 Rights of People Under Custodial Investigation

G.R. No. 117487 December 12, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNEL ALICANDO y BRIONES,
accused-appellant.
FACTS:
The records reveal that accused-appellant Arnel Alicando was convicted with the crime of rape
with homicide, and sentenced to suffer death penalty. Alicando appealed the decision of the trial
court stating that pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution were inadmissible. They
assailed that said inadmissible evidence were gathered by the police as a result of custodial
interrogation where Alicando confessed the crime without the benefit of counsel.

ISSUE:

Whether the evidence obtained through accused-appellant’s uncounseled verbal confession

may be admitted in evidence.

RULING:

The Court ruled that the Constitution has stigmatized as inadmissible evidence uncounselled
confession or admission. Section 12 paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution
provides: xxx xxx xxx Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and
to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

The burden to prove that an accused waived his right to remain silent and the right to counsel
before making a confession under custodial interrogation rests with the prosecution. It is also
the burden of the prosecution to show that the evidence derived from confession is not
tainted as "fruit of the poisonous tree." The burden has to be discharged by clear and
convincing evidence. Indeed, par. 1 of Section 12 of Article III of the Constitution provides
only one mode of waiver — the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel. In
the case at bar, the records show that the prosecution utterly failed to discharge this burden.

In the case at bar, PO3 Tan did not even have the simple sense to reduce the all important
confession of the appellant in writing. Neither did he present any writing showing that
appellant waived his right to silence and to have competent and independent counsel despite
the blatant violation of appellant's constitutional right, the trial court allowed his uncounselled
confession to flow into the records and illicitly used it in sentencing him to death.

It is not only the uncounselled confession that is condemned as inadmissible, but also
evidence derived therefrom. The pillow and the T-shirt with the alleged bloodstains were
evidence derived from the uncounselled confession illegally extracted by the police from the
appellant.