313. Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Chin v. Judge Gustilo, et
He then went to
al.
A.M. No. RTJ-94-1243 August 11, 1995
TOPIC: Aspects of the Right to Bail
Summary:
This case is an instant appeal of the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in finding the accused Isla guilty
of kidnapping. She alleges that the alleged extra-judicial
confession is inadmissible in evidence, being extracted in
violation of her constitutional rights. The SC finds merit in this
allegation saying that extra-judicial confession relied upon by
the trial court in her conviction is inadmissible as evidence
since it was extracted in violation of her rights. Thus the ruling
of the RTC was set aside.
Doctrine:
An extra-judicial statement executed by the accused
during the custodial investigation without the assistance of
counsel is inadmissible in evidence for it violates the right of
the accused.
Facts:
This case is an instant appeal of the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in finding the accused Isla guilty
of kidnapping. It was alleged that Isla kidnapped the child
Maritess Organez. Amador Organez, the child’s father, tried to
look for his child when their neighbors told him that a pregnant
woman was last seen around their house before the child was
lost. He then went to search for a pregnant woman around their
area and it was during that time that he met Shirley Martinet
who told him about her child who was also lost and that it
happened when Isla visited her before.
Caloocan to continue his search there he met Lola Danding
who also said the same thing as Martinet. On June 18, 1987 the
Malabon police informed Amador that Isla had been arrested.
He then went to the Malabon Police Headquarters to talk with
Isla who told them that they will find the child in Pampanga.
When, upon searching, they failed to find the child in
Pampanga Isla was returned to the Malabon Police and was
eventually transferred to the Western Police District of Manila.
On June 21, 1987, Isla was investigated by P/Cpl. Pablito
Marasigan and during the investigation she executed an
extrajudicial statement which states that she did kidnapped the
child and that the child was brought to Teofilo Ablaza for
adoption. She signed the same with Atty. Joaquin of the CLAO
beside her. However during the investigation Atty Joaquin was
not present with Isla and that the statement was already
prepared when he arrived thus he was not able to counsel Isla.
Marasigan also failed to inform Isla of her rights and he
induced her to sign the document with a promise to set her free.
Relevant Issue:
Was the alleged extra-judicial confession is
inadmissible in evidence, being extracted in violation of her
constitutional rights?
Ruling: YES
Ratio:
Appellant correctly assails the trial court for depending
upon her sworn statement dated August 1, 1987 as the basis for
her conviction. The said document was procured in violation of
her Constitutional rights.
 As can be gleaned from the records, Isla was already in her during the investigation, inasmuch as the statement was
the custody of the police authorities as early as July 18, 1987. already finished and prepared before he arrived at the police
She was turned over to the elements the Western Police District station. Also Isla was given a false promise that she will have
only on July 11, 1987. The Malabon police detained her, who her liberty after affixing her signature in the document
was then pregnant, for three days, without filing any formal prepared by P/Cpl. Marasigan. It is clear then, that policeman
charge, before she was turned over to the Western Police Marasigan resorted to unlawful means to extract a confession
District. upon appellant, which effectively vitiated her consent.
Consequently, the sworn statement is inadmissible in evidence.
A perusal of the records shows that, while Isla was at
the Western Police District, Police Corporal Pablito Marasigan
immediately conducted an investigation, without providing her
with counsel of her choice, or advising her of her constitutional
rights.
It is clear that the law does not distinguish between
preliminary questions and questions during custodial
investigation, as any question asked of a person while
under detention, is considered as a question asked while
under custodial investigation. As ruled by the SC in the
case Gamboa v. Cruz the moment there is a move of the
investigator to elicit admissions or even plain information
from the suspect which may appear innocent or innocuous
at the time, the suspect should be assisted by counsel, unless
he waives his right, but the waiver should be made in
writing and in the presence of counsel.
In the case at bar, when P/Cpl. Marasigan started his
investigation without providing Isla with counsel of her choice,
the former violated her rights as enshrined in the Constitution
and it was only after he conducted an investigation on appellant
that P/Cpl. Marasigan summoned Atty. Domingo Joaquin of
the Citizens Legal Assistance Office and detailed at the
Western Police District as inquest lawyer, to assist the
appellant in giving a confession. On this basis, there is reason
to believe appellant's assertion that Atty. Joaquin did not assist