G.R. No. L-38000 September 19, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIOSDADO COMENDADOR, accused-appellant.

FACTS

This is an automatic review of a death penalty conviction for Robbery with Homicide. The accused, Diosdado Comendador, pleaded guilty before the trial court despite judicial admonition. To ascertain the circumstances, the prosecution presented evidence. Edilberto Zaragoza testified that his son, the victim Jungie, was accompanied to Cebu by the accused, a family helper, after the accused warned of dangers traveling alone. Dolores Reponte witnessed the accused and the victim together near a remote area in Toledo City on October 25, 1973, before the victim’s body was later discovered. Angelo Obenque testified that the accused arrived at his house that same afternoon with a wristwatch and a travel bag, later identified as the victim’s, and was seen drying wet clothes and money. Police investigation confirmed the discovery of the victim’s body in a forested area with a fatal weapon nearby. The accused was subsequently apprehended, and he surrendered items belonging to the victim. He also executed an extrajudicial confession before a Special Counsel, admitting the crime due to dire financial need, after being informed of his rights but without the assistance of counsel.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the accused’s extrajudicial confession, taken without the assistance of counsel, is admissible as evidence against him.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court ruled the extrajudicial confession inadmissible. Following the doctrine established in People vs. Caguioa, a waiver of the constitutional right to counsel must be clear, intelligent, and voluntary. The confession indicated the accused was informed of his rights and stated he did not need a lawyer. However, the prosecution failed to prove this waiver was given freely and voluntarily, especially as the questioning was perfunctory and conducted while the accused was in police custody without counsel. The Court emphasized the grave danger of official lawlessness when detained persons are interrogated without counsel, making such confessions inherently suspect. Nevertheless, the conviction stands based on other sufficient evidence. The accused’s plea of guilty, entered freely and with understanding of its consequences, coupled with the strong circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including witness testimonies placing him with the victim and in possession of the victim’s properties immediately after the crime—proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, as the requisite votes for its affirmance were not obtained. The indemnity to the victim’s heirs was increased to P30,000.00.