Remrev Crimpro Rule 115 - People vs. Morial

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
EDWIN MORIAL, LEONARDO MORIAL alias "CARDING" NONELITO
ABION * alias "NOLY", defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. 129295 August 15, 2001
Topic: Rule 115 Rights of the Accused
Doctrine: Fact that the extra-judicial confession was subsequently signed in
the presence of counsel did not cure its constitutional defects (i.e. right to
counsel)
Facts:
1. Two of the three appellants herein were sentenced to death by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Southern Leyte for Robbery with Homicide.
The other was sentenced to suffer only the penalty ofreclusion
perpetua on account of minority. The judgment of conviction is now
before this Court on automatic review.
2. The above-named accused in conspiracy entered into the house of
Paula Bandibas and Benjamin Morial and once inside stabbed the
victims Paula Bandibas and Albert Bandibas, resulting in their death,
after which, said accused took away Cash in the amount P11,000.00
belonging to said Bandibas and Morial.
3. Upon arraignment, the three accused pleaded not guilty.
4. The records show that Benjamin disclosed to the officers his three
suspects, the accused in this case. He advised them, however, to bring
only Leonardo and Edwin Morial into custody and not to include Nonelito
Abion, who had many relatives in Cagnituan. \
5. The accused, all first-degree cousins, interposed denial and alibi as their
defense.
6. The suspects were interrogated after. Edwin was advised to tell the truth
so he would not be killed. Nevertheless, he refused to admit his alleged
participation in the killings. He was then subjected to physical torture.
Leonardo was also tortured by the Policemen
7. When a policeman attempted to box him again, Leonardo finally admitted
that Nonelito Abion and Edwin Morial were responsible for the death of
Paula Bandibas. Leonardo's interrogation lasted one and a half to two
hours.
8. Leonardo's statements were then reduced into writing. A policeman
informed him that they were going to contact a lawyer to assist him
during the investigation. Leonardo was told that his counsel would be a
certain Atty. Aguilar whose office was very near the police station.
Leonardo consented.
9. Having prepared Leonardo's statement, the police then told Leonardo to
come with them to Atty. Aguilar's office, There, he saw Atty. Aguilar for
the first time. The lawyer read to him the document and asked him
whether its contents were true. The police had instructed Leonardo to
answer "yes" if he was asked that question, and Leonardo heeded the
instructions.
10. Aguilar did ask Leonardo if he was forced or intimidated to execute the
extra-judicial confession. Leonardo, however, did not tell his lawyer
about his injuries since a police officer had warned him that he would be
mauled again should he do so. Leonardo then signed the extra-judicial
confession, after which Atty. Aguilar affixed his.
11. Later in court, Leonardo claimed that he merely made up all the
statements in the document because he was afraid.
RTC - rendered a decision convicting all the three accused based on the
extra-judicial confession and the testimony of the eyewitness.
Issue:
WON Leonardos Morials extra-judicial confession was invalid since he
was not duly accorded with his right to counsel when he made such
confession.
Held:
Yes. The Court finds Leonardo Morial's extra-judicial confession invalid
since he was effectively deprived of his right to counsel during the custodial
investigation.
A custodial investigation is understood to mean as "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." It
begins when there is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but
starts 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.
A person under custodial investigation is guaranteed certain rights, which
attach upon the commencement thereof. These are the rights (1) to remain
silent, (2) to competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own
choice, and (3) to be informed of the two other rights. The prosecution must
prove with clear and convincing evidence that the accused was accorded
said rights before he extra-judicially admitted his guilt to the authorities.
The Court has stressed that an accused under custodial interrogation
must continuously have a counsel assisting him from the very start
thereof. InPeople vs. Lucero, where the suspect's counsel left just when the
interrogation was starting, this Court chastised both counsel and the trial
court for their lack of zeal in safeguarding the rights of the accused.
The Policeman cannot justify Atty. Aguilar's leaving by claiming that when the
lawyer left, he knew very well that the suspect had already admitted that he
(Leonardo) and his companions committed the crime Neither can Atty.
Aguilar rationalize his abandoning his client by saying that he left only after
the latter had admitted the "material points," referring to the three accused's
respective participation in the crime. For even as the person under
custodial investigation enjoys the right to counsel from its inception,
so does he enjoy such right until its termination indeed, "in every
phase of the investigation." An effective and vigilant counsel
"necessarily and logically requires that the lawyer be present and able
to advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the
first question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the
extrajudicial confession."
Furthermore, Section 2(a) of R.A. No. 7438
55
requires that "[a]ny person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be
assisted by counsel." The last paragraph of Section 3 of the same law
mandates that "[i]n the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation
shall be conducted."
Even granting that appellant consented to Atty. Aguilar's departure during the
investigation and to answer questions during the lawyer's absence, such
consent was an invalid waiver of his right to counsel and his right to remain
silent. Under Section 12 (3), Article III of the Constitution, these rights cannot
be waived unless the same is made in writing and in the presence of
counsel. No such written and counseled waiver of these rights was offered in
evidence.
That the extra-judicial confession was subsequently signed in the
presence of counsel did not cure its constitutional defects.
Thus, as appellant Leonardo Morial was effectively deprived of his right to
counsel during custodial investigation, his extra-judicial confession is
inadmissible in evidence against him. (The confession is also inadmissible
against his co-accused principle of res inter alios acta)

Remrev Crimpro Rule 115 - People vs. Morial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remrev Crimpro Rule 115 - People vs. Morial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remrev Crimpro Rule 115 - People vs. Morial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

You might also like