Case No.

891
REYES

Art. III Sec 12. Rights When Under Custodial Investigations ; Effective and vigilant counsel
defined
People v. Parojinog - 203 SCRA 673

FACTS: Parojinog et al were charge of triple murder on the basis on his confession to Governor
of Misamis Occidental. Appellant imputes involuntariness to said confession because he was
allegedly denied his constitutional right to counsel during his custodial investigation by the
police. He claims that the lawyer assigned to him did not actually attend the investigation as the
latter went out and that said lawyer was not his choice and was only forced on him.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant was denied his constitutional right to counsel during the
custodial investigation by the police.

RULING:NO. A person under investigation for the commission of an offense may choose
his own counsel but if he cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. While the initial choice of the lawyer in the latter case is naturally lodged in the police
investigators, the accused really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him
and ask for another one. In the instant case, the records show that no objection was voiced by
the accused throughout the entire proceedings of the investigation and afterwards. He had
consented that Atty. Fernando Fuentes III of the CLAO will be his lawyer who will help him.
After the investigation, appellant signed his extra-judicial investigation. Atty. Fuentes III also
signed the document

Case No. 892

REYES

Art. III Sec 12. Rights When Under Custodial Investigations ; Effective and vigilant counsel
defined
People v. Baello – 224 SCRA 218

FACTS: Baello was charged of Robbery with Homicide. After Baello was captured, he made an
oral admission of his participation in the commission of the crime. The accused admitted that he
cannot afford a counsel of his own so he was provided a PAO lawyer in which he didn’t object.
He later then claims that he was not granted the right to counsel since the lawyer was not of his
choice hence his admission is inadmissible.

ISSUE: W/N the right to counsel is violated since the lawyer who assisted the accused is not of
his choice?

RULING: NO. To accept the appellant's contention that he was in effect denied justice since
the counsel assigned to him was not really his choice is ridiculous. Every lawyer is
presumed to have knowledge of the law as well as the training in procedure sufficient to
enable him to protect his client. Furthermore, the accused was given sufficient time to choose
his own counsel had he opted to so. His failure, therefore, to request for another counsel negates
his claim of denial of the right to choose his lawyer. Although Atty. Generoso was not initially his
counsel of choice, the fact remains that after the accused was asked if he could afford the
services of counsel and he answered in the negative, he was informed that he would be
provided with one.
Case No. 893
REYES
Case No. 893
Art. III Sec 12. Rights When Under Custodial Investigations ; Effective and vigilant counsel
defined
Galman v. Pamaran – 138 SCRA 295

FACTS: To allow exhaustive investigation of the Benigno Aquino shooting tragedy, P.D. 1886
was promulgated creating an ad hoc Fact Finding Board, or the Agrava Board. Upon
arraignment, all the accused, including herein private Respondents pleaded NOT GUILTY.
Prosecution offered as part of its evidence, the individual testimonies of private respondents
before the Agrava Board.  The admissibility in evidence of the testimonies given by the
respondents who did not invoke their rights against self-incrimination before the Agrava Board
was questioned. 

ISSUE: W/N private respondents (General Ver and General Olivas) are entitled to the
constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel, and be informed that any and all statements
given by them may be used against them, even if they were not under custodial investigation.

RULING: Yes. When they testified, in light of the power of the Board to punish any refusal to
testify, they did not voluntarily waive their constitutional rights. It has been categorically
declared that a person detained for the commission of an offense undergoing investigation has a
right to be informed of his right to remain silent, to counsel, and to an admonition that any and
all statements to be given by him may be used against him. The use of the word "confession"
does not connote the idea that it applies only to police investigation, for although the
word "confession" is used, the protection covers not only "confessions" but also
"admissions" made. Whether under custody, or at liberty, what is sought to be avoided is the
evil of extorting from the very mouth of the person undergoing interrogation for the
commission of an offense, the very evidence with which to prosecute and thereafter convict him.

Case No. 894

REYES
Case No. 894
Art. III Sec 12. Rights When Under Custodial Investigations ; Effective and vigilant counsel
defined
People v. Jerez – 285 SCRA 393

FACTS: Jerez robbed and killed 2 Carabao Buyers. In the presence of Atty. Schneider, an
investigation was conducted. Jerez was found guilty of robbery with double homicide. Jerez now
assails the lower court for giving weight and credence to the extra-judicial statement, stating
that at the time of the taking thereof, he was assisted by an ineffectual counsel who could not
safeguard his constitutional rights and interest, and he was denied his right to have an
independent counsel of his own choice. 

ISSUE: W/N the Jerez’s constitutional right to an effective counsel was breached.

RULING: No. The records show that at the time the extrajudicial confession, Jerez disclosed to
the police that his counsel of choice was Atty. Venida, but that the latter would not be
available. Subsequently, Major Rosales suggested that Atty. Schneider, supposedly the only
lawyer available, appear as the counsel of appellant during investigation and the latter
answered in the affirmative. While the initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a person
under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer or where the
preferred lawyer is unavailable is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the
accused has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for
another one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where
he never raised any objection against the former’s appointment.
Case No. 895
REYES
Case No. 895
Art. III Sec 12. Rights When Under Custodial Investigations ; Effective and vigilant counsel
defined
People v. Ranis, GR 129113, Sept. 17, 2002

FACTS: Atty. Mateo was requested by a police officer to assist as counsel of all the accused in the
investigation. He introduced himself as a lawyer who would assist them in the investigation, and
all of them agreed. He informed of their rights. Throughout the investigation he assisted them
by reading and explaining their statements before being signed by them. Accused-Appellants
now contend that they were not represented by an effective and vigilant counsel during the
custodial investigation.

ISSUE: W/N appellants were not represented by an effective and vigilant counsel during the
custodial investigation.

RULING: No. First, accused did not say they had their own counsel. They never signified
their desire to have a lawyer of their own choice, at their own expense. Nor did they
manifest that they could not afford a lawyer’s services but they would prefer a lawyer of their
own. Nor did they object to be represented by Atty. Mateo, who is a fully qualified and licensed
member of the bar. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the
accused where the accused never raised any objection against the lawyer’s appointment
during the course of the investigation, and the accused thereafter subscribes to the
veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. Second, the records of the case would
show that appellants were adequately and ably represented by Atty. Mateo. 

Case No. 896

REYES
Case No. 896
Art. III Sec 12. Rights When Under Custodial Investigations ; Effective and vigilant counsel
defined
People v. Dumalahay, 380 SCRA 37

FACTS: At their arraignment, the 3 accused entered a plea of not guilty of the illegal sale of
firearms. Trial court found them guilty of double murder. In view of the imposition of the death
penalty, these cases are now before the SC on automatic review. Accused-appellant argues that
his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence because it was obtained by means of
duress, and the lawyer who assisted him during the investigation was provided by the police.

ISSUE: W/N appellant was denied his right to an effective and vigilant counsel.

RULING: No. The sworn confessions of the three accused show that they were properly
apprised of their right to remain silent and right to counsel, in accordance with the
constitutional guarantee. The three accused wanted to engage Atty. Ubay-ubay’s services. All
of the accused, still accompanied by Atty. Ubay-ubay, subscribed and swore to their respective
written confessions. No ill-motive was imputed on the lawyer to testify falsely against the
accused. Their participation in these cases merely involved the performance of their
legal duties as officers of the court.
Case No. 897
REYES
Case No. 897
Art. III Sec 12. Rights When Under Custodial Investigations ; Effective and vigilant counsel
defined
People v. Pamon – 217 SCRA 501

FACTS: Pamon, in the presence of Atty. Ligorio of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO),
executed a Confession admitting that he shot and killed one Robert Te. This extrajudicial
confession was subscribed and sworn to before the Judge. The trial court convicted the accused.
Pamon repudiated his Confession during trial claiming, among others, that he was not assisted
by counsel during his investigation considering, according to him, that his supposed counsel,
Atty. Ligorio, arrived in said office when his Confession was already prepared.

ISSUE: W/N the extrajudicial confession of accused-appellant is inadmissible for being violative

of the guarantee that a person under investigation has the right to be assisted by an
independent counsel of his own choice. 

RULING: No. The Court is well aware of the constitutional mandate that the counsel present
must not be just any counsel, but one who has been chosen by the accused. No in-custody
investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the
person arrested, by any person in his behalf or appointed by the court upon petition
either of the detainee himself or by someone in his behalf. Where the counsel has been
appointed by the investigators with the conformity of the confessant, the latter's
confession is considered as valid and binding upon him. While it may be that a lawyer was
provided by the police, appellant never signified to have a lawyer of his choice.

Reyes
Case No. 898
Art. III Sec 12. Rights When Under Custodial Investigations ; Effective and vigilant counsel
defined
People v. Cabiles
FACTS
The accused states that his sworn statement containing a confession to the commission of the
crime was forced by the policemen at the station to execute the same. He did not read it and was
just forced to sign it. He was not assisted by counsel during that time.

ISSUE
Whether or not the written confession made by the accused was proper

RULING/MP
No. An admission made without the assistance of counsel during custodial investigation is
inadmissible in evidence, even if the confession of an accused speaks the truth. An
uncounselled extrajudicial confession without a valid waiver of the right to counsel that is, in
writing and in the presence of counsel—is inadmissible in evidence 

Reyes
Case No. 899
Art. III Sec 12. Rights When Under Custodial Investigations ; Effective and vigilant counsel
defined
People v Gallardo
FACTS
Accused was held by TC guilty of murder. Accused assailed the decision allegedly due to failure
of investigator to inform them of their rights during their extrajudicial confession and that the
signed statements of the accused being procured in violation of Article III Section 12 (1) of the
Constitution because he did not know his counsel.

ISSUE
Whether or not the lawyer of an accused during custodial investigation must be previously
known to him

RULING/MP
NO. There is no requirement in the Constitution that the lawyer of an accused during
custodial investigation be previously known to them. The Constitution provides that the
counsel be a competent and independent counsel, who will represent the accused and protect
their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Also “to be an effective counsel, a lawyer need not challenge all the questions being propounded
to his client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything
which might incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the
slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false

Reyes
Case No. 900
Article III Section 12 – Rights under Custodial Investigation; Right to Counsel; Effective
and Vigilant Counsel Defined
People v. Base
FACTS
During custodial investigation, Base executed a written sworn statement with the assistance of
Atty. Reyes. RTC subsequently found him guilty of murder. Base argued that RTC erred in
convicting claiming that he does not know Atty Reyes who assisted him thus violating his
right to counsel.

ISSUE
Whether or not the sworn statement is inadmissible in evidence because it was executed in
violation of his constitutional right to counsel of his own choice

RULING/MP
No. The word "preferably" under the Constitution does not convey the message that the choice
of a lawyer by a person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally
competent and independent attorneys from handling his defense. If the rule were
otherwise, then, the tempo of a custodial investigation will be solely in the hands of the accused
who can impede, nay, obstruct the progress of the interrogation by simply selecting a lawyer
who for one reason or another, is not available to protect his interest.