G.R. No. L-83215 December 15, 1993
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ODON SURIGAWAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Odon Surigawan, along with three others, was charged with Robbery with Homicide for the killing of Teodoro Donia and the taking of P3,000.00 from him in his dwelling on March 4, 1985. Upon arraignment, all pleaded not guilty. During trial, after the prosecution presented its witnesses, Surigawan’s three co-accused changed their plea to guilty and were sentenced. Surigawan maintained his innocence. The prosecution’s evidence showed that the victim’s daughter heard shouts for help and saw two unidentified persons under the victim’s house but could not recognize them. The police investigation was aided by the discovery of a distinct pair of mismatched slippers at the crime scene. A child informed the police that accused Alejandro Uayan had been seen wearing such slippers. Uayan later surrendered and gave an uncounselled extrajudicial confession implicating his co-accused. Based on this, the police arrested the others, including Surigawan, who also gave uncounselled extrajudicial confessions after being informed of their rights but without the assistance of counsel. Surigawan later recanted his confession, claiming it was prepared by the police, he was not read its contents, and he signed it due to promises of release and threats. He also presented an alibi, stating he was at home with his family during the incident. The trial court convicted Surigawan based on his own extrajudicial confession and the confessions of his co-accused which implicated him.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Odon Surigawan based on his uncounselled extrajudicial confession and the uncounselled extrajudicial confessions of his co-accused.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted Odon Surigawan. The Court held that the accused-appellant’s extrajudicial confession was obtained without the assistance of counsel, in violation of Section 12(1) and (3), Article III of the Constitution , making it inadmissible in evidence. The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that an uncounselled confession cannot convict an accused. Furthermore, the trial court erred in using the extrajudicial confessions of Surigawan’s co-accused to convict him. For the confession of a conspirator to be admissible against a co-conspirator under Rule 130, Section 30 of the Rules of Court, the conspiracy must first be proved by evidence other than the confession itself. In this case, no independent evidence established the conspiracy, and the confessions were made after the conspiracy had ended. Without these inadmissible confessions, no credible evidence remained to prove Surigawan’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as no witness identified him as a perpetrator of the crime.