GR 98252; (February, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 98252 February 7, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENE JANUARIO y ROLDAN, EFREN CANAPE y BAYOT, ELISEO SARITA @ TOTO, EDUARDO SARINOS and SANTIAGO CID, accused. RENE JANUARIO Y ROLDAN and EFREN CANAPE y BAYOT, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Rene Januario and Efren Canape were charged with carnapping and the killing of the vehicle’s driver and conductor. The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the extrajudicial confessions executed by the appellants. These confessions were obtained while the appellants were under custodial investigation by the NBI. The confessions were signed in the presence and with the assistance of a lawyer, Atty. Carlos Saunar. During the trial, it was established that at the time he assisted the appellants, Atty. Saunar was an applicant for a position with the NBI. A few months after assisting the appellants, he was in fact admitted into the NBI workforce. The appellants contested the admissibility of these confessions, arguing their constitutional rights were violated.
ISSUE
Whether the extrajudicial confessions of the accused-appellants are admissible as evidence, given that the assisting counsel was not an independent lawyer as constitutionally required.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants. The Court emphasized the constitutional guarantee under Section 12(1), Article III, that a person under investigation has the right to competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice. The lawyer present during the custodial investigation, Atty. Saunar, could not be considered “independent.” His status as an applicant for employment with the very agency conducting the investigation created a conflict of interest and a dependence that compromised his duty to protect the rights of the accused. He could not be expected to act against the interest of the NBI, which he was hoping to join. Consequently, the confessions extracted with his assistance were obtained in violation of the appellants’ constitutional rights and are inadmissible in evidence. With the exclusion of these inadmissible confessions, the remaining evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The constitutional presumption of innocence therefore prevails, mandating their acquittal.