Case No.

1233
PEOPLE v. DANO
G.R. No. 117690
September 1, 2000
FACTS OF THE CASE
One evening, Wilfredo Tapian was called by Teresita Dano to help her pacify the fight between the victim
and the accused. Upon his arrival at the Danos house, Tapian saw the victim Emeterio Dano armed with a
scythe, threatening the accused Alberto Dano and challenging the same to fight to the death. Wilfredo was
of no use and went home fearful that he may be caught up between the fight. He called barangay captain
Peralta to take action. Peralta went to the house of Alberto. On his way, he met Alberto and the same
surrendered to Peralta. When he arrived at the house of the accused, Peralta saw the lifeless body of the
victim Emeterio sprawled in the yard, bearing slashing and hacking wounds. Peralta then fetched Alberto
and took him to the police station.
A doctor examined the corpse, still sprawled in the yard of Alberto. The police commander then ordered
the barangay captain to take photos of the corpse. The bloodied scythe was also taken into custody. It had
the name of Alberto Dano in it. The examination of the body revealed that the victim died due to blood loss
secondary to the hacking wounds. When interrogated by the police, Alberto, without assistance of counsel,
admitted he killed his brother. The pertinent portion of his statement, contained in the police blotter, and
read into the records without objection by the defense.
Petitioner Alberto Dano claimed self-defense arguing that Emeterio was the one who attacked their house
and he (Alberto) was just defending his family from the attack. The latters wife also testified that she did
not see how the victim was killed because they were inside the house with the children.
Subsequently, the trial court rendered the decision against petitioner Alberto, finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not the extra-judicial confessions of Alberto were admissible in evidence.
HELD/RATIO
Petitioner alleges that the custodial investigation conducted by the police were inadmissible as it was done
without the assistance of a counsel. The Court finds that this position is meritorious. It was found out that
during the interrogation by the police officers about the incident, petitioner Alberto had no counsel to assist
him. In this manner, his constitutional rights have been clearly violated. As the Court held, [a] suspects
confession, whether verbal or non-verbal, when taken without the assistance of counsel without a valid
waiver of such assistance regardless of the absence of coercion or the fact that it had been voluntarily
given,[44] is inadmissible in evidence,[45] even if appellants confession were gospel truth.

Prepared by: Antonio Dominic G. Salvador