eff!"t t! dete"#ine $%et%e" t%e accused $as t"eated $ell, !" t%e unde"st!!d %is "i&%ts. Suc% pe"funct!"y, even cavalie", atte#pt falls s%!"t !f c!nstituti!nal "e(ui"e#ents.

Peo)*e V+. A,#+-.$ 2(! S/RA 5(1 G.R. No. 11!29! "0$#0r1 25, 1995 F02-+3 1". 'ay(uen, a dentist, t!&et%e" $it% %is s!n, Ant%!ny; Ant%!ny*s &i"lf"iend, Anna T%e"esa; %is dau&%te", 1!#inic; and 1anny, a fa#ily f"iend, $e"e !n t%ei" $ay a,!a"d t%ei" '"asilia t! t%e d!ct!"*s "esidence at Malva" St"eet, 'a&ui! City. 2%ile t%ey $e"e c"uisin& al!n& Malva" St"eet and nea"in& t%e 'aptist c%u"c%, a #an ca#e !ut f"!# t%e "i&%t side !f a ca" pa")ed a,!ut t$! #ete"s t! t%e c%u"c%. T%e #an app"!ac%ed t%e '"asilia, ai#ed %is a"#alite "ifle t%"!u&% its $ind!$, and fi"ed at t%e passen&e"s. T%e '"asilia s$e"ved and %it a fence. T%e &un#an i##ediately "etu"ned t! t%e pa")ed ca" $%ic% t%en sped a$ay. All t%!se in t%e ca" $e"e %it and 1". 'ay(uen and Anna T%e"esa died !n t%e sp!t. 1!#inic $as ,ale t! &et !ut !f t%e '"asilia t! "un t! t%e Ala,anBa st!"e $%e"e s%e telep%!ned %e" #!t%e". 0ate", s%e and %e" #!t%e" ,"!u&%t %e" fat%e" and Ant%!ny t! t%e %!spital. 1anny $ent %!#e and $as t%en ,"!u&%t t! t%e .!spital f!" t"eat#ent. Accused HuiaI!, an alle&ed f!"#e" #ilita"y a&ent $%! %ad ,een pic)ed up ,y t%e p!lice aut%!"ities, c!nfessed du"in& t%e investi&ati!n c!nducted ,y 'a&ui! City Fiscal /"d!lf! 'ala:adia in %is !ffice t%at %e $as t%e t"i&&e"#an. .e i#plicated A,en!:a, +"., $%! en&a&ed %i# t! )ill 1". 'ay(uen f!" a fee, Ca"tel, $%! p"!vided t%e a"#alite, and a ce"tain <+i##y.< 1u"in& t%e investi&ati!n, 2ilf"ed! HuiaI! $as assisted ,y Atty. -eynald! Ca:uc!#. Sten!&"ap%ic n!tes !f t%e p"!ceedin&s du"in& t%e investi&ati!n as t"ansc"i,ed $it% t%e s$!"n state#ent !f HuiaI! $as si&ned, $it% t%e assistance !f Atty. Ca:uc!#, and s$!"e t! ,ef!"e City Fiscal 'ala:adia. T%e f!ll!$in& day, A&ustin $as app"e%ended, and $as investi&ated and $as aff!"ded t%e p"ivile&es li)e t%at !f Hui:an!. A&ustinJs defense inte"p!se t%at %e $as f!"ced t! ad#it inv!lve#ent at &unp!int in t%e Eenn!n -!ad. .e fu"t%e" decla"ed t%at alt%!u&% %e $as &iven a la$ye", Ca:uc!# 5a la$ pa"tne" !f t%e p"ivate p"!secut!"6, %e neve"t%eless, as)ed f!" %is uncle Atty. Olive" Ta,in, and t%at Atty. Ca:uc!# inte"vie$ed %i# f"!# !nly t$! #inutes in /n&lis% and Ta&al!& ,ut n!t in l!can!, t%e dialect %e unde"stands. T%e p"!#ise t%at %e $!uld ,e disc%a"&ed as a $itness did n!t pus% t%"!u&% since Hui:an! escaped. .!$eve" t%e -TC c!nvicted %i#, since c!nspi"acy $as esta,lis%ed. .ence t%e appeal. I++#e3 2%et%e" !" 8!t accused-appellantJs e7t"a:udicial state#ents ad#issi,le as evidence. He*43 8!. /7t"a:udicial state#ent is n!t e7t"a:udicial c!nfessi!n. n a c!nfessi!n, t%e"e is an ac)n!$led&#ent !f &uilt !f t%e accused, $%ile an ad#issi!n is a state#ent di"ect !" i#plied !f facts pe"tinent t! t%e issue. T%e "ule !n inad#issi,ility, %!$eve" e7p"essly includes ad#issi!ns, n!t :ust c!nfessi!ns.T%e e7t"a:udicial ad#issi!n !f t%e appellant, c!ntained in t$enty-t$! pa&es appea" t! ,e si&ned ,y %i# and Atty. Ca:uc!# ,ut f!" "eas!ns n!t e7plained in t%e "ec!"ds, t%e t"ansc"ipt !f t%e n!tes $%ic% c!nsists !f t$elve pa&es $as n!t si&ned ,y t%e appellant. Since t%e c!u"t cann!t even "ead !" decip%e" t%e sten!&"ap%ic n!tes it cann!t ,e e7pected t%at appellant, $%! is a fa"#e" and $%!

"eac%ed !nly t%e f!u"t% &"ade, t! "ead !" decip%e" its c!ntents. T%e appellant, t%e"ef!"e $as dep"ived !f %is "i&%ts unde" Secti!n 12516, A"ticle !f t%e C!nstituti!n. Fi"stly, %e $as n!t fully and p"!pe"ly inf!"#ed !f %is "i&%ts. T%e appellant $as n!t e7plicitly t!ld !f %is "i&%t t! %ave a c!#petent and independent c!unsel !f %is c%!ice, specifically as)ed if %e %ad in #ind any suc% c!unsel and, if s!, $%et%e" %e c!uld aff!"d t! %i"e %is se"vices, and, if %e c!uld n!t, $%et%e" %e $!uld a&"ee t! ,e assisted ,y !ne t! ,e p"!vided f!" %i#. .e $as n!t cate&!"ically inf!"#ed t%at %e c!uld $aive %is "i&%ts t! "e#ain silent and t! c!unsel and t%at t%is $aive" #ust ,e in $"itin& and in t%e p"esence !f %is c!unsel. .e %ad, in fact, $aived %is "i&%t t! "e#ain silent ,y a&"eein& t! ,e investi&ated. Ket, n! $"itten $aive" !f suc% "i&%t appea"s in t%e t"ansc"ipt and n! !t%e" independent evidence $as !ffe"ed t! p"!ve its e7istence. n s%!"t, afte" t%e appellant said t%at %e $anted t! ,e assisted ,y c!unsel, t%e City fiscal, t%"!u&% su&&estive lan&ua&e, i##ediately inf!"#ed %i# t%at Atty. Ca:uc!# $as "eady t! assist %i#. M!"es! said c!unsel is n!t independent since %e is an ass!ciate !f t%e p"ivate p"!secut!".

G.R. No. 66!3( November 13, 1992 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. "OVITO T'"ON 1 TAPEL, ERNESTO PAROLA 1 /ORTINA, AN% /ESAR PARE%ES 5 /e+0r 60- *0r,e7, 022#+e4 "OVITO T'"ON 1 TAPEL, accused-appellant.

BI%IN, J.: FACTS: On 8!ve#,e" 9, 1944, t%e dead ,!dy !f -!land! A,ellana, a ta7i d"ive", $as f!und at 1!Ia Faustina Lilla&e, HueB!n City, $it% sta, $!unds. 1". -!land! Mad"id, Medic!-0e&al Office" !f t%e 8' , c!nducted an aut!psy !n t%e c!"pse and f!und t%at t%e cause !f deat% is %e#!""%a&e, acute, p"!fuse, sec!nda"y t! #ultiple sta, $!unds !n t%e c%est and nec). On 8!ve#,e" 29, 1944, accused +!vit! Tu:!n and /"nest! Ga"!la $e"e a""ested ,y t%e p!lice and tu"ned !ve" t! t%e C"i#inal nvesti&ati!n 1ivisi!n, HueB!n City G!lice 1epa"t#ent, $%e"e t%ey alle&edly c!nfessed t! t%e c!##issi!n !f t%e c"i#e. On 1ece#,e" 1, 1944, an inf!"#ati!n $as filed ,y Assistant Fiscal +esus T. 'ald!nad! ,ef!"e t%e C!u"t !f Fi"st nstance !f -iBal, Sevent% +udicial 1ist"ict, HueB!n City, c%a"&in& t%e accused !f "!,,e"y $it% %!#icide. Ap!n a""ai&n#ent, accused-appellant and /"nest! Ga"!la ente"ed a plea !f n!t &uilty. T%e"eafte" t"ial !n t%e #e"its ensued. T%e"e is n! eye$itness f!" t%e p"!secuti!n. T! esta,lis% t%e case a&ainst t%e accused, t%e p"!secuti!n "elied #ainly !n t%e e7t"a-:udicial c!nfessi!ns !f t%e f!"#e" ta)en d!$n ,y 1et. A"#and! /st"ada. T%e t"ial c!u"t &ave #!"e $it% t! t%e evidence !f t%e p"!secuti!n c!nsistin& #ainly !f t%e e7t"a-:udicial c!nfessi!ns !f t%e accused, and, as ea"lie" stated, f!und ,!t% accused /"nest! Ga"!la and +!vit! Tu:!n, &uilty as c%a"&ed. SSA/: 2O8 t%e t%e c!u"t a !uo &"avely e""ed in c!nvictin& t%e t$! accused !f t%e c"i#e c%a"&ed ,y "elyin& %eavily !n t%e "espective e7t"a:udicial c!nfessi!ns ./01: 2%ile it is clea" f"!# t%e "ec!"ds t%at t%e accused $e"e inf!"#ed !f t$! 526 c!nstituti!nal, "i&%ts, na#ely: 516 t%e "i&%t t! "e#ain silent and 526 t%e-"i&%t t! ,e assisted ,y c!unsel !f t%ei" !$n c%!ice, it is n!t clea" t%at t%ey $e"e actually !ffe"ed t%e se"vices !f a la$ye" and t%ey "efused. n any event, it is undisputed t%at t%e $aive" !f t%e accused !f t%ei" "i&%t t! c!unsel $as #ade $it%!ut t%e assistance !f c!unsel. T%is C!u"t %as "uled t%at t%e "i&%t !f a pe"s!n unde" cust!dial inte""!&ati!n t! ,e inf!"#ed !f %is "i&%t t! "e#ain silent and t! c!unsel, i#plies a c!""elative !,li&ati!n !n t%e pa"t !f t%e p!lice investi&at!" t! e7plain and c!nte#plate an effective c!##unicati!n t%at "esults in an unde"standin& !f $%at is c!nveyed. S%!"t !f t%is, t%e"e is a denial !f t%e "i&%t, as it cann!t t"uly ,e said t%at t%e accused %as ,een <inf!"#ed< !f %is "i&%t 5Ge!ple v. 8e$#an, 1=9 SC-A 49=, >1933?6. 2%en t%e C!nstituti!n "e(ui"es a pe"s!n unde" investi&ati!n t! ,e inf!"#ed t! "e#ain silent and t! c!unsel, it #ust ,e p"esu#ed t! c!nte#plate t%e t"ans#issi!n !f #eanin&ful inf!"#ati!n "at%e" t%an :ust t%e t"ans#issi!n !f #eanin&ful inf!"#ati!n "at%e" t%an :ust t%e ce"e#!nial and pe"funct!"y "ecitati!n !f an a,st"act c!nstituti!nal p"inciple 5Ge!ple v. Fl!"es, 1=5 SC-A 41 >1931?6. t is t%e duty !f t%e p!lice !ffice" t! e7plain t%ei" p"actical effects T%us, it $!uld n!t suffice f!" a p!lice !ffice" :ust t! "ep!"t t! t%e pe"s!n unde" investi&ati!n t%e p"!visi!n !f Secti!n 2C, A"ticle L !f t%e C!nstituti!n 5n!$ A"t. , Secti!n 12, 1934 C!nstituti!n; Ge!ple v. Fl!"es, supra$6. n t%e case at ,a", and in t%e testi#!ny !f t%e p!lice !ffice", it is undenia,le t%at n! se"i!us eff!"t $as s%!$n t! %ave ,een e7e"ted ,y t%e investi&at!"s t! e7plain t%e c!nse(uences !f t%e investi&ati!n. On t%e investi&at!" is "ep!sed t%e duty t! e7plain t%e effects !f t%e c!nstituti!nal "i&%ts p"actical te"#s 5Ge!ple v. 1u%an, 142 SC-A 1CC >193=?6. Fu"t%e"#!"e, t%is C!u"t %as c!nsistently "uled t%at $aive" !f "i&%t t! c!unsel t! ,e valid, #ust ,e in $"itin& and in t%e p"esence !f c!unsel. /7t"a-:udicial c!nfessi!ns ta)en $it%!ut t%e assistance !f c!unsel is inad#issi,le in evidence 5Ge!ple v. Al,!fe"a, 152 SC-A 129 >1934?6. .ence, $%ile t%e "i&%t t! c!unsel #ay ,e $aived, suc% $aive" #ust ,e d!ne v!lunta"ily, )n!$in&ly and intelli&ently and #ade in t%e p"esence !f t%e accused*s la$ye". f t%e "ec!"ds d! n!t s%!$ t%at t%e accused $as assisted ,y c!unsel in #a)in& %is $aive", t%is defect nullifies and "ende"s inad#issi,le in evidence %is c!nfessi!n. n t%e case !f Ge!ple v. .iB!n, 1=9 SC-A 4=C 519336, t%is C!u"t, citin& t%e p"!cedu"e laid d!$n in t%e case !f Ge!ple v. Dalit, 195 SC-A 4=5 >1935?6, "uled t%at t%e suspect #ust ,e inf!"#ed t%at %e %as a "i&%t t! t%e assistance !f c!unsel and assu"ed t%at %e $ill ,e p"!vided $it% !ne f!" f"ee. 2%ile %e #ay c%!!se t! $aive t%e "i&%t, suc% $aive" #ust ,e a )n!$in& and intelli&ence !ne and in any case #ust ,e #ade !nly $it% t%e assistance !f c!unsel. Any $aive" #ade $it%!ut !,se"vance !f t%ese "e(ui"e#ents is null and v!id. T%us:

ndeed, t%e ,an a&ainst unc!unseled c!nfessi!ns is even #!"e p"!n!unced unde" Sec. 12, A"t.

!f t%e 1934 C!nstituti!n $%ic% states t%at:

Sec. 12. 516 Any pe"s!n unde" investi&ati!n f!" t%e c!##issi!n !f an !ffense s%all %ave t%e "i&%t t! ,e inf!"#ed !f %is "i&%t t! "e#ain silent and t! %ave c!#petent and independent c!unsel p"efe"a,ly !f %is !$n c%!ice. f t%e pe"s!n cann!t aff!"d t%e se"vices !f c!unsel, %e #ust ,e p"!vided $it% !ne. T%ese "i&%ts cann!t ,e $aived e7cept in $"itin& and in t%e p"esence !f c!unsel. 777 777 777 96 Any c!nfessi!n !" ad#issi!n !,tained in vi!lati!n !f t%is . . . s%all ,e inad#issi,le in evidence a&ainst %i#. 5 See als! Ge!ple v. 8ic!las, 2C4 SC-A 191 >1991?6. t is a #atte" !f "ec!"d t%at t%e inte""!&ati!n $as #ade in t%e a,sence !f c!unsel de parte !" de oficio and t%e $aive" !f c!unsel, if #ade at all, $as n!t #ade $it% t%e assistance !f c!unsel as "e(ui"ed. Ande" t%e ci"cu#stances, t%e"e is n! (uesti!n t%at p"!!f !f &uilt ,ey!nd "eas!na,le d!u,t %as n!t ,een esta,lis%ed. As "uled ,y t%is C!u"t, $%en t%e evidence f!" t%e p"!secuti!n and t%e evidence f!" t%e accused a"e $ei&%ed, t%e scales #ust ,e tipped in fav!" !f t%e latte". T%is is ,ecause !f t%e c!nstituti!nal p"esu#pti!n !f inn!cence t%e accused en:!ys as a c!unte"f!il t! t%e a$es!#e aut%!"ity !f t%e State t%at is p"!secutin& %i#. And!u,tedly, if a life is ta)en, :ustice de#ands t%at t%e $"!n& ,e "ed"essed, ,ut t%e sa#e :ustice t%at calls f!" "et"i,uti!n cann!t c!nvict t%e p"is!ne" at ,a" $%!se &uilt %as n!t ,een p"!ved ,ey!nd "eas!na,le d!u,t. T%e ele#ent !f d!u,t, if "eas!na,le as in t%is case, #ust !pe"ate a&ainst t%e infe"ence !f &uilt t%e p"!secuti!n $!uld d"a$ f"!# its evidence 5Ge!ple v. Geca"dal, 145 SC-A =44-=43 >193=?6.