G.R. No. 97936 , May 29, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO LUCERO y CORTEL, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alejandro Lucero, along with others, was charged with Robbery with Homicide for an incident on May 7, 1988, in Quezon City. The prosecution alleged that the group blocked and robbed Dr. Demetrio Madrid of cash and jewelry inside his vehicle, and on the same occasion, shot and killed his driver, Lorenzo Bernales. Only Lucero and the Echavez brothers were apprehended. During custodial investigation, Pfc. Alberto Pursal informed Lucero of his constitutional rights. Atty. Diosdado Peralta was provided to assist him. Atty. Peralta conferred with Lucero, apprised him of his rights, and explained that he was not obliged to give any statement. However, when the investigator began the formal interrogation, Atty. Peralta left to attend a wake, leaving Lucero uncounseled during the actual taking of his statement. The extrajudicial confession was completed and signed by Lucero in the lawyer’s absence. The following morning, Lucero was brought to Atty. Peralta’s house, where the lawyer reviewed the already-signed confession, asked if it was given voluntarily, and then signed it himself.

ISSUE

Whether the extrajudicial confession of accused-appellant Alejandro Lucero is admissible as evidence, considering the alleged violation of his constitutional right to counsel during custodial investigation.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Alejandro Lucero. The Court held that the right to counsel during custodial investigation must be effective and vigilant, attaching from the moment the investigation starts—when questions are posed to elicit information or confessions. In this case, while a lawyer was initially present, his departure at the critical juncture when the interrogation commenced rendered Lucero without counsel during the actual giving of his confession. This crucial period of questioning, conducted without the guiding presence of counsel, violated the constitutional guarantee. The subsequent ratification of the already-completed confession the next day could not cure this fundamental defect. The confession, being the fruit of an uncounselled interrogation, is inadmissible in evidence. Without this confession and given the weakness of the other evidence identifying Lucero, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The constitutional right to counsel is indispensable to protect the accused from coercion and ensure the reliability of any admission, and its dilution cannot be tolerated.