People vs.

Guillermo, GR 147786 Jan 20, 2004

Facts:

On March 22, 1998, Guillermo was arrested by police officers after he positively
admitted

to the witness, Campos, he had just killed his employer, Victor Francisco Keyser, and asked for

his help to dispose of his body.

During custodial investigation, the appellant was not apprised of

his constitutional rights, nor was he afforded a counsel. Appellant made a confession to the

police that he committed the crime. He also confessed to the media on two separate occasions

that he killed his employer. But during trial he recanted his confession. However, the Trial Court

found him guilty and sentenced him to death. Hence, this was committed for automatic review

before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

If it‟s Sunday and no lawyer is available, can this right be waived?

Ruling:

No. The record does not show that appellant had waived his constitutional rights in

writing and in the presence of counsel. Article III Section 12(1) of the Constitution provides that

an admissible confession must satisfy the following requisites: that the confession must be

(a) voluntary;

(b) made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel;

(c) express; and

(d) in writing.

The records clearly show that the requisites were not complied with. Even if the

admission or confession of an accused is gospel truth, even if it was voluntarily given, is still

inadmissible if it was made without the assistance of counsel (People v. Dano, G.R. No. 117690,

1 September 2000, 339 SCRA 515, 527). However, failing to prove treachery, the appellant was

still found guilty of homicide, because he made a spontaneous confession on several occasions

admitting his guilt