PEOPLE V.

TAN
FACTS:
Accused Tan was invited by the PNP in connection with the discovery of Freddie Saavedra’s
lifeless body on a diversion road. He allegedly gave an explicit account of what actually transpired and
narrated that he and Lito Amido were responsible for the loss of motorcycle and the consequent
death of Saavedra. There was no warrant and accused was not informed of his constitutional rights.
Amido, on the other hand, presented alibi as his defense, the victim being his friend, and therefore,
he could not have participated in the gruesome death of the latter. Tan was found guilty of the crime
of highway robbery with murder by the RTC, while Amido was acquitted due to insufficiency of
evidence.

ISSUE:
WON Tan’s constitutional rights were violated.

RULING:
Yes. It is well-settled that the Constitution abhors uncounselled confession or admission and
whatever information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as inadmissible in evidence against the
confessant. A confession to be admissible must be voluntary, made with the assistance of competent
and independent counsel, express and in writing. On the occasion that there is a waiver of the right to
counsel, the same must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent and made in the presence and with the
assistance of counsel. The records of the case do not indicate the appellant was assisted by counsel
when he made such waiver, a finding evident in the testimony of Lt. Santos on cross-examination.