People v. Fabro 1997 [G.R. No. 95089] Case Digest

 

·         People v. Fabro 1997 [G.R. No. 95089]

Facts:

            RTC of Olongapo City, Branch 72, in Crim. Case No. 364-87, finding the accused guilty of murder and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua. Dimalanta and Appellant Fabro, with the assistance of Counsel de oficio Romeo C. Alinea, pleaded not guilty. On September 8, 1987, Accused Alcala entered the same plea.  In the course of the trial, both Accused Dimalanta and Alcala jumped bail.

            Sgt. Lappay testified that he was present during the investigation of Fabro. Fabro in his presence admitted his participation and pointed to Francisco Dimalanta and Amado Alcala and one Ernesto de Guzman. It was in early morning of April 14, 1987 that de Guzman and Dimalanta were apprehended along Rizal Extension, they being neighbors. Alcala was arrested at above street. 

            The court a quo also rejected his contention that he was coerced into signing a confession, since the solitary verbal "threat" allegedly made by the investigator was vague and not backed up by the use of actual physical force. After considering the presence of the counsel (Atty. Jungco) who assisted the appellant and his co-accused during the custodial investigation as well as in the execution of their respective sworn statements, the lower court admitted in evidence their extrajudicial confessions.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not admissions and confessions in the case at bar inadmissible as violative of the Constitution.

 

Held:

            A confession is defined in jurisprudence as a declaration made voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement by a person, stating or acknowledging that he has committed or participated in the commission of a crime.  But before it can be admitted in evidence, several requirements have to be satisfied.

            In jurisprudence, no confession can be admitted in evidence unless it is given:

1. Freely and voluntarily, without compulsion, inducement or trickery;

2. Knowingly based on an effective communication to the individual under custodial investigation of his constitutional rights; and

3. Intelligently with full appreciation of its importance and comprehension of its consequences.

            When all these requirements are met and the confession is admitted in evidence, the burden of proof that it was obtained by undue pressure, threat or intimidation rests upon the accused.

            This adherence to the Constitution is further confirmed by the confession itself. It starts off with a "Pasubali" wherein appellant was informed of his constitutional rights and a "Pagpapatunay" which confirmed that he understood said rights. Both parts also serve as a written proof of appellant's waiver in fulfillment of the requirements of the Constitution.

            The Constitution further requires that the counsel be independent; thus, he cannot be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to that of the accused. Atty. Jungco does not fall under any of said enumeration. Nor is there any evidence that he had any interest adverse to that of the accused. The indelible fact is that he was president of the Zambales Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and not a lackey of the lawmen.

Doubts that Atty. Jungco's assistance to appellant was not independent since he was engaged by the CIS Investigators are further dispelled by the fact that he was sent to the CIS Office by Sgt. Bolina who personally knew appellant's parents and was a friend of his brother-in-law.  He took the trouble to ensure that a lawyer was present during the taking of appellant's statement, even though he (Bolina) would not be there. Ineluctably, appellant, by his uncorroborated, puerile and matter-of-fact claim, failed to overcome the presumption that Atty. Jungco regularly performed his official duty as an officer of the court in giving assistance to persons undergoing custodial interrogation. Upon the other, the overwhelming evidence is that he did performs such duty faithfully.

            The 1987 Constitution guarantees persons undergoing custodial investigation the rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. The Constitution impels strict compliance with these requirements because a confession of guilt given during such investigation constitutes formidable evidence against the accused on the principle that no one will knowingly, freely and deliberately admit authorship of a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience, particularly where the facts given could have been known only by appellant. On the other hand, any allegation of force, duress, undue influence or other forms of involuntariness in exacting such confession must be proven by clear, convincing and competent evidence by the defense. Otherwise, the confession's full probative value may be used to demonstrate the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.