G.R. No.

103499 December 29, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
REY DENIEGA y MACOY, and HOYLE DIAZ y URNILLO, defendants-appellants.

KAPUNAN, J.:

The naked body of Marlyn Canoy was found on a heap of garbage in an ill-frequented back corner on the
left side of the Mt. Carmel Church in New Manila, Quezon City. Her hands were tied behind her back by a
shoestring and pieces of her own clothing. The body bore thirty nine (39) stab wounds. There was evidence
that she had been brutally assaulted, physically and sexually, before she was murdered.
Police authorities investigating the gruesome crime on August 31, 1989, arrested Rey Daniega y Macoy on
information that the victim was last seen with Daniega, 1 a waiter at the Gathering Disco where Canoy used
to work. Friends of Canoy volunteered the information that the former had just broken off from a stormy
relationship with Daniega. 2The latter, it was bruited, 3 desperately tried to patch up the relationship.
Following the latter's arrest, and on the basis of a confession obtained by police authorities from him during
custodial investigation (where he allegedly admitted raping and killing Canoy), 4 appellant Hoyle Diaz y
Urnillo was invited by the investigators for questioning. A second sworn statement, substantially similar and
corroborating many of the details of Daniega's sworn affidavit, was later extracted from Diaz. In the said
statement, Diaz admitted his participation in the rape of Canoy, but denied that he had something to do with
the victim's death. 5
Armed with the said extra-judicial confessions, an Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City, 6 charging petitioners with the crime of Rape with Homicide
At trial, the confessions obtained by law enforcement authorities during their (separate) custodial
investigations formed the centerpiece of the prosecution's case for Rape with Homicide against both
accused. 7 These confessions allegedly disclosed details of the killing.

In their defense, appellants, during the course of the trial, vehemently denied the claim that they had
voluntarily executed the said confessions. 9 Appellants Daniega and Diaz went to the extent of seeking
the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation, and there executed a sworn statement to the effect
that their respective confessions were coerced and obtained through torture. 10 Both testified that they
were subjected to electrocution and water treatment. They contended that they were arrested without
warrants of arrest and that the confessions obtained from them immediately thereafter were made
without the assistance of counsel.
The lower court, on August 31, 1991 rendered its Decision convicting the accused-appellants of the crime of
Rape with Homicide. In dismissing appellant's principal defense that their confessions were obtained in
violation of their constitutional rights, the trial court held that:
The court finds it hard to believe that (Atty. Sansano and Atty. Rous), both of whom are officers of the Legal
Aid Committee of the IBP and are prominent practitioners of great integrity, would act as the accused said
they did. The two counsels testified that they precisely segregated the accused from their police escorts to
cull out the truth and the accused volunteered to confess to the crime at bar.

Issue:
Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting the appellants based on their extrajudicial
confession.

Held:
The court held that under rules laid down by the Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence, a
confession to be admissible must satisfy all of four fundamental requirements: 1) the confession must be
voluntary 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent
counsel; 3) the confession must be express and 4) the confession must be in writing.
 The court noted that the assistance of a counsel provided for the accused was inadequate to meet the
standard requirements of the constitution for custodial investigation. It seems that the lawyers were not
around throughout the custodial investigation. Citing People vs Javar, the court reiterated that any
statement obtained in violation of the constitutional provision, or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Even if the confession speaks the truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it becomes
inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.
Thus, because of these defects in observing the proper procedural requirements of the constitution on
custodial investigation the accused-appellants were acquitted.

247 People vs. Labtan [GR 127493, 8 December 1999]

Facts:

On 28 March 1993, at more or less 10:30 p.m. while inside a motor vehicle in the national highway at
Barangay Agusan up to the road at Camaman-an, all of Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, Henry Feliciano y
Lagura and Orlando Labtan y Daquihon took away, through intimdation or violence, cash amounting to
P720.00, pioneer stereo, booster and twitters owned by and belonging to Roman S. Mercado, and a Seiko
Diver wristwatch owned by Ismael P. Ebon, all in all amounting to P10,800.00.
Later on, on or about 16 April 1993, at about 2:30 p.m., more or less, at Buntong, Camaman-an, Cagayan
de Oro City, Philippines, Feliciano, Orlando Labtan, and Jonelto Labtan robbed Florentino Bolasito of P30 in
cash money. In the course thereof, Orlando and Jonelto Labtan stabbed Bolasito to death.
On 23 April 1993, an information was filed against Feliciano, Orlando Labtan, and Jonelto Labtan charging
them with robbery with homicide (as per 16 April 1993 incident).
Subsequently, another information dated 20 May 1993 was filed against Feliciano and Orlando Labtan
charging them with highway robbery (as per 28 March 1993 incident). Only Feliciano pleaded not guilty to
the two charges. Orlando Labtan had escaped the Maharlika Rehabilitation and Detention Center in
Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City where he was detained while Jonelto Labtan has eluded arrest. The two
cases were tried together.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25 found Feliciano guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as principal by direct participation in the crime of robbery with homicide
The trial court also found Feliciano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of highway robbery
The trial court convicted Feliciano on the basis of his sworn which he repudiated during the trial.

Issue:
Whether or not the sworn-statement executed by accused Feliciano in theabsence of a competent
counsel of his choice, is admissible in evidence.
Whether the counselling of Atty. Pepito Chavez to Feliciano cured the initial lack of counsel.

Held:

Under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, the rights of persons under custodial investigation are
provided as follows:

(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.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall
be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible against him.
 At that point, accused-appellant had been subjected to custodial investigation without a counsel. In Navallo
v. Sandiganbayan 15, we said that a person is deemed under custodial investigation where the police
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has began to focus on a particular
suspect who had been taken into custody by the police who carry out a process of interrogation that lends
itself to elicit incriminating statements.

The prosecution tried to establish that Atty. Pepito Chavez provided effective and independent counselling to
accused-appellant Feliciano which cured the initial lack of counsel. However, this is belied by the very
testimony of Atty. Chavez showing he performed his duty in a lackadaisical fashion.

The right to counsel is a fundamental right and contemplates not a mere presence of the lawyer beside the
accused.

Atty. Chavez did not provide the kind of counselling required by the Constitution. He did not explain to
accused-appellant the consequences of his action that the sworn statement can be used against him and
that it is possible that he could be found guilty and sent to jail.

We also find that Atty. Chavez's independence as counsel is suspect he is regularly engaged by the
Cagayan de Oro City Police as counsel de officio for suspects who cannot avail the services of counsel. He
even received money from the police as payment for his services:

We also find the fact that Atty. Chavez notarized the sworn statement seriously compromised his
independence. By doing so, he vouched for the regularity of the circumstances surrounding the taking of the
sworn statement by the police. He cannot serve as counsel of the accused and the police at the same time.
There was a serious conflict of interest on his part. 22

On the charge of robbery with homicide, the only evidence presented by the prosecution was the sworn
statement which we have found inadmissible. Thus, we are forced to absolve accused-appellant of this
charge. With respect to the charge of highway robbery, the prosecution presented the testimony of Ismael
Ebon. However, Ebon failed to identify Feliciano as the perpetrator when he reported to the police
immediately after the incident.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the trial court is SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Henry Feliciano is
ACQUITTED on both charges of robbery with homicide and highway robbery due to lack of evidence to
sustain a conviction.