GR 71662; (May, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 71662 May 8, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO DACOYCOY y IGAR @ Danny, ANGELES LATOGA y LAGCO @ Ely and Angel, and JOHN DOE @ Sonny, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused Angeles Latoga y Lagco, Danilo Dacoycoy, and a John Doe were indicted for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide of Edilberto Lisondra y Benitez. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Latoga and Dacoycoy guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, with indemnities. Dacoycoy later withdrew his appeal. The prosecution had no eyewitnesses to the crime. The only evidence linking the accused were their extrajudicial confessions (Exhibits A and B), which were executed without the assistance of counsel of their choice and which they both repudiated at trial. The Trial Court admitted the confessions, citing the presumption of regularity in the performance of police duties, the accused’s intelligence and work background, the participation of a Fiscal, the detailed and consistent nature of the statements, and the lack of proof that the accused complained about or filed charges for alleged torture.
ISSUE
Whether the Trial Court grievously erred in admitting and basing the conviction of accused Angeles Latoga solely on his extrajudicial confession (Exhibit A), which was given and signed without the assistance of counsel.
RULING
Yes. The judgment of the Trial Court is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, and appellant Angeles Latoga y Lagco is ACQUITTED. The extrajudicial confession must be disallowed. The doctrine laid down in Morales v. Ponce Enrile (promulgated April 26, 1983) — that during custodial investigation, the right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel — applies to confessions given prior to April 26, 1983. This principle, rooted in Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, has been affirmed and applied in subsequent cases like People v. Galit and People v. Pecardal to confessions made before that date. Since Latoga’s confession was admittedly given without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence. As this confession constitutes the only link to the felony charged, no finding of guilt may be made against him.