Peopl vs Patungan

Facts:
Respondents is being accused of were charged with criminal case for killing
Alejandro Patungan, the husband of Marietta Patungan, who is one of the
accused.
The criminal charge arise from the extra judicial confession of Elmerto Pulga
linking his sister Marietta and his cousin Edgar Acebuche respectively as the
master mind and the co-perpetrator of the crime. However, Elmerto
contradicted his confession and alleged that he was not guilty and he was
only forced to confess because of the physical violence the policemen
inflicted on him in the open court.
The respondents questions the validity of the decision of the lower court
against them who relied entirely on the extrajudicial confession of Elmerto.
They content that the confession was not voluntary and he was not assisted
by counsel from the time he entered into custodial investigation rendering his
confession inadmissible as evidence.
RTC:

The Court renders judgment finding all accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as principal of the crime as charged, that is PARRICIDE for MARIETTA
PATUNGAN and MURDER for accused ELMERTO PULGA and EDGAR
ACEBUCHE, with the attendant circumstances of treachery and evident
premeditation alleged in the Information, sentencing them therefor to death.

CA:
Not Applicable (Automatic Review by the SC due to imposition of death penalty)
Issue:
WON accused-appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to due process.
Ruling :
Yes. An extra-judicial confession to be admissible in evidence must be
express and voluntarily executed in writing with the assistance of an
independent and competent counsel.
Contrary to PO3 Villacortes assertion that Pulga was taken into custody on
August 10, 1994, the police officer who actually took all three appellants into
custody, SPO2 Orlando Gacute, testified that the appellants were all invited
to the police station on August 9, 1994 and that they were all subjected to
custodial investigation without counsel.
Villacorte himself admitted that Pulga at first did not want to confess and
pointed to another suspect as the perpetrator of the crime.
It also important to note from the above testimonies that it was only after
appellant Pulga verbally confessed at the police precinct, without the
assistance of counsel, when he was brought to the IBP office allegedly for the
actual transcription of his confession in writing in the presence of a lawyer.
Said lawyer admitted that he was working on an appeal in another case two
to three meters away from the police investigator who was then taking
Pulgas statement. He stated that he was not totally concentrated on the
appealed case because he could still hear the investigation being conducted
then.
The mere presence of a lawyer is not sufficient compliance with the
constitutional requirement of assistance of counsel. Assistance of counsel
must be effective, vigilant and independent.


SC:

A counsel who could just hear the investigation going on while working on
another case hardly satisfies the minimum requirements of effective
assistance of counsel.
Appellants Marietta Patungan and Edgar Acebuche are acquitted of the
crimes charged against them and the judgment of conviction by RTC is
reversed and set aside.
The judgment of conviction for murder against appellant Elmerto Pulga set
aside and a new one entered convicting him of the crime of homicide and
imposing an indeterminate penalty of 10 years prision mayor in its medium
period, as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal in its
medium period, as maximum.