G.R. No. L-60118 February 28, 1985
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. ADVENTOR ITLANAS y BAUTISO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Adventor Itlanas, an oiler on Tugboat M/V San Pedro San Pablo, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte for the murder of Sgt. Amelito Perez, the homicide of CIC Edmar Mag-aso, and homicide through reckless imprudence of civilian Manuel Flores. The prosecution evidence established that on July 12, 1978, during the vessel’s return voyage, Itlanas took Mag-aso’s M-16 Armalite rifle. He first shot and killed Sgt. Perez, who was playing cards in his cabin. When Mag-aso confronted him on the upper deck, Itlanas shot and killed him as well. Stray bullets from this incident fatally hit apprentice Manuel Flores.
The defense presented a different narrative. Itlanas testified that he was coerced by the vessel’s captain and third engineer to participate in a plan to disarm the PC escorts. He claimed he refused, fled in fear, and was later captured, framed, and forced to sign a confession. He asserted that the extra-judicial confession presented by the prosecution was inadmissible, having been obtained without counsel and through coercion.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the extra-judicial confession of the accused was admissible as evidence to support his conviction.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties. The Court held the extra-judicial confession inadmissible. Applying constitutional safeguards, the Court found the waiver of the right to counsel defective. The investigating officer’s question and the accused’s recorded answer—a verbose, formulaic recitation of rights—were deemed “reeks of formulism” and indicative of words being put in the accused’s mouth. This did not constitute a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver. Citing Morales, Jr. vs. Ponce Enrile, the Court reiterated that a waiver of the right to counsel during custodial investigation is invalid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Consequently, the confession was excluded from evidence.
Nonetheless, the conviction was sustained based on the remaining evidence, which established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses credible and consistent, directly implicating Itlanas. His defense of frame-up was uncorroborated and deemed unconvincing. The killings were affirmed as three distinct acts warranting separate penalties. The Court modified the sentences by applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to the homicide conviction and adjusting the penalty for homicide through reckless imprudence, while affirming the penalty of reclusion perpetua for murder.