G.R. No. L-73603 June 22, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELICISIMO HERNANDEZ and CARLOS IMPERIAL, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Felicisimo Hernandez and Carlos Imperial, both beauticians, were placed under surveillance by the Integrated National Police of Carmona, Cavite, on suspicion of involvement in the sale and distribution of marijuana. They were subsequently arrested on July 20, 1984. Upon arrest, marked money was found in Hernandez’s possession, and marijuana leaves contained in a matchbox were recovered from police informer Rizaldy Angcaya, who allegedly purchased them from Hernandez. Following investigation, both appellants executed sworn statements admitting they sold marijuana to Angcaya. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was marijuana, leading to their prosecution for violating Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite, convicted both appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine. Only Carlos Imperial appealed, contending the trial court erred in admitting his extrajudicial confession, arguing it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, and that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s case hinged on this confession, as the informer, Rizaldy Angcaya, was not presented as a witness.

ISSUE

Whether the extrajudicial confession of accused-appellant Carlos Imperial is admissible as evidence against him.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled the extrajudicial confession was inadmissible, leading to Imperial’s acquittal. The legal logic centers on the constitutional rights of a person under custodial investigation. Under the 1973 Constitution, which was applicable at the time, such a person has the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the right to be informed of these rights. While the confession document indicated Imperial was informed of these rights and waived his right to counsel, the waiver was made without the assistance of counsel.
The Court reiterated the established doctrine that while the right to counsel may be waived, the waiver is invalid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any confession obtained in violation of this mandatory procedure is inadmissible in evidence, whether it is exculpatory or inculpatory. Since the prosecution’s case relied solely on this inadmissible confession, and the alleged buyer was not presented to testify, the evidence against Imperial was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the judgment of conviction was reversed and set aside.