GR 79543; (October, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 79543 October 16, 1996
JOSE D. FILOTEO, JR., petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose D. Filoteo, Jr., a police officer, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of brigandage for the 1982 hijacking of a postal delivery van in Meycauayan, Bulacan. The prosecution evidence established that an armed group, including some military personnel, stopped the van, intimidated its crew, and carted away checks and mail matters. Filoteo was implicated as a mastermind. His custodial investigation occurred in 1983, during which he executed extrajudicial confessions. He later recanted, claiming the confessions were extracted through torture and that his waiver of the right to counsel was uncounselled.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) whether the constitutional rule requiring a written waiver of the right to counsel in the presence of counsel applies retroactively to Filoteo’s 1983 investigation; (2) the validity of his arrest and extrajudicial confession; (3) the sufficiency of evidence for conviction; and (4) the proper characterization of the crime committed.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the offense from brigandage to robbery. The constitutional proscription against uncounselled waivers, being a procedural right, does not apply retroactively to investigations conducted before the 1987 Constitution ’s effectivity. Filoteo’s investigation in 1983 was governed by the 1973 Constitution, which did not contain such a specific waiver requirement. His claim of torture was unsubstantiated, and the confessions were deemed voluntary. The Court found the totality of evidence, including credible testimonies and corroborating details, sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the Court motu proprio corrected the crime charged. The elements of brigandage under the Revised Penal Code were not met, as the evidence did not conclusively prove that the accused formed a band “for the purpose of committing robbery or other crimes” as a habitual activity. The facts properly constituted the crime of robbery under Article 293, in relation to Article 295, of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by the use of firearms on a highway. The designation of the offense in the information is not controlling; it is the actual facts proven that determine the crime. Consequently, the penalty was adjusted to conform to the provisions for qualified robbery.