TITLE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
MOISES BACAMANTE y ORDANIZA, accused-appellant.
GR NUMBER G.R. No. 103627
DATE September 5, 1995
PONENTE Division PADILLA, J.
NATURE/ APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of
KEYWORDS/ Manila, Br. 18/ exclusionary rule; violation of rights/ First DIVISION Division
FACTS Accused-appellant, Moises Bacamante y Ordaniza was
charged with robbery with homicide. Bacamante worked as an all-around serviceman at Chua Huat Enterprises, a hardware store.
On December 19, 1985, smoke was seen by a woman-
vendor coming from the hardware store. She informed Fernando Ngo, Huat's adopted son of the smoke. Ngo immediately proceeded to the store and found his father lying in a pool of his own blood and smelling of paint thinner which had been poured on the dead body and around the area of the store.
Ngo also discovered an axe with dried blood about 2
meters away from the victim’s body and 3 electric flat irons connected to electric outlets and placed on top of cans of paint thinner. The flat irons which caused the smoke. Ngo also testified that P10,000.00 was missing from the cash register and vault. Huat's death was caused by stab wounds in the head, chest and other parts of the body.
The next morning, all the employees of Chua Huat
Enterprises reported for work except for Bacamante. On the basis of investigations conducted by members of the Western Police District (WPD) particularly Pfc. Rodolfo Kalaquian, accused Bacamante became a suspect in the crime.
A police team from the WPD was dispatched to the house
of the accused. Upon seeing the police team, Bacamante ran to the back of his house, and when Pfc. Kalaquian fired warning shots, he ran further to a grassy area beyond his house. The police team convinced Bacamante's parents to let their son surrender to them. When accused voluntarily surrendered, the WPD team took him to Manila, accompanied by his brother Teotimo.
On 25 January 1986, Bacamante executed a statement
admitting his guilt, which was signed by Pfc. Fradejas and Teotimo Bacamante as witnesses.
But, Bacamante pleaded not guilty when arraigned on 4
April 1986 and after trial, the Regional Trial Court, Br. 18, Manila rendered a decision, dated 28 October 1991, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence, night-time and evident pre-meditation and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
In this appeal, Bacamante claims that a certain Atty.
Gilbert Zulueta, who was merely visiting the police station at the time and who, according to the extrajudicial statement, assisted him as counsel, never in fact effectively informed him of the consequences of the extrajudicial confession. Accused also contends that he was forced to sign the extrajudicial confession since the police officers mauled him and even refused his request that his brother Timoteo be allowed to find a lawyer for him or contact their relatives.
ISSUE(S) 1. W/N the accused-appellant’s extrajudicial confession is
admissible?
RULING(S) 1. No. Patrolman Fradejas of the WPD, testified that he
was the one who was present when accused executed his extrajudicial confession. Fradejas stated that Atty. Zulueta was requested to act as counsel for accused during the custodial investigation. It is to be noted however that Fradejas admitted that while accused was undergoing investigation and answering the questions propounded to him, Atty. Zulueta would “come and go” and that Atty. Zulueta was not at all times within hearing distance of accused but was merely “within the premises.” Atty. Zulueta himself admitted that he could not remember having informed accused of the constitutional presumption of his innocence. Given the above admissions by witnesses for the prosecution, the inadmissibility of the extrajudicial confession of accused Bacamante is mandated under Sec. 12(1), Sec. 12(3) and Sec. 17, Article III of the Constitution. The term “effective and vigilant counsel” necessarily and logically requires that the lawyer be present and able to advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession. Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain that the confession is made voluntarily and that the person under investigation fully understands the nature and consequence of his extrajudicial confession in relation to his constitutional rights. A contrary rule would undoubtedly be antagonistic to the constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel and to be presumed innocent.
CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing considerations and
premises, the appealed decision is hereby SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt and ordered RELEASED unless he is also detained for some other legal ground.