People vs Tan

G.R. No. 117321. February 11, 1998

Facts:Accused-appellant Herson Tan, along with Lito Amido, were charged with the crime of highway robbery with murder before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 62, of Gumaca, Quezon Province.

Issue: WON a confession of an accused given before a police investigator upon invitation and without the benefit of counsel, be admissible in evidence against him.

Held: It is well-settled that the Constitution abhors an uncounselled confession or admission and whatever information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as inadmissible in evidence against the confessant. Article III, Section 12, paragraphs (1) and (3) of the Constitution provides:

x x x x x x x x x

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.

x x x x x x x x x

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible against him.

Republic Act No. 7438 (R.A. No. 7438),[4] approved on May 15, 1992, reenforced the constitutional mandate protecting the rights of persons under custodial investigation, a pertinent provision[5] of which reads:

As used in this Act, custodial investigation shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any violation of law.

Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. The rules on custodial investigation begin to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that tends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate.[6]

Furthermore, not only does the fundamental law impose, as a requisite function of the investigating officer, the duty to explain those rights to the accused but also that there must correspondingly be a meaningful communication to and understanding thereof by the accused. A mere perfunctory reading by the constable of such rights to the accused would thus not suffice.[7]

Under the Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing.[8]

While the Constitution sanctions the waiver of the right to counsel, it must, however, be voluntary, knowing and intelligent, and must be made in the presence and with the assistance of counsel.[9] To reiterate, in People v. Javar,[10] it was ruled therein that any statement obtained in violation of the constitution, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence. Even if the confession contains a grain of 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.

The evidence for the prosecution shows that when appellant was invited for questioning at the police headquarters, he allegedly admitted his participation in the crime. This will not suffice to convict him, however, of said crime. The constitutional rights of appellant, particularly the right to remain silent and to counsel, are impregnable from the moment he is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, even if the same be initiated by mere invitation. This Court values liberty and will always insist on the observance of basic constitutional rights as a condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative and prosecutory powers of government.[12]

What remains of the evidence for the prosecution is inadequate to warrant a conviction. Considering the circumstances attendant in the conduct of appellants investigation which fell short of compliance with constitutional safeguards, we are constrained to acquit the appellant.

#PeoplevsTanCaseDigest