Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
People vs. Guillermo (420 SCRA 326/G.R. No. 1477786, January 20, 2004)
Facts:
1) The case is an automatic review of the judgment of the RTC of Antipolo, finding appellant Eric Guillermo guilty
of murdering his employer Victor F. Keyser and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death.
2) On March 22, 1998, prosecution witness Romualdo Campos, a security guard assigned to Greatmore Corp. (a
manufacturer of faucets sharing the same building with Keyser Plastics), saw Eric Guillermo, an employee of
Keyser entered the premises. An hour later, he saw Victor F. Keyser arrived.
3) At round 10am, Campos heard some loud noises coming from the Keyser area but ignored it. At around
noontime, Guillermo looked through the holes in the dividing wall and calmly told Campos that he killed Keyser.
Eric asked for his assistance to help him carry the corpse to the garbage dump so he could burn it. Campos
then called the police to report the incident.
4) 10 minutes later, a team from the PNP-Antipolo arrived. The convinced Eric to give them the keys to the Keyser
Plastics gate. Eric told them that hell surrender and that he bashed the victim on the head with the piece of
wood, and after Keyser fell; he dismembered the body with a carpenter saw. When asked what as to his
motive for killing, Eric replied that Keyser had been maltreating him and his co-employees. He said Keyser had
not pain him for years, did not feed him and treated him like an animal. He expressed no regret whatsoever
about his actions.
5) At the trial, the defense consisted of outright denial. He alleged that he was a victim of a police frame-up. He
said he was then brought to the police station where he was advised to admit having killed his employer.
6) Appellant contends that his conviction was based on inadmissible evidence. He points out that he was not
informed of his constitutional rights nor was he made to understand the same by the police investigators. He
says he was only made to read said rights printed form posed on the wall at the police precinct. He was not
provided with the services of counsel during the custodial investigation, as admitted by SPO1 Reyes.
Issue: Did the Court a quo gravely err in finding that the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime of murder has
been proven beyond reasonable doubt?
Discussion: Yes, but only when it admits the alleged confession of Guillermo to the police. However, the prosecution
has amply proven the appellants guilt in killing Keyser with the following: a) spontaneous and out-of-court admissions
he made to Campos and the two media reports, Abelgas and David and b) the positive evidence, including the
instruments of the crime, together with the medical evidence and testimonies of credible prosecution witness.
1) The OSG contends that not every statement made to the police by a suspect in a crime falls within the ambit of
constitutional protection. Hence, if not made under custodial investigation or under investigation for the
commission of an offense, the statement is not protected by the Bill of Rights.
In the Courts view, however, the confession Eric made while he was under investigation by SPO1 Reyes falls
short of the protective standards as laid down by the Constitution.
Under Article III of the Constitution, a confession to be admissible must satisfy the following requisites: (a) the
confession must be voluntary; (b) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel; (c) the confession must be express; and (d) the confession must be in writing. In the
instant case, the testimony of SPO1 Reyes on cross-examination clearly shows the cavalier treatment by the
police of said constitutional guarantees.
2) Appellants alleged confession at the police station lacks the safeguards required by the Bill of Rights. The
investigating officer made no serious effort to make appellant aware of his basic rights under custodial
investigation. While the investigating officer was aware of the appellants right to be represented by counsel,
the officer exerted no effort to provide him with one on the flimsy excuse that it was a Sunday. Despite the
absence of counsel, the officer proceeded with said investigation.
Moreover, the record is bare of any showing that appellant had waived his constitutional rights in writing and in
the presence of counsel. As well said in People v. Dano, even if the admission or confession of an accused is
gospel truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the
absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.
Ruling: The assailed judgment of the RTC of Antipolo City, finding Eric Guillermo GUILTY of the murder of Victor
Francisco Keyser is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants sentence is hereby REDUCED to RECLUSION
PERPETUA. He is also ordered to pay the heirs of the victim.
People vs. Bermas (306 SCRA 135/ G.R. No. 120420, April 21, 1999)
Facts:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Rufino Bermas was found guilty of raping her 15 year old daughter, Manuela, and was sentence to suffer the penalty of the
death. The case has reaches the Court by way of automatic review.
Bermas denied the charge, and that of his other daughter, Luzviminda Mendez, who attributed the accusation made by her
younger sister to a mere resentment.
It appeared that on August 8, 1994, Manuela, assisted by her mother, executed a sworn statement that she had been raped
by her father in 1991, 1993 and August 3, 1994. The Second Assistant Prosecutor, issued a certification to the effect that
the accused had waives his right to a preliminary investigation.
On the day of the arraignment, the accused was brought before the trail court without counsel. The court assigned Atty.
Rosa Elmira Villamin (PAO) to be the counsel de officio. Accused pleaded not guilty and the pre-trial was waived.
During the initial reception of evidence, the defense counsel waived the cross-examination of the complainant and then
asked the court to be relieved of her duty as counsel de officio. (Her reason: She could not give justice to the accused
because she is a lady lawyer)
Atty. Roberto Gomez, who barely had time to prepare, was appointed by the trial court to be the defense counsel de officio.
He was recommended by Atty. Villamin to substitute her.
During the reception of the defense evidence on January 9, 1995, Atty. Gomez failed to appear. He also repeatedly failed to
appear to defend the accused, thus the Court appointed, Atty. Nicanor Lonzame as the counsel de officio. Atty. Lonzame
also ceased to appear for Bermas on the succeeding trials.
Issue: Was the accused denied of his constitutional right to effective and vigilant counsel?
1) The trial court did not observe the correct selection process in appointing the accuseds counsel de office;
2) The Public Attorney could not give justice to the accused and was negligent in not moving:
a. To quash the information on the ground of illegal arrest
b. To quash the information on the ground of invalid filing of the information
c. For a preliminary investigation
d. In not pointing out the unexplained change in the case number
e. To inhibit the judge
f. Negligent in her conduct at the initial trial
3) The Vanishing Second Counsel de Officio
a. He was not dedicated nor devoted to the accused
b. His work was shoddy
4) The Reluctant Third Counsel de Officio
5) The performance of all three counsels de officio was ineffective and prejudicial to the accused
Discussion: Yes, the accused was denied of constitutional right to effective and vigilant counsel. Under the 1987 Constitution, the
availability of the right to counsel as early as the stage of custodial interrogation is found in Sections 12 and 14, Article III.
The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard
questions and objections. The right to counsel means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who
commits himself to the cause for the defense and acts accordingly. The right assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the
proceedings, particularly at the trial of the case, his bearing constantly in mind of the basic rights of the accused, his being wellversed on the case, and his knowing the fundamental procedures, essential laws and existing jurisprudence. The right of an accused
to counsel finds substance in the performance by the lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity to his client. Tersely put, it means an
efficient and truly decisive legal assistance and not a simple perfunctory representation.
It is never enough that accused be simply informed of his right to counsel; he should also be asked whether he wants to avail himself
of one and should be told that he can hire a counsel of his own choice if he so desires or that one can be provided to him at his
request. Section 7, Rule 116, of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
Sec. 7. Appointment of counsel de oficio. - The court, considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the
questions that may arise, shall appoint as counsel de oficio only such members of the bar in good standing who, by reason
of their experience and ability may adequately defend the accused. But in localities where such members of the bar are not
available, the court may appoint any person, resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability, to defend
the accused.
Ruling: Cases is REMANDED to the court a quo for trial on the basis of the complaint, aforequoted, under which he was arraigned.
Atty. Ricardo A. Fernandez, Jr. of the Anti-Death Penalty Task Force is hereby appointed counsel de officio for the appellant.
(Attys. Rosa Elmina Villamin, Roberto Gomez and Nicanor Lonzame are ADMONISHED by the Court.)
People vs. Tambis (560 SCRA 343/ G.R. No. 124452, July 28, 1999)