G.R. No. L-46027 September 15, 1978
Provincial Fiscal Josefino C. Draculan and 4th Assistant Provincial Fiscal Patricio T. Durian, petitioners, vs. Hon. Procoro J. Donato, District Judge, Court of First Instance of Isabela and Jaime Gumpal, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, provincial fiscals, sought to annul an order dated March 25, 1976, issued by respondent Judge Procoro J. Donato. The order ruled as inadmissible in evidence against the accused, Jaime Gumpal, in a murder case, an extra-judicial confession (Exhibit C) executed by Gumpal before PC Constable Jaime Senin. The trial court based its exclusion on the ground that the confession was obtained in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, which guarantees the right to remain silent and to counsel during custodial investigation.
The record shows that after his arrest for the killing of Florentino Arranzazo, Gumpal was detained and investigated. On February 3, 1974, he signed Exhibit C, a detailed confession in English admitting the crime. The introductory paragraph of this affidavit stated that the affiant was “apprised of his constitutional rights and explained to him the nature of this investigation, warned him that anything he may state herein may be used for or against him in any Court proceedings, he was also advise that he has the right to legal assistance and/or Counsel de oficio before answering questions profounded to him.” The investigating officer, Constable Senin, testified during the trial that he had apprised Gumpal of these rights before taking his statement.

ISSUE

Whether or not the extra-judicial confession (Exhibit C) of accused Jaime Gumpal is admissible as evidence against him, considering the warnings given to him prior to its execution.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the order of the trial court, ruling that the extra-judicial confession (Exhibit C) was admissible. The Court held that the warnings given to Gumpal substantially complied with the constitutional requirements under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. The affidavit’s preamble explicitly stated that Gumpal was warned anything he said could be used for or against him in court and that he had the right to legal assistance. This warning inherently encompassed and conveyed the right to remain silent. The constitutional right against self-incrimination includes the right to refuse to answer questions, and a warning that any statement may be used against the declarant is a practical and functional equivalent of informing him of his right to silence. The investigating officer’s testimony corroborated that these warnings were given. The confession was therefore not obtained through force, intimidation, or any method that vitiated free will. The trial judge erred in imposing a rigid, literal requirement for a separate and specific verbal formula regarding the right to remain silent. The Court emphasized that the substance of the protection, not its precise phraseology, is paramount. Since Gumpal was adequately informed of the consequences of speaking and his right to counsel, his voluntary confession was constitutionally obtained and admissible as evidence.