GR L 70906; (May, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. 70906. May 30, 1986.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. LUIS V. SISON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Antique, Branch X, and JOCELYN DE ASIS, respondents.
FACTS
The Provincial Fiscal of Antique charged private respondent Jocelyn de Asis with subversion for allegedly being a member of the New People’s Army. During the trial, the prosecution sought to introduce her extrajudicial confession, dated May 19, 1983, as evidence. The confession was taken while she was in a hospital, having been wounded in an encounter. In it, she admitted to NPA membership through a leading question.
De Asis, through counsel, vehemently objected to the confession’s admissibility. The defense argued it was obtained in violation of her constitutional rights during custodial investigation. The respondent judge sustained the objection, ruling the confession inadmissible because her waiver of the right to counsel was made without the assistance of counsel, applying the principle established in Morales vs. Enrile and Moncupa vs. Enrile.
ISSUE
Whether the extrajudicial confession of Jocelyn de Asis is admissible as evidence, considering the alleged violation of her constitutional rights during custodial investigation.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court’s exclusion of the confession. The Court affirmed that the ruling in Morales vs. Enrile and Moncupa vs. Enrile on the requirements for a valid waiver during custodial investigation is binding doctrine. The prosecution had argued this ruling was merely obiter dictum and lacked the required number of concurring justices.
The Court definitively settled this contention by citing its subsequent en banc decision in People vs. Galit, which was concurred in by all justices except one. Galit explicitly reiterated and adopted the procedure from Morales, which mandates that no custodial investigation shall be conducted unless in the presence of counsel. Crucially, it holds that while the right to counsel may be waived, such a waiver is invalid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of this procedure is inadmissible in evidence.
Applying this settled rule, the extrajudicial confession of Jocelyn de Asis was correctly rejected. Since her waiver of counsel was not assisted by counsel itself, the confession was obtained in violation of constitutional safeguards. Therefore, the respondent judge committed no grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the objection and excluding the evidence. The petition for certiorari was without merit.