People vs.

Continente – 339 SCRA 1 (2000)

FACTS:

Donato Continente, Juanito Itaas, et al were implicated in the killing of US Col James N Rowe and for
seriously wounding Joaquin Vinuya. While in custodial investigation Donato and Juanito were presented
with a Paliwanag wherein it enumerated their rights during a custodial investigation, informed them
what the Paliwanag is all about that is it referred to the ambush of US Col James Rowe of the JUSMAG.
The paliwanag also informed him of his right to remain silent or refrain from giving statement. Or if he
chose to give statement, it can be used in favor to or against him. It also informed him of his right to
counsel preferably of his own choice, or if he cannot find one, a counsel will be provided for him by the
government. And then, the Paliwanag also explained to them that they have the right to be explained
and enlightened about their custodial rights.

Then, the Paliwanag went on to proceed by asking them whether they understood its contents, they
answered yes, and so on and so forth.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the waivers of the constitutional rights during custodial investigation by the appellants
were valid.

RULING:

The rights of the accused during custodial investigation are enshrined in Article III, Section 12 (1) of
the 1987 Constitution which provides that:

"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 rights to remain silent and to counsel may be waived by the accused provided that the
constitutional requirements are complied with. It must appear clear that the accused was initially
accorded his right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have a competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. In addition, the waiver must be in writing and in
the presence of counsel. If the waiver complies with the constitutional requirements, then the
extrajudicial confession will be tested for voluntariness, i. e., if it was given freely-without coercion,
31

intimidation, inducement, or false promises; and credibility, i.e., if it was consistent with the normal
32

experience of mankind.

We have consistently declared in a string of cases that the advice or "Paliwanag" found at the
beginning of extrajudicial confessions that merely enumerate to the accused his custodial rights do
not meet the standard provided by law. They are terse and perfunctory statements that do not evince
a clear and sufficient effort to inform and explain to the appellant his constitutional rights. We
36

emphasized that when the constitution requires a person under investigation "to be informed" of his
rights to remain silent and to have an independent and competent counsel preferably of his own
choice, it must be presumed to contemplate the transmission of meaningful information rather than
just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. In other words,
37

the right of a person under investigation "to be informed" implies a correlative obligation on the part
of the police investigator to explain, and contemplates an effective communication that results in
understanding of what is conveyed. Short of this, there is a denial of the right.