CRIMINAL PROCEDURE | PEOPLE VS. PANIS, G.R. NO. 218130, FEBRUARY 14, 2018

PEOPLE VS. PANIS,

G.R. NO. 218130, FEBRUARY 14, 2018

 

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

FACTS

Fernandez testified that he was brought to the Binmaley Police Station at 6:00 a.m. on June 16, 2011 and was asked if he was the one responsible for the crime and if he would rather admit the same.[18] Despite the fact that he was already considered as a suspect of the crime, Fernandez was not assisted by a lawyer at that time. Atty. Francisco only arrived past 1:00 p.m. after Fernandez had already been subjected to questioning by the police officers starting 6:00 a.m. [19] Thus, prior to 1:00 p.m., while Fernandez was in the custody of the Binmaley police and under investigation as a suspect, he was not able to confer with any lawyer.

According to Fernandez, his extrajudicial confession cannot be used against him since the same was inadmissible. He further claims that there was insufficient circumstantial evidence against him and that the prosecution failed to establish conspiracy. Fernandez insists that the RTC erroneously convicted. him since the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Fernandez was guilty of robbery with homicide.

 

RULING

The court ruled that it is settled that for an extrajudicial confession to be admissible in evidence against the accused, the same "must be (a) voluntary, (b) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel, (c) express, and (d) in writing." Moreover, Section 2 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7438 requires that "any person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel." In People v. Cachuela, the Court held that a custodial investigation is: any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. x x x It begins when there is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and the investigation has started to focus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e., when the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense.

In this case, Fernandez was not assisted by counsel at all times during his custodial investigation. The records show that Fernandez was assisted by Atty. Francisco only during the time he executed his extrajudicial confession. However, no lawyer assisted Fernandez at the time he was arrested and brought to the police station to answer questions about the robbery with homicide. Moreover, we agree with the CA that Atty. Francisco was not an independent counsel. Atty. Francisco testified that he was a legal consultant in the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Binmaley. [20] As such, his duty was to provide legal advice to the Mayor whose duty, in turn, is to execute the laws and ordinances and maintain peace and order in the municipality. Atty. Francisco cannot be considered as an independent counsel since protecting the rights of Fernandez as a suspect is in direct conflict with his duty to the Municipal Mayor and the local government of the Municipality. We have held that a lawyer who assists a suspect during custodial investigation should, as much as possible, be the choice of the suspect. It is also important that the lawyer who will assist the accused should be competent, independent and prepared to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional rights. In this case, the Court finds that Atty. Francisco was not vigilant in protecting the rights of Fernandez during the course of the custodial investigation. Atty. Francisco allowed Fernandez to answer each question without reminding him that he can refuse to answer them and/or remain silent. Given these circumstances, Fernandez's extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence.

Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court which provides, viz.: Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. - (a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. Here, the imposition of additional/incremental damages is not favorable to Paris who did not appeal. Hence, only Fernandez should be made accountable therefor.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147