G.R. No. 89223 May 27, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AURELIO BANDULA y LOPEZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On January 27, 1986, six armed men, including accused-appellant Aurelio Bandula and his co-accused Teofilo Dionanao, Victoriano Ejan, and Pantaleon Sedigo, barged into the Polo Coconut Plantation in Tanjay, Negros Oriental. They hog-tied security guard Antonio Salva and security chief Leoncio Pastrano, ransacked the house of the plantation manager, Atty. Juanito Garay, and took money and valuables. Atty. Garay was later found dead with three gunshot wounds. Bandula, Dionanao, Ejan, and Sedigo were charged with robbery with homicide. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Bandula but acquitted Dionanao, Ejan, and Sedigo for insufficiency of evidence, finding they were merely present but did not participate. Bandula appealed. The prosecution relied heavily on the extrajudicial confessions of Bandula and Dionanao, which were taken during custodial investigation. Bandula alleged he was arrested without a warrant, dragged from his sickbed, mauled until unconscious, and forced to sign a blank paper. Medical evidence showed he had an old healed fracture on his ribs. Dionanao similarly claimed he was mauled and forced to sign a statement without counsel. Their confessions were executed in the presence of Municipal Attorney Ruben Zerna, but only after they had been interrogated without counsel—a day later for Dionanao and two weeks later for Bandula.

ISSUE

Whether the extrajudicial confessions of accused-appellant Aurelio Bandula are admissible in evidence, considering they were allegedly obtained in violation of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the conviction and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Aurelio Bandula. The Court ruled that the extrajudicial confessions were inadmissible as they were obtained in blatant violation of constitutional safeguards. The confessions were extracted during custodial investigation without the assistance of competent and independent counsel, as required under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution. Counsel, Municipal Attorney Ruben Zerna, was present only after the initial uncounseled interrogations—a day after for Dionanao and two weeks after for Bandula. The municipal attorney, by the nature of his position, could not be considered an independent counsel. Furthermore, there were telltale signs of violence, as evidenced by Bandula’s healed rib fracture and the admission by a prosecution witness that accused Sedigo had a “black eye.” The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s evidence, stripped of the inadmissible confessions, was insufficient to prove Bandula’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The positive identification by prosecution witnesses was not sufficiently established to sustain a conviction.