28. People v. Camat with their loot.
Fortunately one of the victims survived leading
G.R. No. 112262 April 2, 1996
TOPIC: RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
Summary:
This case is an instant appeal of the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) finding the accused Camat guilty of
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and
frustrated homicide. The accused alleges that the court erred in
admitting as evidence the extrajudicial confession of the accused
since the same was obtained in violation of his rights. The SC
agrees with this contention however the evidences where strong
enough even without the confession
Doctrine:
The accused has the right to be informed about his rights
and he must be able to duly exercise the same. In cases where
the accused was duly informed and thereafter executed an
extrajudicial admission with the assistance of a counsel, such
admission is admissible as evidence in court. Also the right to
confront a witness against the accused is limited to the trial and
does not cover custodial investigation.
Facts:
The victims Sinoy and Penalver were walking along
Quirino Ave. when they observed that the accused and another
companion seems to be following them. In order for them to get
away from those who were tailing them the victims crossed the
street but the accused persisted and followed them as they cross
the street eventually they commenced with their plan which is to
rob the victims and to kill them afterwards. They then went away
to their eventual arrest and conviction.
Relevant Issue:
Was there a violation of the rights of the accused when
he executed the said confession?
Ruling: Yes
Ratio:
The trial court cannot rely on the extrajudicial confession
of appellant Camat as a basis for their conviction because such
confession was obtained during custodial investigation in
violation of their constitutional rights. In the case at bar absent
is the showing that appellants were duly advised of the
mandatory guarantees under the Bill of Rights, their confessions
made before Patrolman Cariño are inadmissible against them
and cannot be used in support of their conviction. This is in view
of the rights of the accused as provided in the case of Enrile:
At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the
arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he
must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed
of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and
that any statement he might make could be used against him.
The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his
lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient
means - by telephone if possible - or by letter or messenger. It
shall be the duty of the arresting officer to see to it that this is
accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted
unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person
arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court
upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his
behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall
not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any
statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid
down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part,
shall be inadmissible in evidence.
It is also important to note that the right of confrontation
is specified as a right of the accused at the trial. It must be
reiterated that an accused's constitutional right to meet the
witnesses face to face is limited to proceedings before the trial
court. Accordingly, appellants' reliance upon this constitutional
right is evidently misplaced as the same is available to him at the
trial and not during a custodial investigation.