28. People v. Camat then went away with their loot.
Fortunately one of the victims
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
survived leading 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.