G.R.No. 117321 Case Digest

G.R.No. 117321 February 11, 1998

People of the Philippines

vs Herson Tan y Verzo

Ponente: Romero

Facts:

Tan, along with amido were charged with the crime of highway robbery with muder before RTC-QC.On arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. December 5, 1988,7pm, tricycle driver Freddie Saavedra, went to see his wife to informe her that he will drive the accused to Brgy. Maligaya. It was the last time he was seen alive.

Then, an abandoned sidecar of a ricycle was found in Brgy. Malinao which was brought back to the headquarters. The police officers, invited Tan in connectiono with the instant case with respect to the two robbery cases reported in Lucena Ciity. Tan, narrated that Amido and him were responsible for the loss of the motorcycle and death of Saavedra. That they sold the motorcycle to Danny Teves.Teves voluntarily surrendered the motorcycle.

On cross-examination, Lt. Carlos testified that he invited Tan to the headquarters, without warrant, he did not inform Tan of his rights to remain silent and counsel, nor did he reduce the confession to writing. Tan alleged that he had no participation in the offense charged. Amido presented an alibi that he was assisting the renovation of his mother's house at the time of the incident. Tan assails the conviction despite failure of the prosecution to positively identify him as culprit. In light of the above facts and circumstances, the appealed decision is set aside and appellant acquitted on the ground that his constitutional rights were violated.

Issue: May the confession of the accused, given before the police investigator upon invitation and without benefit of counsel be admissible against him?

Ruling:

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.  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.

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.

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.