Case Digest: People v. Lucero (G.R. No. 97936)

People v. Lucero | G.R. No. 97936 | May 29, 1995 | J. Puno | Article III - Sec. 12 |

Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Alejandro Lucero

Recit Ready Summary Lucero was charged with the crime of homicide with robbery. The officer in charge to conduct the investigation of Lucero, Pfc. Pursal, informed the CIS Legal Department about Lucero’s need for a lawyer after the latter said that he had no lawyer. Atty Peralta then conferred with Lucero. It was noted that Peralta observed no reaction when he explained to Lucero his constitutional rights. When the CIS investigator began asking Lucero preliminary questions, Peralta left to attend a friend’s wake. The next morning, Lucero was accompanied by 2 CIS agents to Peralta’s residence to present to the latter Lucero’s extrajudicial statement. Peralta signed the document when Lucero said that the statements were given voluntarily. Lucero claims however that he signed the statement under duress; that Atty Peralta was not around during the custodial investigation. The trial court convicted Lucero. 

The issue was W/N Lucero’s extra-judicial confession is admissible? 

The court held that it was not. Substantial compliance with the requirements of the right to counsel is far from the intent of the Constitution. It was during Atty Peralta’s absence that Lucero gave an uncounselled confession. The uncounselled confession was supposed to be cured by bringing Lucero to Peralta’s residence. The Constitution, in requiring the right to counsel, means effective and vigilant counsel. Because Peralta left, Lucero received no effective counseling at the crucial point (when the interrogation was just starting).

FACTS:

1. Alejandro Lucero, Bienvenido Echavez, Balbino Echavez, Peter Doe, Richard Doe and John Doe were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. However only the Echavez brothers and Alejandro Lucero were apprehended. At 7:00 am of May 7, 1988, Dr. Demetrio Madrid and his driver, Lorenzo Bernales, were on the way to Madrid’s residence in Project 6 Quezon City when a gray-reddish car blocked the Mercedes Benz that they were riding at Road 14. Three men then barged into Madrid’s car and announced a hold-up. They got a gold Rolex watch, a diamond rings, a necklace, a bracelet, and his wallet containing P6,600.00.
2. After driving around a couple of hours, the malefactors stopped the car and alighted. However, the man beside Dr. Madrid’s driver shot the driver at the chest before fleeing. Dr. Madrid and his driver Bernales were then rushed to the hospital, but Bernales died due to hemorrhage. Dr. Madrid reported the incident and the case was taken over by the Special Operations Group of the Central Intelligence Services (CIS). The efforts of the Special Operations Group headed by Capt. Raul Boac paid-off when they were able to apprehend the suspects, Balbino Echavez and Alejandro Lucero 2 months later.
3. The officer in charge to conduct the investigation of the suspects, Alberto Pursal, said that even before investigation started, Lucero verbally admitted his participation in the crime and that he was the one who shot Bernales. Lucero was informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel.
4. Pfc. Pursal informed the CIS Legal Department about Lucero’s need for a lawyer after the latter said that he had no lawyer. Atty Peralta then conferred with Lucero. It was noted that Peralta observed no reaction when he explained to Lucero his constitutional rights. When the CIS investigator began asking Lucero preliminary questions, Peralta left to attend a friend’s wake. The next morning, Lucero was accompanied by 2 CIS agents to Peralta’s residence to present to the latter Lucero’s extrajudicial statement. Peralta signed the document when Lucero said that the statements were given voluntarily. Lucero claims however that he signed the statement under duress; that Atty Peralta was not around during the custodial investigation. The trial court convicted Lucero.

ISSUE:
1. W/N Lucero can be convicted on the positive identification of the complainant? NO
2. W/N Lucero’s extra-judicial confession is admissible? NO 

HELD:

• (Not impt) The credibility of the main prosecution eyewitness, Dr. Demetrio Madrid who identified appellant, is seriously open to doubt because Lucero had to participate at the police line-up four (4) times before he was finally identified by Dr. Madrid. There is no reason for the ambivalence since the robbery took place in broad daylight and the malefactors wore no mask. They also drove them around for three hours. Considering these circumstances, there is no reason for Dr. Madrid's failure to immediately identify appellant.
• Substantial compliance with the requirements of the right to counsel is far from the intent of the Constitution. When the Constitution requires the right to counsel, it means effective and vigilant counsel. Peralta left the accused during the most crucial point of the investigation which was when the interrogation was just starting. It was during the absence of Atty. Peralta that the accused gave an uncounselled confession. The right to counsel attaches from the start of the investigation. In this case, Lucero was practically denied his right to competent legal counsel.

DISPOSITION: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision in Criminal Case No. Q-88-201 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch CIII, convicting appellant Alejandro Lucero y Cortel of robbery with homicide is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.