People v. Tan
| G.R. No. 117321 | Feb. 11, 1998 | Romero, J. | Art 3 - Sec. 12 |
Petitioners:
The People of the Philippine,
plaintiff-appellee
Respondents:
Herson Tan y Verzo,
accused-appellant
Recit Ready Summary
Herson Tan was charged with the crime of robbery with murder. Freddie Saavedra, a tricycle driver, was found dead
with 14 stab wounds. Lucena PNP officers invited Tan in connection with the death of Freddie and with respect to two
other robbery cases. During their conversation, appellant allegedly gave an explicit account of what actually
transpired.
Lt. Carlos testified that when he invited appellant to their headquarters, he had no warrant for his arrest. In the course
thereof, he informed the latter that he was a suspect, not only in the instant case, but also in two other robbery cases
allegedly committed in Lucena City. In the belief that they were merely conversing inside the police station, he
admitted that he did not inform appellant of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel;
nor did he reduce the supposed confession to writing.
The issue is whether or not the confession made by Tan is admissible against him.
The Court ruled in the negative and acquitted Tan. The evidence for the prosecution shows that when appellant was
invited for questioning at the police headquarters, he allegedly admitted his participation in the crime. This is
inadequate to warrant conviction. The Constitution abhors an uncounselled confession or admission and whatever
information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as inadmissible in evidence against the confessant. For a
confession to be admissible (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing. The confession must be “voluntary, knowing
and intelligent, and must be made in the presence and with the assistance of counsel,” which is lacking in this case.
FACTS:
- Herson Tan, along with Lito Amido, were charged with the crime of highway robbery with murder.
- Tricycle driver Freddie Saavedra went to see his wife, Delfa, at Our Lady of Angels Academy in Atimonan,
Quezn, where the latter is a third year high school student, to inform her that he will drive both accused to
Barangay Maligaya.
- It was the last time that Freddie was seen alive.
- When Freddie failed to return that evening, Delfa, inquired on his whereabouts from relatives and friends.
- In the course of inquiry, a certain Arnel Villarama revealed that the lifeless body of her husband was
discovered on the diversion road at Brgy. Malinao in Atimonan.
- They proceeded to such place and found him sprawled on the ground with 14 stab wounds in different parts
of his body.
- Relying on the information that an abandoned sidecar of a tricylce was sighted, Lucena PNP led by Lt.
Carlos Santos proceeded to the scene of the crime and recovered a blue sidecar which they brought back
with them to their headquarters.
- Subsequently, Lt. Santos, Cpl. Numeriano Aguilar and Pat. Rolando Alandy invited Tan in connection with
the instant case and with respect to two other robbery cases.
- During their conversation, appellant allegedly gave an explicit account of what actually transpired.
- He narrated that he and Amido were responsible for the loss of the motorcycle and the consequent death of
Freddie. Moreover, he averred that they sold the motorcycle to a certain Danny Teves of Barrio Summit,
Muntinlupa for a sum of P4,000.00.
- With the help of Tan as a guide, the Lucena PNP immediately dispatched a team to retrieve the same.
- After admitting that it was purchased from both the accused and upon failure to present any document
evidencing the purported sale, Teves voluntarily surrendered it to the police who turned it over, together with
the sidecar, to the Atimonan Police Station for safekeeping.
- Lt. Carlos, on cross-examination, testified that when he invited appellant to their headquarters, he had no
warrant for his arrest. In the course thereof, he informed the latter that he was a suspect, not only in the
instant case, but also in two other robbery cases allegedly committed in Lucena City. In the belief that they
were merely conversing inside the police station, he admitted that he did not inform appellant of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel; nor did he reduce the supposed
confession to writing.
- Tan alleged that he had no participation in the offense and contended that his only involvement in the matter
was the referral of accused Amido to Teves.
- Amido presented alibi as his defense. He alleged that although a tricycle driver by occupation, he was at Barangay Malusak, Atimonan on the day in question, busy assisting in the renovation of his mother’s house.
He narrated that the victim was his friend and, therefore, he could not have participated in the gruesome
death of the latter.
- In a decision the trial court convicted Tan.
- The appealed decision is set aside and Tan acquitted on the ground that his constitutional rights were
violated
ISSUES: May the confession of an accused, given before a
police investigator upon invitation and without the
benefit of counsel, be admissible in evidence against
him? NO.
HELD:
- The confession of Tan is inadmissible in evidence against him.
- The Constitution abhors an uncounselled confession or admission and whatever information is derived therefrom
shall be regarded as inadmissible in evidence against the confessant
- RA 7438 reenforced the constitutional mandate protecting the rights of persons under custodial investigation, a
pertinent provision:
“As used in this Act, ‘custodial investigation’ shall include the practice of issuing an ‘invitation’ to a
person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed,
without prejudice to the liability of the ‘inviting’ officer for any violation of law.”
- Custodial investigation - any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. The rules
on custodial investigation begin to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry
into an unsolved crime and begins to focus a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and
the police carries out a process of interrogations that tends itself to eliciting incriminating statements
that the rule begins to operate.
- Not only does the fundamental law impose, as a requisite function of the investigating officer, the duty
to explain those rights to the accused but also that there must correspondingly be a meaningful
communication to and understanding thereof by the accused. A mere perfunctory reading by the
constable of such rights to the accused would thus not suffice.
- A confession, to be admissible must satisfy the following requirements:
(1) it must be voluntary;
(2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel;
(3) it must be express; and
(4) it must be in writing.
- While the Constitution sanctions the waiver of the right to counsel, it must, however, be “voluntary,
knowing and intelligent, and must be made in the presence and with the assistance of counsel.”
- People v. Javar: any statement obtained in violation of the constitution, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
- Even if the confession contains a grain of truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it
becomes inadmissible in evidence, regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been
voluntarily given.
- The records of this case do not indicate that appellant was assisted by counsel when he made such
waiver, a finding evident from the testimony of Lt. Santos on cross-examination.
- The evidence for the prosecution shows that when appellant was invited for questioning at the police
headquarters, he allegedly admitted his participation in the crime.
- This will not suffice to convict him, however, of said crime.
- What remains of the evidence for the prosecution is inadequate to warrant a conviction
DISPOSITION: Acquitted.
Comments
Post a Comment