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.