Inadmissible extrajudicial confession

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RAFAEL OLIVARES, JR. and DANILO ARELLANO, appellants. G.R. No. 77865, December 4, 1998

Inadmissible extrajudicial confession

“x x x.

Even assuming arguendo that by entering a plea without first questioning the legality of their arrest, appellants are deemed to have waived any ojection concerning their arrest19 yet the extrajudicial confession of appellant Olivares, Jr. on which the prosecution relies, is likewise inadmissible in evidence. Under the Constitution, any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right, among other to have a counsel,20 which right can be validly waived. In this case, the said confession was obtained during custodial investigation but the confessant was not assisted by counsel. His manifestation to the investigating officer that he did not need the assistance of counsel does not constitute a valid waiver of his right within the contemplation of our criminal justice system. This notwithstanding the fact that the 1973 Constitution does not state that a waiver of the right to counsel to be valid must be made with the assistance or in the presence of counsel. Although this requisite concerning the presence of counsel before a waiver of the right to counsel can be validly made is enshrined only in the 1987 Constitution, which further requires that the waiver must also be in writing,21 yet jurisprudence is replete even during the time of appellants arrest where it has been categorically ruled that a waiver of the constitutional right to counsel shall not be valid when the same is made without the presence or assistance of counsel.22 Consequently, the valid waiver of the right to counsel during custodial investigation makes the uncounselled confession, whether verbal or non-verbal,23 obtained in violation thereof as also "inadmissible in evidence"24 under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution25 which provides:

. . . . Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used aginst him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. (emphasis supplied).

Under the present laws, a confession to be admissible must be:26

1.) express and categorical;27

2.) given voluntarily,28 and intelligently where the accused realizes the legal significance of his act;29

3.) with assistance of competent and independent counsel;30

4.) in writing; and in the language known to and understood by the confessant;31 and

5 signed, or if the confessant does not know how to read and write thumbmarked by him.32

In this case, the absence of the third requisite above makes the confession inadmissible. The purpose of providing counsel to a person under custodial investigation is to curb the uncivilized practice of extracting confession even by the slightest coercion33 as would lead the accused to admit something false.34 What is sought to be avoided is the "evil of extorting from the very mouth of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of an offense, the very evidence with which to prosecute and thereafter convict him.35 These constitutional guarantees have been made available to protect him from the inherently coercive psychological, if not physical atmosphere of such investigation.36 In any case, said extrajudicial confession of one accused may not be utilized against a co-accused unless they are repeated in open court or when there is an opportunity to cross-examine the other on his extrajudicial statements. It is considered hearsay as against said accused under the rule on res enter alios acta, which ordains that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.37

Aware of the abuses committed by some investigating and police agencies on a criminal suspect to get leadings confessions, information and evidence just so they can claim to have speedily resolved a crime and fulfilled their duty, all at the expense of the basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution the Court cannot turn a blind eye by disregarding the constitutional rights accorded to every accused and tolerate official abuse. The presumption that a public officer had regularly performed his official duty,38 which is only a matter of procedure, cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence stated in the highest law of the land — the Constitution. As a contract between and among the people, the provisions of the Constitution cannot just be taken lightly.

X x x.”