VOL.

341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 645

People vs. Rodriguez
G.R. No. 129211. October 2, 2000.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILFREDO RODRIGUEZ Y CULO

and LARRY ARTELLERO Y RICO,1 accused. LARRY ARTELLERO Y RICO,
accused-appellant.

Custodial Investigations; Extrajudicial Confessions; Requisites for Admissibility.—The

four fundamental requisites for the admissibility of a confession are (1) the confession must
be voluntary; (2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel; (3) the confession must be express; and (4) the confession must be in
writing.

Same; Same; Right to Counsel; There is no compliance with requirement for the
assistance of counsel during custodial investigation where the lawyer was called only on the
fourth day of detention, when the accused was about to put his confession in writing; The
moment the accused was arrested and brought to the police station, he was already under
custodial investigation.—We find the second requisite lacking. Prosecution witness SPO3
Jamoralin testified that the accused and appellant were arrested and brought to the police
station at around 5:00 P.M. of October 11, 1991. The records show that the extrajudicial
confession of Rodriguez was taken down by Pat. David D. Tuazon at 2:00 P.M. of October
15, 1991. Atty. Lao confirmed on the stand that the police investigators called him at
around 2:00 P.M. of October 15, 1991, and that he conferred with the accused for about
10 minutes prior to the execution of the extrajudicial confession. Evidently, Rodriguez and
appellant were detained for four days, but Atty. Lao of the PAO was called only on the
fourth day of detention when accused was about to put his confession in writing. Under the
factual milieu, the moment accused and appellant were arrested and brought to the police
station, they were already under custodial investigation.

Same; Words and Phrases; Custodial investigation refers to the crucial pre-trial stage
when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun
to focus on a particular person as a suspect.—Custodial investigation refers to the critical
pre-trial stage when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime
but

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

1 Appellant signed his name as “Artillero” in the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, Folder of

Exhibits, p. 14, Records, p. 3, and in the Motion for Early Resolution dated March 13, 2000.
 646

646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Rodriguez
and appellant were arrested by the police in the afternoon of October 11, 1991, they
were already the suspects in the slaying of the security guard, Ramon Matias, and should
have been afforded the rights guaranteed by Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution,
particularly the right to counsel. The records do not show that Rodriguez and appellant, at
the time of their arrest in the afternoon of October 11, 1991, were informed of the
well-known Miranda rights. Worse, they were not provided with competent and
independent counsel during the custodial investigation prior to the execution of the
extrajudicial confession.

Same; Jurisprudence is clear that a suspect under custodial investigation must

continuously have a counsel assisting him from the very start thereof.—In People v. De la
Cruz , 279 SCRA 245 (1997), we declared as inadmissible the extrajudicial confession of
accused where the interrogation started at 9:00 A.M. and his lawyer arrived only at 11:00
A.M. Jurisprudence is clear that an accused under custodial investigation must continuously
have a counsel assisting him from the very start thereof. In this case, Rodriguez and
appellant were in the hands of the police for about four days without the assistance of
counsel.

Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Judgments; Where the evidence against and the
conviction of both accused are inextricably linked, the acquittal of the accused who appealed,
which is favorable and applicable to other accused who did not appeal, should benefit the
latter.—Although it is only appellant who persisted with the present appeal, the
well-established rule is that an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open
for review of all its aspects, including those not raised by the parties. The records show that
Rodriguez had withdrawn his appeal due to financial reasons. However, Section 11(a) of
Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides that “[a]n appeal taken by one or more [of] several
accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the
appellant court is favorable and applicable to the latter.” As we have elucidated, the
evidence against and the conviction of both appellant and Rodriguez are inextricably linked.
Hence, appellant’s acquittal, which is favorable and applicable to Rodriguez, should benefit
the latter.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Br

29.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

 The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
647
VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 647
People vs. Rodriguez
Monina P. Lee for accused-appellant Larry Artellero.

QUISUMBING, J .:

On appeal is the decision dated November 13, 1995 of the Regional

Trial Court of Manila, Branch 29,2 in Criminal Case No. 91-99526,
convicting appellant and his co-accused of the crime of murder,
sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, ordering
them to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as indemnity, and
to pay the costs.
Appellant Larry Artellero was employed as a cement mixer and
helper of co-accused Wilfredo Rodriguez, a mason in the
construction of the upper floors of the Far East Bank and Trust
Company, Blumentritt Branch, Sta. Cruz, Manila. Both were
charged with the crime of robbery with homicide for the killing of
the bank security guard, Ramon Matias y Ibay. The trial court found
both guilty of murder. Both appealed. However, Rodriguez withdrew
his appeal for financial reasons. Although only Artellero is the
appellant now, in view of the circumstances obtaining in this case,
we are compelled to review Rodriguez’s conviction as well.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On October 11, 1991, early in the morning, at the Far East Bank
and Trust Company branch office in Rizal Avenue cor. Batangas St.,
Sta. Cruz, Manila, a messenger discovered the lifeless body of Matias,
inside the bank premises. The body was hogtied with a nylon cord,
and bore 32 stab wounds. The chairs and tables inside the bank were
in disarray. The bank’s emergency exit vault bore chisel marks. At
around 6:00 A.M., SPO3 Mendoza and two other officers of the
Western Police District arrived after receiving a report on the
incident. They interviewed the bank janitor, a Mr. Cawagdan, and
the other security guard, Dionisio Vargas. Then they ordered the
transfer of the body of Matias to the morgue. The police found a
bloodstained scissor’s mate inside a podium located near the main
entrance of the bank. The head guard of the bank’s security agency
(Leopard) also reported that three .38 cal. revolv-

_______________

2 Judge Angel Valera Colet, presiding.

648
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Rodriguez
ers and five 12 gauge shotguns were missing from the guard
rostrum.3
At around 4:00 P.M., SPO3 Jamoralin and four other WPD
policemen conducted a follow-up investigation. They learned from
Vargas that there was an on-going construction on the upper floors
of the bank, and that appellant and his co-accused had access to the
bank after office hours. SPO3 Jamoralin asked Vargas to accompany
them to the barracks of the construction workers where they saw
appellant at the ground floor of the construction site. On the third
floor, they saw the co-accused, Rodriguez, packing his personal
belongings. When asked why he was packing, Rodriguez replied that
he had “nothing more to do (at the site).” SPO3 Jamoralin and the
other police officers saw a pair of worn-out “maong” pants on
appellant’s bed, which had reddish stains on the right leg. The police
also saw reddish stains on accused’s shirt. Rodriguez explained that
he had a wound on his neck. However, when the police examined his
neck, they found no wound. The police then arrested Rodriguez and
appellant and brought them to the police station for interrogation.
The police took the maong and t-shirt and had them examined by
the Chemistry Section of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).4
On October 15, 1991, Rodriguez executed a sworn statement
confessing that he and appellant together with one Rading Mendoza,
and two other men whose names he did not know, killed Matias.
Rodriguez was assisted by Atty. Procopio Lao III, of the Public
Attorney’s Office.
On October 18, 1991, appellant and Rodriguez were charged
with the crime of Robbery with Homicide under the following
Information:5
That on or about October 11, 1991, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping one
another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, attack,
assault and

_______________

3 TSN, May 18, 1992, pp. 5-12; TSN, March 13, 1992, pp. 6-10.

4 TSN, June 22, 1992, pp. 7-8; TSN, June 5, 1992, pp. 6-15.

5 Records, p. 1.

649
VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 649
People vs. Rodriguez
use personal violence upon the person of RAMON MATIAS, a security guard on duty at Far
East Bank and Trust Company, by then and there stabbing the latter several times with a
bladed instrument, hitting him on the different parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon
the said RAMON MATIAS mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause
of his death; that once the said RAMON MATIAS was attacked, assaulted and/or killed in
the manner above-described, the said accused, with intent of gain, take, rob and carry
away three (3) pieces of caliber .38 revolvers and five (5) pieces of 12 gauge shotguns, all
valued not less than P5.00; belonging to the Far East Bank and Trust Company, to the
damage and prejudice of the said bank in the aforesaid amount of P5.00, Philippine
Currency.

Contrary to Law.

Upon arraignment on November 22, 1991, appellant and Rodriguez

entered their respective pleas of not guilty.6
During trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1)
SPO3 Jaime D. Mendoza, (2) SPO3 Rodolfo A. Jamoralin, Jr., both
of the Crimes against Persons Division of the WPD, (3) Atty.
Procopio Lao III of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), and (4)
Carolyn Y. Custodio, Supervisor of the Chemistry District of the NBI.
Custodio testified that the reddish stains on Rodriguez’s pants and
shirt were positive for type O human blood, which was also the blood
type of Rodriguez.7
The testimony of Dr. Dario L. Gajardo, Chief and Medico-Legal
Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, was dispensed with upon
admission of the defense of the authenticity of the Necropsy
Report,8 which stated that the cause of death was
“cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary
to multiple stab wounds in the body.”9
The prosecution likewise offered in evidence the photograph of the
body of the victim when it was found, the nylon cord used to tie him,
the Sworn Statement of security guard Dionisio Vargas, the

_______________

6 Id. at 29.

7 TSN, October 16, 1992, pp. 5-9.

8 Records, p. 226.

9 Folder of Exhibits, p. 19.

650
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Rodriguez
Certification issued by the Leopard Agency as to the missing firearms,
the sworn statement of Rodriguez, the Progress Report of SPO3
Jamoralin, the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, the LetterRequest
of Chief Inspector Jose Pring addressed to the Director of the NBI,
the NBI Laboratory Report No. B-91-1613, the maong pants and
shirt, and the PNP Medico-Legal Report.10
After presentation of the prosecution’s evidence, appellant filed a
Demurrer to the Evidence11 on the grounds that the prosecution
failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
and that testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were hearsay.
Upon the Opposition12 of the public prosecutor, the trial court
denied the demurrer for lack of merit.13
The evidence for the defense consists of the testimonies of the
following witnesses: (1) Evangelo U. Javellano, Jr., Bank Manager of
the FEBTC, Blumentritt branch, who testified that bank policy
prohibits the guards from allowing persons into the bank after office
hours, except for official visitors coming from higher ranks,14 (2)
appellant, and (3) Rodriguez.
On the stand, both Rodriguez and appellant admitted that they
were provincemates from Masbate and co-workers in the
construction site. They slept inside the building on the night before
the incident but denied any participation in killing. They claimed
that they learned of the killing only on October 11, 1991, at around
7:00 A.M., when they saw many people milling around the area.
Rodriguez claimed that on the night of October 11, 1991, he was
mauled by policemen to confess to the crime. Appellant, on his part,
testified that the policemen merely placed him outside the room
where Rodriguez was being interrogated, and that the police

_______________
 10 Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence, Records, pp. 239-244; Exhibits “A” to “N,” Folder of

Exhibits.

11 Records, pp. 251-255.

12 Id. at 257.

13 Id. at 258.

14 TSN, May 22, 1995, pp. 4-5.

651
VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 651
People vs. Rodriguez
did not take any statement from him. Appellant also denied owning
the maong pants which the police said were taken from his bed.15
After due trial, the trial court rendered a decision16finding
appellant and Rodriguez guilty of murder, instead of robbery with
homicide, disposing thus:
WHEREFORE, the accused Larry Artellero Y Rico and Wilfredo Rodriguez Y Culo are hereby
found guilty of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised
Penal Code and each of them are (sic) hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua and pay civil indemnity of P50,000.00 by each of them to the heirs of the victim
Ramon Matias Y Ibay and to pay the costs.

The charge of Robbery with Homicide is dismissed it being not the proper charge. The
accused are acquitted from the charge of Robbery for insufficiency of evidence.

SO ORDERED.

Only appellant pursued his appeal. In his brief,17 he contends that

the trial court erred in:

. I.. . . GIVING CREDENCE TO THE EXTRAJUDICIAL

CONFESSION OF CO-ACCUSED, WILFREDO RODRIGUEZ,
ALLEGED COCONSPIRATOR, IN PROVING CONSPIRACY AS
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW PROBABILITY OF
 PARTICIPATION OF LARRY ARTILLERO AS
CO-CONSPIRATOR.
. II.. . . HOLDING THAT THE MAONG PANTS STAINED WITH
HUMAN BLOOD TYPE “O” IS THAT OF
ACCUSED-APPELLANT, AND AS PART OF
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF GUILT OR PARTICIPATION
IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
. III.. . . HOLDING THAT THE FACT OF WORKING AND
SLEEPING TOGETHER WITH CO-ACCUSED FOR SIX (6)
MONTHS, AS PART OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO
FINGER POINT GUILT TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

_______________

15 TSN, May 15, 1993, pp. 3-15; TSN, March 7, 1995, pp. 2-25; TSN, March 6, 1995, pp.

2-13.

16 Records, pp. 303-327.

17 Rollo, pp. 64-65.

652
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Rodriguez

. IV.. . . RENDERING DECISION MORE SERIOUS THAN

CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION.

Instead of filing an Appellee’s Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General

filed a Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Appellee’s
Brief18 contending that:

. (1)THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE

THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF ACCUSED WILFREDO
 RODRIGUEZ AGAINST HIS CO-ACCUSED, APPELLANT
LARRY ARTELLERO.
. (2)ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT
ACCUSED RODRIGUEZ’S EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION IS
ADMISSIBLE AGAINST APPELLANT ARTELLERO, THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE
CRIME OF MURDER.

The OSG points out that the prosecution failed to prove the existence
of a conspiracy between appellant and Rodriguez independent of the
extrajudicial confession of the latter. The fact that Rodriguez and
appellant have been working in the construction site for six months
prior to the incident is insufficient to make a finding of conspiracy.
Further, the fact that type O blood stains were found on appellant’s
maong pants and Rodriguez’s t-shirt has no probative value since
appellant denied owning the maong pants, and more importantly,
the victim’s blood type was not examined, hence there was no point
of comparison. Lastly, the OSG contends that the trial court erred in
convicting appellant of murder considering that the Information
failed to allege the circumstances qualifying the killing to murder.
The resolution of the issue regarding the guilt of appellant, in our
view, hinges on whether the extrajudicial confession of accused
Rodriguez is admissible not only against him but also against
appellant. We find that Rodriguez’s confession is constitutionally
flawed so that it could not be used as evidence against them at all.
The four fundamental requisites for the admissibility of a
confession are (1) the confession must be voluntary; (2) the
confession must be made with the assistance of competent and
independent

_______________
 18 Id. at 128-151.

653
VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 653
People vs. Rodriguez
counsel; (3) the confession must be express; and (4) the confession
must be in writing.19
We find the second requisite lacking. Prosecution witness SPO3
Jamoralin testified that the accused and appellant were arrested
and brought to the police station at around 5:00 P.M. of October 11,
1991.20 The records show that the extrajudicial confession of
Rodriguez was taken down by Pat. David D. Tuazon at 2:00 P.M. of
October 15, 1991.21 Atty. Lao confirmed on the stand that the
police investigators called him at around 2:00 P.M. of October 15,
1991, and that he conferred with the accused for about 10 minutes
prior to the execution of the extrajudicial confession.22 Evidently,
Rodriguez and appellant were detained for four days, but Atty. Lao
of the PAO was called only on the fourth day of detention when
accused was about to put his confession in writing. Under the factual
milieu, the moment accused and appellant were arrested and
brought to the police station, they were already under custodial
investigation.
In the case of People v. Bolanos, 23 we held that an accused who
is on board the police vehicle on the way to the police station is
already under custodial investigation, and should therefore be
accorded his rights under the Constitution. In this case, the teaching
of Bolanos clearly went unheeded.
The rights of persons under custodial investigation are enshrined in
Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution which provides:

_______________

19 People v. Cabiles, 284 SCRA 199, 211 (1998); People v. Deniega, 251 SCRA 626 (1995).
 20 TSN, June 22, 1992, p. 5.

21 Exhibit “F,” Folder of Exhibits, pp. 7-9.

22 TSN, November 5, 1993, p. 9.

23 211 SCRA 262 (1992); Republic Act No. 7438, An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person

Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining,
and Investigating Officers and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof, which took effect on July 2,
1992, later expanded the definition of “custodial investigation” to include the practice of issuing an
“invitation” to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed.

654
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Rodriguez
Sec. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.

. (2)No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which
vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

. (3)Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 hereof

(right against self-incrimination) shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

. (4)The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violation of this section as
well as compensation for the rehabilitation of victims of tortures or similar practices,
and their families.

Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the

investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime
but has begun to focus on a particular person as a suspect.24 When
Rodriguez and appellant were arrested by the police in the afternoon
of October 11, 1991, they were already the suspects in the slaying
of the security guard, Ramon Matias, and should have been afforded
the rights guaranteed by Article III, Section 12 of the 1987
Constitution, particularly the right to counsel. The records do not
show that Rodriguez and appellant, at the time of their arrest in the
afternoon of October 11, 1991, were informed of the
wellknown Miranda rights. Worse, they were not provided with
competent and independent counsel during the custodial
investigation prior to the execution of the extrajudicial confession.
In People v. De la Cruz, 279 SCRA 245 (1997), we declared as
inadmissible the extrajudicial confession of accused where the
interrogation started at 9:00 A.M. and his lawyer arrived only at
11:00 A.M. Jurisprudence is clear that an accused under custodial
investigation must continuously have a counsel assisting him from
the

_______________

24 People v. Domantay, 307 SCRA 1, 15 (1999); People v. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997).

655
VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 655
People vs. Rodriguez
very start thereof.25 In this case, Rodriguez and appellant were in
the hands of the police for about four days without the assistance of
counsel. People v. Compil,26 we held that:
The operative act, it has been stressed, is when the police investigation is no longer a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who has been
taken into custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to
eliciting incriminatory statements, and not the signing by the suspect of his supposed
extrajudicial confession. Thus in People v. de Jesus (213 SCRA 345 [1992]) we said that
admissions obtained during custodial investigation without the benefit of counsel although
later reduced to writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the
Constitution.

So flagrant a violation of the constitutional right to counsel of the

accused cannot be countenanced. In People v. Olivarez, Jr.,27 we
explained that:
The purpose of providing counsel to a person under custodial investigation is to curb the
uncivilized practice of extracting confession even by the slightest coercion as would lead the
accused to admit something false. What is sought to be avoided is the “evil of extorting from
the very mouth of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of an offense,
the very evidence with which to prosecute and thereafter convict him.” These constitutional
guarantees have been made available to protect him from the inherently coercive
psychological, if not physical, atmosphere of such investigation.

Moreover, so stringent is this requirement that even if the confession

of an accused speaks the truth, if it was made without the assistance
of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of
coercion, or even if it had been voluntarily given.28
Since the extrajudicial confession executed by Rodriguez was given
in violation of the safeguards in Art. III, Sec. 12 of the 1987
Constitution, we hold that Rodriguez’s confession is totally inad-

_______________

25 People v. De la Cruz, 279 SCRA 245, 253 (1997), emphasis supplied.

26 244 SCRA 135, 142 (1995).

27 299 SCRA 635, 650 (1998).

28 People v. Cabiles, 284 SCRA 199, 211 (1998).

656
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Rodriguez
missible, and it was error for the trial court to use it in convicting
Rodriguez and appellant.
Insofar as Rodriguez is concerned, the trial court relied on his
extrajudicial confession in convicting him. Aside from said
extrajudicial confession, however, there is a dearth of evidence on
record, whether direct or circumstantial, linking Rodriguez to the
commission of the crime.
As to appellant, the trial court convicted him on the basis of two
pieces of circumstantial evidence which show conspiracy: (1) the
extrajudicial confession of accused implicating him as one of the
perpetrators and (2) the fact that the maong pants allegedly
belonging to appellant was found positive of type O blood. The
former being inadmissible and the latter being of no probative value
since the blood type of appellant and the victim were not taken for
purposes of comparison, there remains nothing to support
appellant’s conviction.
As pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, even
granting arguendo that the extrajudicial confession of accused was
admissible, Section 33 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides
that such confession is only admissible against the confessant. In
order to be admissible against his co-accused, Section 30 of Rule
130 of the Rules of Court require there must be independent
evidence aside from the extrajudicial confession to prove conspiracy.
In this case, however, no other piece of evidence was presented to
prove the alleged conspiracy.
Although it is only appellant who persisted with the present appeal,
the well-established rule is that an appeal in a criminal proceeding
throws the whole case open for review of all its aspects, including
those not raised by the parties.29 The records show that Rodriguez
had withdrawn his appeal due to financial reasons.30 However,
Section ll(a) of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides that “[a]n
appeal taken by one or more [of] several accused shall not affect
those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the
appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.” As

_______________

29 People v. Yam-Id, 308 SCRA 651, 655 (1999).

30 Resolution dated January 17, 2000.

657
VOL. 341, OCTOBER 2, 2000 657
People vs. Rodriguez
we have elucidated, the evidence against and the conviction of both
appellant and Rodriguez are inextricably linked. Hence, appellant’s
acquittal, which is favorable and applicable to Rodriguez, should
benefit the latter.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court convicting appellant
LARRY ARTELLERO y RICO and co-accused WILFREDO
RODRIGUEZ y CULO is hereby REVERSED. Appellant and Rodriguez
are ACQUITTED of the crime of murder and ordered immediately
released from prison, unless held for another lawful cause. The
Director of Prisons is directed to inform this Court of his compliance,
within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr.,

JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, accused-appellant Larry Artelleroand

coaccused Wilfredo Rodriguez acquitted.

Notes.—An extrajudicial confession executed with the assistance of

counsel after an invalid warrantless arrest and search is admissible.
(People vs. Merabueno, 239 SCRA 197 [1994])

When what is involved is the issue of admissibility in evidence

under Sec. 12, Art. III of the Constitution, the distinction between
confession and admission is irrelevant because Par. 3 thereof
expressly refers to both. (People vs. Agustin, 240 SCRA 541 [1995])

An extrajudicial confession obtained with counsel who would

“come and go” and was not at all times within the hearing distance
of accused but merely “within the premises,” and who could not
remember having informed the accused of his constitutional
presumption of innocence, is inadmissible. (People vs.
Bacamante, 248 SCRA 47[1995])