25. Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Chin v. Judge Gustilo, et al.
search there he met Lola Danding who also said the same thing
A.M. No. RTJ-94-1243 August 11, 1995
TOPIC: Aspects of the Right to Bail
Summary:
This case is an instant appeal of the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in finding the accused Isla guilty of
kidnapping. She alleges that the alleged extra-judicial
confession is inadmissible in evidence, being extracted in
violation of her constitutional rights. The SC finds merit in this
allegation saying that extra-judicial confession relied upon by
the trial court in her conviction is inadmissible as evidence since
it was extracted in violation of her rights. Thus the ruling of the
RTC was set aside.
Doctrine:
An extra-judicial statement executed by the accused
during the custodial investigation without the assistance of
counsel is inadmissible in evidence for it violates the right of the
accused.
Facts:
This case is an instant appeal of the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in finding the accused Isla guilty of
kidnapping. It was alleged that Isla kidnapped the child Maritess
Organez. Amador Organez, the child’s father, tried to look for
his child when their neighbors told him that a pregnant woman
was last seen around their house before the child was lost. He
then went to search for a pregnant woman around their area and
it was during that time that he met Shirley Martinet who told him
about her child who was also lost and that it happened when Isla
visited her before. He then went to Caloocan to continue his
as Martinet. On June 18, 1987 the Malabon police informed
Amador that Isla had been arrested. He then went to the Malabon
Police Headquarters to talk with Isla who told them that they will
find the child in Pampanga. When, upon searching, they failed
to find the child in Pampanga Isla was returned to the Malabon
Police and was eventually transferred to the Western Police
District of Manila. On June 21, 1987, Isla was investigated by
P/Cpl. Pablito Marasigan and during the investigation she
executed an extrajudicial statement which states that she did
kidnapped the child and that the child was brought to Teofilo
Ablaza for adoption. She signed the same with Atty. Joaquin of
the CLAO beside her. However during the investigation Atty
Joaquin was not present with Isla and that the statement was
already prepared when he arrived thus he was not able to counsel
Isla. Marasigan also failed to inform Isla of her rights and he
induced her to sign the document with a promise to set her free.
Relevant Issue:
Was the alleged extra-judicial confession is inadmissible
in evidence, being extracted in violation of her constitutional
rights?
Ruling: YES
Ratio:
Appellant correctly assails the trial court for depending
upon her sworn statement dated August 1, 1987 as the basis for
her conviction. The said document was procured in violation of
her Constitutional rights.
As can be gleaned from the records, Isla was already in
the custody of the police authorities as early as July 18, 1987.
She was turned over to the elements the Western Police District
only on July 11, 1987. The Malabon police detained her, who affixing her signature in the document prepared by P/Cpl.
was then pregnant, for three days, without filing any formal Marasigan. It is clear then, that policeman Marasigan resorted to
charge, before she was turned over to the Western Police unlawful means to extract a confession upon appellant, which
District. effectively vitiated her consent. Consequently, the sworn
statement is inadmissible in evidence.
A perusal of the records shows that, while Isla was at the
Western Police District, Police Corporal Pablito Marasigan
immediately conducted an investigation, without providing her
with counsel of her choice, or advising her of her constitutional
rights.
It is clear that the law does not distinguish between
preliminary questions and questions during custodial
investigation, as any question asked of a person while under
detention, is considered as a question asked while under
custodial investigation. As ruled by the SC in the case
Gamboa v. Cruz the moment there is a move of the
investigator to elicit admissions or even plain information
from the suspect which may appear innocent or innocuous
at the time, the suspect should be assisted by counsel, unless
he waives his right, but the waiver should be made in writing
and in the presence of counsel.
In the case at bar, when P/Cpl. Marasigan started his
investigation without providing Isla with counsel of her choice,
the former violated her rights as enshrined in the Constitution
and it was only after he conducted an investigation on appellant
that P/Cpl. Marasigan summoned Atty. Domingo Joaquin of the
Citizens Legal Assistance Office and detailed at the Western
Police District as inquest lawyer, to assist the appellant in giving
a confession. On this basis, there is reason to believe appellant's
assertion that Atty. Joaquin did not assist her during the
investigation, inasmuch as the statement was already finished
and prepared before he arrived at the police station. Also Isla
was given a false promise that she will have her liberty after