Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SPO1 Espinoza testified that appellant confessed to the killingof Jennifer and
disclosed to him the location of the bayonet used which was submittedas evidence
for the prosecution. According to him, appellant waived assistance of counsel but
the waiver was not put in writing nor made in the presence of counsel. Onthe other
hand, Manuel declared that appellant, in an interview, admitted the brutalkilling of
Jennifer; that he was just outside the cell when he interviewed
appellantaccompanied by his uncle inside the jail, that the nearest policemen were
about 2-3meters from him and that no lawyer assisted appellant during the
interview. Alsopresented as a witness was Dr. Bandonill, medico-legal expert of the
NBI, who testifiedthat it was possible that the lacerations on the victim could have
been caused bysomething blunt other than the male organ.
ISSUE:
W/N the two confessions made before SPO1 Espinoza and Manuel whichappellant
claimed to have been obtained from him were admissible.
HELD:
The right to counsel of a person under custodial investigation can be waivedonly in
writing and with assistance of counsel and that confessions or admissionsobtained
in violation thereof are inadmissible in evidence.
However, this prohibitiondoes not apply to confessions or admissions
made to private individuals, such asradio reporters.
For an extrajudicial confession to be admissible, it must satisfy the
followingrequirements: (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 inwriting.
In the case at bar, when accused-appellant was brought to the Malasiqui police
stationin the evening of October 17, 1996, he was already a suspect, in fact the only
one, inthe brutal slaying of Jennifer Domantay. He was, therefore, already under
custodialinvestigation and the rights guaranteed in Art. III, 12 (1) of the
Constitution applied tohim. . . . But though he waived the assistance of counsel, the
waiver was neither put inwriting nor made in the presence of counsel. For this
reason, the waiver is invalid andhis confession is inadmissible. SPO1 Espinoza's
testimony on the alleged confession of accused-appellant should have been
excluded by the trial court. So is the bayonetinadmissible in evidence, being, as it
were, the "fruit of the poisonous tree."However, the SC agreed with the Solicitor
General that accused-appellant's confessionto the radio reporter, Celso Manuel, is
admissible. In People v. Andan, the accused in arape with homicide case confessed
to the crime during interviews with the media. Inholding the confession admissible,
despite the fact that the accused gave his answerswithout the assistance of
counsel, this Court said: [A]ppellant's
[oral] confessions tothe newsmen are not covered by Section 12 (1) and
(3) of Article III of theConstitution. The Bill of Rights does not concern
itself with the relation between aprivate individual and another individual.
It governs the relationship between theindividual and the State. The
prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to theState and its agents.
Escobedo v. Illinois
Brief Fact Summary. The petitioner Danny Escobedo asked to speak with his
lawyer while in police custody but before being formally charged and was denied.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Not allowing someone to speak with an attorney, and
not advising them of their right to remain silent after they have been arrested and
before they have been interrogated is a denial of assistance of counsel under the
Sixth Amendment.
Facts. After being arrested and taken into police custody as a suspect in the murder
of his brother-in-law, the petitioner asked to speak to his attorney. His attorney
arrived at police headquarters soon after the petitioner did and was not allowed to
speak to his client as the officers said they had not completed questioning. The
petitioner also was not warned of his right to remain silent before the interrogation.
He was convicted of murder and the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed. He was then
granted certiorari.
Issue. If a suspect has been taken into police custody and interrogated by police
without their request to see an attorney being honored, nor being advised of their
right to remain silent, have they been denied effective assistance of counsel under
the Sixth Amendment?
Held. Yes. Reverse the petitioners conviction and remand the case.
The Sixth Amendment protects the right to effective assistance of counsel. Here,
because the police investigation focused on the accused as a suspect rather than a
less specific investigation, refusing to allow an accused to speak with his attorney is
a denial of this Sixth Amendment right. The incriminating statements he made must
thus not be admitted into evidence.
A law enforcement system that relies too much on the confession is more subject to
abuses than one that depends on evidence obtained through skillful investigation.
The result here recognizes this idea.