G.R. No.

97936 May 29, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ALEJANDRO LUCERO y

Nature of the Action: Appeal

Facts of the Case:

Alejandro Lucero, Bienvenido Echavez and Echavez were charged of the crime of robbery with homicide
against Dr. Demetrio Madrid. Lucero, one of the accused, after being apprehended was detained in Camp
Crame where he was brought into custodial investigation. The investigator, Pfc. Pursal, informed him of
his right to remain silent and to counsel. The accused said that he had no lawyer and such fact was relayed
to the Central Intelligence Service (CIS).

Two days after his investigation, Atty. Diosdado Peralta appeared at the investigation office and identified
himself as the lawyer requested to assist Lucero. The counsel informed the accused of his rights and
gathering no reaction from the latter, the counsel assumed that the understood him. When the
investigator started asking preliminary questions, Atty. Peralt left to attend the wake of his friend.

During trial, Lucero’s defense was alibi. He testified that after being apprehended, he was brought to
Camp Crame where he was tortured and was never informed of the offense for which he was being
investigated, neither did they reveal the identity of the complainant. Lucero claimed that he signed the
extrajudicial confession under duress and denied engaging the services of Atty. Peralta.

The two other accused were acquitted while Lucero was found guilty.

Issue:
Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting Lucero of the crime charged on the basis of his alleged
extrajudicial confession which was obtained through force, violence and without presence of counsel.

Ruling:
Defendant must be acquitted.

Ratio:
The 1987 Constitution requires that a person under investigation for the commission of a crime
should be provided with counsel. The trial court did not impose a rigorous respect for the right.
The records show that Atty. Peralta, who was not the counsel of choice of appellant, arrived at
the CIS Office an the second night of appellant's detention at around 9:00 p.m. and talked with
appellant about his rights. Atty. Peralta himself admitted he received no reaction from appellant
although his impression was that appellant understood him. Worse, Atty. Peralta left appellant in
the custody of the CIS agents when his real interrogation started. He said he had to attend the
wake of a friend. His attitude did not speak well of the importance he gave to his role as counsel
to a person under custodial interrogation for the commission of a very serious offense. It was
during his absence that appellant gave an uncounselled confession.

We hold that when the Constitution requires the right to counsel, it did not mean any kind of
counsel but effective and vigilant counsel. The circumstances in the case at bench clearly
demonstrate that appellant received no effective counseling from Atty. Peralta. In People v. De
Guzman, we held that in custodial investigation, the right to counsel attaches from the moment
the investigation starts, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit
G.R. No. 97936 May 29, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ALEJANDRO LUCERO y
information and confessions or admissions from the accused. Surely, such a confession where
appellant was unprotected from mischief cannot convict.