People vs. Contenente presence of the same during the whole process.
And said waiver was understood by both of
G.R. No. 100801-02
Facts: The accused-appellants Contenente and
Itaas were armed and shot Colonel Rowe and
his driver Binuya while aboard in a vehicle.
Colonel Rowe died and his driver survived. The
accused-appellants were charged of Murder
and Frustrated murder.
At the trial a lone witness in the person of Ms.
Zulueta was presented before the court and the
same identified to have seen the accused-
appellants shot the victims.
During the custodial investigation, the
Investigating officer informed the accused-
appellants of their rights. Like their right to
remain silent and the right to an attorney.
Accused-appellants did not avail of their right to
an attorney and showed voluntariness to testify
in writing about their involvement on the
incident. However the Investigating officer still
provided them with their own counsels so that
they could confer with them and thoroughly
understand the situation.
After conferring with their counsels, accused-
appellants were made to sign a waiver of their
constitutional rights during the custodial
investigation so that their extra-judicial
confession would be valid. The same was done
in the presence of their counsels.
ISSUE: Whether or not the waiver of the
constitutional rights during the custodial
investigation by the appellants were valid.
RULING: Yes, the waiver of their rights was valid
because they were thoroughly informed of their
rights and the consequences of signing the
waiver thereof by their counsels and the
them as established in the case where both of
them admit that they understood tagalog. They
also failed to substantiate their claims that they
were tortured into confession. As a rule there
must be showing of a spontaneous, free, and
unconstrained giving up of a right which was
clearly established in the case.
General rule: There must be showing of a
spontaneous, free, and unconstrained giving up
of a right.
People vs. Velarde
G.R. No. 139333
Facts: This case is about a rape-slay incident. At
10’oclock in the morning, Brenda an eight year
old, together with her friend Melanie who was
just a year younger, was on board a pedicab
driven by appellant.
Appellant then told Melanie to leave on the
pretext that her mother might look for her.
Melanie obeyed leaving Brenda with appellant
and the latter continued driving.
On the following day, the naked lifeless body of
the victim was found. On the other hand based
on the leads furnished by witnesses, appellant
was tagged as brought to the Malolos Bulacan
Police Station for investigation.
His case was then referred to the then
municipal mayor of Malolos who was also an
attorney, Atty. Domingo. During the
investigation appellant was assisted by the
mayor as counsel and after his advice,
appellant’s extrajudicial confession was taken
and the same was reduced into writing.
ISSUE: Whether or not the extrajudicial
confession taken from the appellant is
Article III Sec. 12(1) provides:
inadmissible in evidence.
“Any person under custodial investigation for
RULING: No, because Article III Sec. 12(1)
the commission of an offense shall have the
provides: “Any person under custodial
right to remain silent and to have competent
investigation for the commission of an offense
and independent counsel preferably of his own
shall have the right to remain silent and to have
choice. If the person cannot afford the services
competent and independent counsel preferably
of a counsel, he must be provided with one.
of his own choice. If the person cannot afford
These rights cannot be waived except in writing
the services of a counsel, he must be provided
and in the presence of counsel.”
with one. These rights cannot be waived except
in writing and in the presence of counsel.” People vs. Espiritu
Under the circumstances, Atty. Domingo cannot G.R. No. 128287
be considered as an independent counsel. He
was the mayor of Malolos at that time. As such Facts: The accused was convicted as charged for
he exercised “operational supervision and the crime of murder. The conviction was based
control” over the PNP unit in that municipality. mainly on his extrajudicial confession that he
As Mayor of Malolos his duties were was involved in the killing and even provided
inconsistent with those of his responsibilities to the details thereof. During said confession, he
appellant, who was already incarcerated and was assisted by Atty. Mangallay. However
tagged as the main suspect in the rape-slay during the trial, accused denied participation in
case. the killing and even assailed the admissibility of
his extrajudicial confession arguing among
Serving as counsel for appellant placed him in others that it was his uncle who chose his
direct conflict with his duty of “operation counsel and not of his own choice.
supervision and control” over the police.
Contrary to the Constitution which requires a ISSUE: Whether or not the extrajudicial
competent and independent counsel without confession by accused was admissible in
conflict of interest. Because it was established evidence.
that Atty. Domingo cannot be considered as an
RULING: Yes, the accused contention of counsel
independent counsel, the extrajudicial
deprivation due to the reason that it was his
confession that was taken from appellant is
counsel who chose his counsel for him was
thereby declared inadmissible in evidence by
unmeritorious. Because the fact remains that he
the court and ordered for the acquittal and
was represented by said counsel and he even
release of the incerated accused.
acknowledge Atty. Mangallay as his counsel.
Principle: Any person under custodial
It must be clarified that the right to counsel
investigation for the commission of an offense
does not mean that accused must personally
shall have the right to remain silent and to have
hire the counsel. The constitutional
competent and independent counsel
requirement is satisfied when a counsel is
preferably of his own choice
engaged by anyone acting on behalf of the
person under investigation or appointed by the
court upon petition of the said person or by
someone on his behalf.

Principle: It must be clarified that the right to

counsel does not mean that accused must
personally hire the counsel. The constitutional
requirement is satisfied when a counsel is
engaged by anyone acting on behalf of the
person under investigation or appointed by the
court upon petition of the said person or by
someone on his behalf.