G.R. No. L-47753 July 25, 1978
ANTONIO CUDIAMAT y ANGANGAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. EMILIO A. GANCAYCO, VENICIO ESCOLIN, and LORENZO RELOVA (JUSTICES OF COURT OF APPEALS, 7th Division) respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonio Cudiamat was convicted of homicide by the Court of Appeals and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. The conviction was based, in part, on an extrajudicial confession he executed on December 16, 1963, before Municipal Judge Francisco Camarillo. In that confession, Cudiamat admitted to killing Benjamin Angangan. The petitioner did not have the assistance of counsel during the taking of this confession.
Cudiamat filed this petition for review, arguing primarily that his confession is inadmissible as evidence. He invoked the constitutional right against self-incrimination, specifically the provision under the 1973 Constitution which guarantees the right to remain silent and to counsel during custodial investigation and renders confessions obtained in violation thereof inadmissible. He contended that since his confession was presented in evidence after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, it should be excluded.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the extrajudicial confession executed by the petitioner in 1963, without the assistance of counsel, is admissible as evidence against him, considering the constitutional provisions on custodial investigation that took effect in 1973.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the constitutional right to counsel during custodial investigation, as enshrined in the 1973 Constitution, has prospective application only. This rule was established in the case of Magtoto v. Manguerra. The constitutional mandate applies solely to confessions obtained after its effectivity on January 17, 1973.
Since Cudiamat’s confession was obtained on December 16, 1963—long before the 1973 Constitution took effect—it remains admissible in evidence. The fact that it was presented in court after January 17, 1973, does not retroactively invalidate it. The Court emphasized that no law prior to the 1973 Constitution granted an accused the right to be informed of his right to counsel during investigation.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals found as a fact that the confession was voluntarily given. The municipal judge testified that he read and translated the statement to Cudiamat in the Ilocano dialect, and the petitioner swore to its truthfulness before signing. The judge even propounded additional clarificatory questions, which were incorporated into the statement. This factual finding on voluntariness is binding and entitled to respect. The petitioner’s claim of self-defense was also properly rejected by the appellate court, as the number and nature of the wounds inflicted on the victim were inconsistent with such a defense. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals stands.