G.R. No. L-68409 December 1, 1987
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Roger Fernando y Bazan, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Roger Fernando, then nineteen years old, was arrested in Zamboanga City on October 28, 1983, for allegedly selling two plastic wrappers of marijuana leaves to a civilian informer of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM). The sale was allegedly witnessed by NARCOM agents who then apprehended him and confiscated marked money and additional marijuana sticks. Following his arrest, Fernando was taken to the NARCOM office where, after a five-hour investigation conducted without the assistance of counsel, he signed and later swore to an extrajudicial confession. He was subsequently tried, convicted for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act, and sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine, and costs.
During the trial, Fernando repudiated his confession, claiming it was extracted through force and violence. He testified that he was manhandled by the agents but did not report this out of fear. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on this extrajudicial confession and the testimonies of the NARCOM agents. The defense, while weak and consisting mainly of denials, challenged the admissibility of the confession and the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative of the buy-bust operation.

ISSUE

Whether the extrajudicial confession of the accused is admissible as evidence, and whether the prosecution has proven his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered the immediate release of the accused. The Court held that the extrajudicial confession was inadmissible in evidence due to a fatal failure to comply with the constitutional rights of an accused under custodial investigation. The preliminary exchange between the investigator and Fernando was a mere perfunctory recitation of his rights to remain silent and to counsel. The rights were communicated but not explained, and no meaningful waiver was obtained. Critically, the waiver was not made with the assistance of counsel, as expressly required by Section 12 of the Bill of Rights and established jurisprudence (People v. Galit). The confession, being the product of an uncounseled investigation lasting several hours, was therefore inadmissible.
With the confession excluded, the remaining evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence feeble and the testimonies of the agents regarding the buy-bust operation lacking in credibility. The defense, though weak, did not strengthen the prosecution’s case. The constitutional presumption of innocence prevails unless overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the prosecution failed to meet this stringent standard. Consequently, Fernando’s guilt was not proven to the required moral certainty, warranting his acquittal.