GR L 46956; (May, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-46956 May 7, 1987
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO DECIERDO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Emilio Montillano was found dead on September 28, 1971, from gunshot wounds. Initial investigations led to the filing of a murder case against Felipe Cedilla. While that case was pending, a new complaint was filed against Pedro Decierdo and Regino Duhaylungsod based on a statement from Decierdo’s wife. Decierdo was arrested and, while in custody, executed a written confession admitting to the shooting and implicating Duhaylungsod as the mastermind. This confession was given without the assistance of counsel. Based on this confession, the prosecution moved for and obtained the dismissal of the case against Cedilla. An amended Information was filed against Decierdo and Duhaylungsod. The trial court acquitted Duhaylungsod but convicted Decierdo of murder, sentencing him to death. The conviction relied heavily on the extrajudicial confession.
ISSUE
Whether the extrajudicial confession executed by Pedro Decierdo without the assistance of counsel is admissible as evidence against him.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction. The confession is inadmissible as it was obtained in violation of the constitutional right to counsel. Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, which was in effect at the time, guarantees that any person under investigation has the right to remain silent and to counsel, and that any confession obtained in violation of this right is inadmissible. The Court found that Decierdo was not assisted by a lawyer when he signed the confession. The investigating judge admitted that Decierdo was asked if he wanted a lawyer but was not provided one because there was no lawyer available in Tambulig. This absence of counsel during custodial investigation is fatal to the confession’s validity. While the right to counsel can be waived, such a waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and must be made in the presence of counsel. No such valid waiver existed here. With the confession declared inadmissible, the remaining evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The prosecution’s case crumbled without it, as there were no eyewitnesses and the other circumstantial evidence was not enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, Pedro Decierdo was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court ordered his immediate release unless detained for another lawful cause.