GR 107534; (August, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 107534 August 21, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAUL CABINTOY y INTONG and CELSO FERNANDO y ANO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Raul Cabintoy and Celso Fernando were charged with robbery with homicide for the killing of taxi driver Wilfredo Diaz on May 24, 1991. The police investigation at the crime scene recovered a butcher’s knife and noted a blood trail, suggesting a wounded suspect. Inquiry at a local slaughterhouse led butchers to identify the knife as one frequently used by Fernando. Acting on a tip, police arrested Cabintoy and Fernando in Manila. At the police station, Cabintoy, with the assistance of Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) lawyer Atty. Benjamin Pozon, executed a sworn confession implicating himself and Fernando. Fernando also confessed, though Atty. Pozon was merely present and not formally assisting him during this statement. Both appellants later recanted, claiming the confessions were coerced and executed without proper legal assistance.
ISSUE
Whether the extrajudicial confessions of the accused-appellants are admissible as evidence against them.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused-appellants. The Court held that the confessions were inadmissible for violating constitutional rights during custodial investigation. For Cabintoy, while a PAO lawyer was present, the waiver of the right to counsel and the confession itself were taken on the same day, raising serious doubt as to whether the waiver was truly informed and voluntary, given the rapid sequence of events. For Fernando, the violation was more explicit; he made his confession without the assistance of counsel, and the mere presence of Atty. Pozon, who was not acting as his lawyer, did not satisfy the constitutional requirement for competent and independent counsel. The Constitution mandates that any person under custodial investigation must be informed of their right to remain silent and to counsel, and that any waiver of these rights must be made in writing and with the assistance of counsel. These safeguards were not meticulously observed. Without the invalid confessions, the remaining evidence—principally the hearsay identification of the knife by fellow butchers—was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with custodial investigation rights is indispensable, and failure to do so renders any obtained evidence inadmissible.