10. People vs. Tomaquin G.R. No. 133188, July 23, 2004

Facts: The accused-appelant was charged with murder. On arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded “not guilty” to the charge, and trial thereafter ensued. After trial, accused was found guilty 

There were no eyewitnesses to the incident, and the prosecution’s evidence, aside from appellant’s extrajudicial confession, was mainly circumstantial. 

Said extrajudicial confession was given in the presence of a barangay captain who is also a lawyer. Appellant questions the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession because it was an uncounselled confession. Accused-appellant contends that the barangay captain, although a lawyer, may not be considered an independent counsel within the purview of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. 

Issue: Whether or not the extrajudicial confession executed by appellant, with the assistance of a barangay captain, is admissible in evidence against him. 

Held: No. Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides: 

(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 words “competent and independent counsel” in the constitutional provision is not an empty rhetoric. It stresses the need to accord the accused, under the uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial investigation, an informed judgment on the choices explained to him by a diligent and capable lawyer. 

A barangay captain is called upon to enforce the law and ordinances in his barangay and ensure peace and order at all times. 

In fact, a barangay captain is deemed a person in authority under Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit: 

ART. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority. – Who shall be deemed as such. – In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority. 

On these bases, it is not legally possible to consider the barangay captain as an independent counsel of appellant. 

In this case the role of the barangay captain, was a peacekeeping officer of his barangay and therefore in direct conflict with the role of providing competent legal assistance to appellant who was accused of committing a crime in his jurisdiction, the barangay captain could not be considered as an independent counsel of appellant, when the latter executed his extrajudicial confession. What the Constitution requires is the presence of an independent and competent counsel, one who will effectively undertake his client’s defense without any intervening conflict of interest. 

11. People vs. Lucero

Facts: Accused-appellant was convicted for robbery with homicide. While he was in custodial investigation the accused cannot afford a lawyer thus one was provided for him in the person of Atty. Peralta as his counsel. Counsel explained to the accused his constitutional rights but Atty. Peralta observed no reaction from the accused. He left to attend the wake of a friend and the police authorities started to take statements from the accused. Apparently during the custodial investigation no counsel was around while accused gave his extrajudicial confession which was used against him as evidence in court and merit his conviction.

When the investigator started asking the preliminary questions, Atty. Peralta left to attend the wake of his friend. The next morning, Lucero was accompanied by CIS agents to Atty. Peralta's house. The extrajudicial statement of Lucero was presented to Atty. Peralta. It was already signed by Lucero.

The next day, he learned he was in Camp Crame. He claimed that he was tortured. He was not informed of the offense for which he was being investigated. Neither did they reveal the identity of the complainant.

Lucero denied knowing Dr. Madrid, the Echavez brothers and the other accused in this case. He said he only met Dr. Madrid at the CIS Office during the police line-up. He was made to line-up four (4) times before Dr. Madrid finally identified him on the fourth time.

Lucero also claimed he signed the extrajudicial confession under duress. He denied engaging the services of Atty, Peralta. He likewise confirmed that Atty. Peralta was not present during his actual custodial interrogation.

After trial, the court a quo acquitted the Echavez brothers for insufficient evidence. The trial court, however, convicted accused Lucero GUILTY as principal by direct participation of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced to suffer an imprisonment term of RECLUSION PERPETUA.

Issue: Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the accused may be admissible during the trial.

Held: Appellant's conviction cannot be based on his extrajudicial confession.

Constitution requires that a person under investigation for the commission of a crime should be provided with counsel. The Court have constitutionalized the right to counsel because of hostility against the use of duress and other undue influence in extracting confessions from a suspect. Force and fraud tarnish confessions can render them inadmissible.

The records show that Atty. Peralta, who was not the counsel of choice of appellant. Atty. Peralta himself admitted he received no reaction from appellant although his impression was that appellant understood him. More so, it was during his absence that appellant gave an uncounselled confession.

Constitution requires the right to counsel, it did not mean any kind of counsel but effective and vigilant counsel. The circumstances clearly demonstrate that appellant received no effective counseling from Atty. Peralta.

Whereof, Decision convicting appellant Alejandro Lucero y Cortel is hereby reversed.

12. De la Torre vs. People GR 102786, 14 August 1998

Electric meters were being taken down from Merlaco posts. Patrol man proceeded with an investigation. Danilo Garcia, said he had seen at about 10:00 p.m. on April 11, 1989 four crewmembers in a MERALCO service truck, with the number 522 painted on its side, removing the electric meters. Acting on this lead, Enopia asked MERALCO for the identities of the men, one of whom turned out to be petitioner de la Torre. On July 4, 1989, the crewmembers were taken to the NPD headquarters for investigation. They were included in a line-up of eight (8) persons. Garcia pointed to petitioner de la Torre as the leader of the group which took down the electric meters from the CAPASSCO premises, but he did not recognize the three (3) other crewmembers.

He was found guilty of qualified theft by the trial court. CA affirmed the decision.

Issue: Petitioner de la Torre alleges violation of his constitutional rights under Art. III, §12 (1) of the Constitution which provides that "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." Petitioner de

la Torre claims he was not informed of his right to remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel during the investigation conducted on July 4, 1989 at the NPD headquarters, where the crewmembers of MERALCO service truck number 522 were presented in a police line-up. He further invokes the exclusionary rule in par. 3 of the same §12 that "any confession or admission obtained in violation of [this rule] shall be inadmissible in evidence against him."

Held: In Gamboa v. Cruz, 4 this Court ruled that "no custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel, engaged by the person arrested, or by any person in his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself, or by anyone in his behalf, and that, while the right may be waived, the waiver shall not be valid unless made in writing and in the presence of counsel." 5

However, this applies only from the moment the investigating officer begins to ask questions for the purpose of eliciting admissions, confessions, or any information from the accused. A police line-up is not considered part of any custodial inquest because it is conducted before that stage is reached. 6

In the instant case, petitioner de la Torre, together with the other crewmembers of MERALCO truck number 522, was merely included in a line-up of eight (8) persons from which he was picked out by Garcia as the leader of the group which had removed the electric meters from the CAPASSCO premises. Until then, the police investigation did not focus on petitioner. Indeed, no questions were put to him. Rather, the questions were directed to witnesses of the complainant. There is, therefore, no basis for petitioner's allegations that his rights as a suspect in a custodial interrogation were violated.