G.R. No. 132154 ; June 29, 2000
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pacito Ordoño y Negranza alias Asing and Apolonio Medina y Nosuelo alias Poling, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves the rape and homicide of 15-year-old Shirley Victore. Her decomposing body was discovered on August 5, 1994. Unidentified sources pointed to appellants Pacito Ordoño and Apolonio Medina. Initially released after questioning for lack of evidence, they voluntarily returned to the police station on August 10, 1994, and admitted to the crime. Their extrajudicial confessions were taken with the Parish Priest, the Municipal Mayor, and the Chief of Police present as witnesses. They were informed of their rights in their dialect and stated they understood them and did not require a lawyer. Their confessions detailed a coordinated attack where they took turns raping the victim before strangling her with a vine. These confessions, along with a subsequent tape-recorded media interview where they again admitted guilt, formed the core of the prosecution’s case. The trial court convicted them of rape with homicide and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the extrajudicial confessions of the accused, taken without the assistance of counsel, are admissible as evidence to sustain their conviction.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused. The Court held the confessions inadmissible for violating constitutional and statutory rights on custodial investigation. While the accused were informed of their rights and the confessions were witnessed by reputable persons, the absence of competent and independent counsel during the questioning rendered the confessions void. The law mandates that a person under custodial investigation must be provided with counsel, who must be present throughout the interrogation. The right to counsel cannot be waived except in writing and with the assistance of counsel. The investigators’ failure to secure a lawyer, despite the logistical challenge of finding one in a remote municipality, was not a valid excuse. The subsequent tape-recorded media interview was also deemed inadmissible as it was a continuation of the custodial investigation without the required safeguards. With the confessions excluded, the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to present any other evidence directly linking the appellants to the crime. Consequently, the constitutional presumption of innocence prevailed.