GR 118866; (October, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118866-68 September 17, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO DE LA CRUZ, alias RODOLFO DOMINGO or “OMPONG,” accused-appellant.
FACTS
On June 23, 1992, the bodies of Teodorico M. Laroya, Jr. and his children, Karen Verona and John Lester, were discovered in their residence in Cainta, Rizal, each with multiple stab wounds and a knife still embedded in their bodies, with Karen showing signs of sexual assault. The accused-appellant, Rodolfo de la Cruz, brother-in-law of Teodorico, was apprehended by police on June 27, 1992. SPO1 Carlos R. Atanacio, Jr. interrogated him, claiming that before questioning, appellant was fully informed of his constitutional rights in the presence of his supposed counsel, Atty. Lorenza Bernardino-Villanueva, and subsequently signed an extrajudicial confession detailing the murders. At trial, appellant, who had a speech impediment and limited education, repudiated this confession. He testified that he was never assisted by counsel of his choice, never met Atty. Villanueva, was tortured into signing the confession, and had left the victims alive on the night of the crime. The trial court convicted him of multiple murder based on the confession and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the extrajudicial confession of the accused-appellant is admissible as evidence, given the alleged violations of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation.
RULING
The extrajudicial confession is inadmissible. The Court found that the police failed to comply with the constitutional safeguards under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution. SPO1 Atanacio, Jr. admitted that the investigation commenced while appellant was without counsel and that he failed to inform appellant that if he could not afford a lawyer, one would be provided for him. The record was also devoid of evidence on how appellant engaged the services of Atty. Villanueva, casting doubt on her independence and the voluntariness of the waiver. The confession was obtained in violation of appellant’s right to be informed of all his rights and to have competent and independent counsel, rendering it inadmissible under the Constitution. Without the confession, the remaining evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was reversed, and accused-appellant Rodolfo de la Cruz was acquitted.