Topic Arrest – Custodial Investigation – Specific Requirements in Case had asked Reynaldo to come to his house to discuss an important
cuss an important matter. While
Law – Waiver of Right to Counsel
Case No. G.R. No. 117401. October 1, 1998
Case Name PEOPLE vs. QUIDATO
Full Case PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. BERNARDO
Name QUIDATO, JR., accused-appellant
Ponente ROMERO, J.
Digester Tan, Candace Beatrice
Doctrine The settled rule is that an uncounseled extrajudicial confession
without a valid waiver of the right to counsel that is, in writing and
in the presence of counsel is inadmissible in evidence.
Nature Appeal, RTC finding of guilt for the crime of parricide
RELEVANT FACTS
Bernardo Quidato, Jr., was charged with parricide. According to the information
filed, on Sept. 17, 1988, in Kaputian, Davao he conspired with brothers Reynaldo
and Eddie Malita in an attack which killed his father, Bernardo Quidato, Sr. The
weapons used were a bolo and an iron bar. The Malita brothers were charged
with murder and the 3 co-accused were tried jointly. However, the other 2 men
withdrew their not guilty pleas during the trial.
PROSECUTION VERSION: The victim Quidato, Sr. was a widower who lived
alone. The 3 co-accused had accompanied him the day before the attack to Davao
City to sell 41 sacks of copra. Gina testified that the 3 co-accused were drinking
tuba at their house the night of the crime when she overheard the trio planning
to go to her father-in-law's house to get money from the latter.
In the confessions of the Malita brothers, it was stated that Eddie had been living
in the home of Quidato, Jr. for 4 years and on the night of the crime Quidato, Jr.
drinking beer, Quidato, Jr. allegedly proposed that they rob and kill his father.
They went to Quidato, Sr.'s house at 10PM. Reynaldo brought along a bolo.
Quidato, Sr. let them in after Quidato, Jr. knocked and asked him to open the
door. Eddie rushed in and knocked the old man down. Reynaldo then hacked at
his nape and neck. Eddie and Quidato, Jr. ransacked an aparador looking for
money but they found none so they left.
When Leo confronted his brother on Sept. 27 regarding the incident and learned
that the Malita brothers were the ones responsible for the death. When the two
were arrested by the police, however, they also arrested Quidato, Jr. On Sept. 29,
the Malita brothers were interrogated by Patrolman Lucrecio Mara. Mara
supposedly apprised them of their constitutional rights, including their right to
counsel, but they wanted to confess even in the absence of counsel. Mara took
down the testimony of the two but did not ask that they sign their affidavits. He
escorted them to Davao City and presented them and their unsigned affidavits,
to a CLAO (now PAO) lawyer, Jonathan Jocom. Atty. Jocom conferred with the
brothers, advising them of their constitutional rights. He explained the contents
of the affidavits, in Visayan, to the brothers, who affirmed both their consent and
the contents of the affidavits. Only then did the brothers affix their signatures on
the affidavits. The Malita brothers' affidavits containing the extra-judicial
confessions were entered into evidence at the trial. Neither took the witness
stand, but Atty. Jocom presented the affidavits and testified that the two were
assisted by counsel when they made their confessions. MTC Judge George
Omelio also attested to the due and voluntary execution of the sworn statements
by the Malita brothers.
DEFENSE VERSION: The Malita brothers were not at Quidato, Jr's house on the
evening of the crime. They passed by his house at around 10PM and asked him
to come with them to his father's house, threatening him if he refused. Out of
fear, he led the way to the house and even knocked on the door until it was
opened. He left during the ensuing commotion, but in his confusion reached his
house only at around 11PM even though it was only 150 meters away. He
claimed not to have seen the killing. He did not call for help. Eddie arrived a
while later. Quidato, Jr. also said he found a bolo encrusted with blood at his
house. He turned it over to his brother who surrendered it to the police. DISPOSITIVE

MAIN ISSUE: W/N CONFESSIONS OF THE MALITA BROTHERS WERE
ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE (NO)
Because the two brothers were not presented on the witness stand to testify on
their extra-judicial confessions, the affidavits have the character of hearsay.
Unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the averments in
their affidavits, the affidavits must be excluded from the judicial proceeding,
being inadmissible hearsay. The voluntary admissions of an accused made
extrajudicially are not admissible in evidence against his co-accused when the
latter had not been given an opportunity to hear him testify and cross-examine
him.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Davao City in Criminal Case No. 89-9 dated March 2, 1994, is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Bernardo Quidato, Jr. is hereby
ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt. Consequently, let the accused be
immediately released from his place of confinement unless there is reason to
detain him further for any other legal or valid cause. With costs de oficio. SO
ORDERED.
Kapunan and Purisima, JJ., concur. Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), on leave.
NO SEPARATE OPINIONS

This is not an exception to the hearsay rule, under Sec. 30, Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court. The confessions were made after the conspiracy had ended and after
the consummation of the crime. It cannot be said that the execution of the
affidavits were acts or declarations made during the conspiracy's existence.

The manner by which the affidavits were obtained by the police render the
same inadmissible in evidence even if they were voluntarily given. The settled
rule is that an uncounseled extrajudicial confession without a valid waiver of
the right to counsel that is, in writing and in the presence of counsel is
inadmissible in evidence. It is undisputed that the Malita brothers gave their
statements to Patrolman Mara in the absence of counsel, although they signed
the same in the presence of counsel the next day.

The belated arrival of a lawyer the following day even if prior to the actual
signing of the uncounseled confession does not cure the defect of the lack of
counsel, for the investigators were already able to extract incriminatory
statements from accused-appellant. In People vs. De Jesus, we said that admissions
obtained during custodial interrogations without the benefit of counsel although
later reduced to writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed
under the Constitution.