People v. Taliman 2000 [G.R. No. 109143] Case Digest

 

·         People v. Taliman 2000 [G.R. No. 109143]

Facts:

            The victim was Renato Cuano. Prosecution witness Ernesto Lacson was the uncle and employer of Renato, who was the caretaker of his gravel and sand truck. Renato came to see Lacson and informed him that armed and hooded persons4 were asking for money amounting to six thousand pesos (₱6,000.00). The amount was reduced to six hundred pesos (₱600.00) and finally to two hundred pesos (₱200.00). Lacson arrived home from church. His wife handed him a letter delivered to her by a child. In the letter, purportedly members of the N.P.A. demanded eight thousand pesos (₱8,000.00) from him.

            Lacson told his employee, prosecution witness Elizer Obregon, to go to the crossing of Nalisbitan, the place mentioned in the letter to investigate who the persons demanding money were.  Elizer complied and reached the place at around five o’clock in the afternoon (5:00 p.m.) of the same day.

                Upon reaching the place, Elizer saw Renato and spoke with him. In the vicinity, Elizer saw accused Basilio Baybayan, Pedro Taliman and Amado Belano. At that time, accused Sgt. Pedro Taliman and C1C Basilio M. Baybayan were members of the Camarines Norte Constabulary/Integrated National Police Command.12 Elizer saw two other civilians in their company. Elizer then saw accused Pedro Taliman and Basilio Baybayan take Renato14 to a hilltop, where he was guarded by accused who were armed. Elizer heard one of the accused say that Renato must be taken as "he must be acting as a lookout (for Lacson)." 

                Elizer then proceeded to Bagong Silang and reported to Lacson that Renato was taken by accused Pedro Taliman, Basilio Baybayan and Amado Belano.

A custodial investigation was conducted. On July 23, 1990, Attorney Nicolas V. Pardo was mayor of Labo, Camarines Norte. He went to the police station upon invitation of police corporal Cereno to "assist" accused during their custodial investigation. Accused executed extra-judicial statements, confessing to the commission of the crime.

            It was during this custodial investigation that accused Basilio Baybayin confessed to prosecution witness Sgt. Bonifacio Argarin that he participated in the killing of Renato because Renato did not give them the money they were demanding. This confession was given without the assistance of counsel and was not reduced to writing.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not Accused-appellant's extra-judicial confessions on which the trial court relied were inadmissible in evidence because they were obtained in violation of their constitutional rights.

 

Held:

            YES. Article III, Section 12 (1) of the Constitution provides: "Any person under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel (underscoring ours)."

 

Mayor Pardo cannot be considered as an independent counsel for accused during their custodial investigation.

In People v. Culala, SC held that the extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellant was inadmissible as he was "assisted" by the incumbent municipal attorney. In People vs. Bandula, we held that a municipal attorney could not be an independent counsel as required by the Constitution. We reasoned that as legal officer of the municipality, he provides legal assistance and support to the mayor and the municipality in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people, including the maintenance of peace and order. It is therefore seriously doubted whether he can effectively undertake the defense of the accused without running into conflict of interests.

Besides, lawyers engaged by the police, whatever testimonials are given as proof of their probity and supposed independence, are suspects. In many areas, even less obvious than that obtaining in the present case, the relationship between lawyers and law enforcement authorities can be symbiotic.

            Even assuming that the right to counsel was orally waived during custodial investigation, still the defect was not cured. The Constitution expressly provides that the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel. This, accused-appellants did not do.

            However, while we agree that the extra-judicial statements of the accused are inadmissible in evidence, we find that there is still sufficient evidence to convict. While no one saw the actual killing of Renato, circumstantial evidence proved its commission. Resort to circumstantial evidence is essential, when to insist on direct testimony would set felons free.