PEOPLE v.

MULETA
G.R. No. 130189
June 25, 1999

FACTS:

Charito Delgado went to Manila to work and landed a job in Ali Mall, Cubao. On April 29, 1993,
Charito left Tondo where she lived and moved to another place but returned to Tondo to pick up her
remaining baggage. It was the last time she was seen by her relatives.

On April 30, her body was found naked in Malolos, Bulacan. NBI took over the case. Based on
Tolentino’s, NBI Agent, investigation, appellant, Domingo Muleta, was Charito’s uncle; that on April 29-30,
1993, he was working within Tondo and that on April 29, he left around 9:30 and only came home the
following day.

On September 19, the appellant was ordered to go with the NBI for investigation. There, the NBI
alleged that he admitted having raped and later killed the victim with the presence of his counsel. However,
it was found out that his counsel, Atty. Daquis, assisted him on September 20.

The prosecution also presented a witness that the appellant became hysterical and muttered:
"Patawarin mo ako Charito, ikaw kasi lumaban pa, nakakahiya, mabuti pang mamatay na"

On the appellant’s defense, he argued that, he was forced to admit the crime by torture and he was
forced to sign a document which he has not read and without a counsel assisting him.

RTC ruled that even in the absence of an eyewitness, the circumstantial evidence is enough to
establish the guilt of the appellant. It also upheld the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession of the
appellant; that his allegation is obviously self-serving for lack of evidence.

ISSUE:

1. Is the extrajudicial confession of the appellant admissible in evidence?

2. Are the pieces of evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant?

RULING:

1. No. Confessions extracted without the assistance of counsel are taboo and useless in a court of
law.

To be acceptable, extrajudicial confessions must conform to the Constitutional requirements. Thus,

it is not admissible if it violates the following rights of persons under custodial investigation: to remain
silent, to have independent and competent counsel preferably of their own choice, to be provided with
counsel if they are unable to secure one, to be assisted by such counsel during the investigation, to have
such counsel present when they decide to waive these rights, and to be informed of all these rights and of
the fact that anything they say can and will be used against them in court.

In this case, the appellant’s right to be informed of his rights under custodial investigation, his right
to counsel, as well as his right to have said counsel present during the waiver of his rights under custodial
investigation have been violated.
 First, the right to be apprised does not merely require the investigating officers to "inform" the
person under investigation; rather, it requires that the latter be "informed". In this case, based on the
Sinumpaang Salaysay of the appellant, his answers where terse and perfunctory, which implies that it did
not consider whether he understood what was read to him.

Second, the right to counsel was not satisfied as well. In the cross-examination of the NBI
Investigating Officer, he stated that he started taking statements from the accused from September 19 in
which the counsel of the appellant was only present on the following day, September 20. Thus, it violates
such right, for a counsel must be present at all times when an accused gives his statement. Moreover, the
Court held that, based on the foregoing, the Sinumpaang Salaysay was also made without the presence of a
counsel.

Third, there was no valid waiver of his rights. As stated, he was not assisted by his counsel. Further,
even assuming that there was the present of his counsel, the waiver was insufficient. The appellant stated.
“Tinatalikdan ko na po iyon dahil gusto ko nang ipagtapat ang pangyayari kay CHARITO DELGADO na
pamangkin ko." Thus, according to the Court, this was not the waiver that the Constitution clearly and
strictly required. It failed to show that the appellant understood its rights, and its implications thereof.

Thus, the extrajudicial confessions taken in this case is inadmissible.

2. No. They were not sufficiently established.

The prosecution failed to prove that he was work at around 9:30 pm on the day of the crime, and
that we just went home the day after. All it could present was the testimony of the NBI Agent, who testified
on what the appellant’s co-workers stated. This is clearly hearsay. Moreover, the co-workers were not
present on trial, thus, were not cross-examined.

Furthermore, his strange behaviors and the words he uttered could mean that the he was blaming
himself for being unable to protect his niece. These words only places the appellant under suspicion, and
suspicion is not synonymous with guilt.

More importantly, even if they were proven, it is not enough to establish the guilt of the appellant.

The Court, finds the appellant not guilty and is hereby acquitted.