CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. VIRGINIA MATOS-VIDUYA. G.R. No. L-60025. September 11, 1990

FACTS:

Respondent in this case was charged with the crime of Parricide for allegedly killing and stabbing her husband Atty. Jose Viduya.

Upon investigation, respondent executed her first salaysay contending that 2 men robbed their house and entered their room while they were sleeping. One man pointed a knife on her while the other man was stabbing her husband. In her second salaysay, respondent contended that one of the malefactor was their former employee and she identified him as certain Edito Pateno. However, later that day after giving her second salaysay, respondent executed her extrajudicial confession admitting that she killed her husband, but she claimed that she was merely acted in self defense. The facts show that the extrajudicial confession was signed by the accused having the understanding that the presence of Assistant Fiscal Domingo Mendoza in the  custodial investigation was enough when she was asked and given miranda warnings. 

Despite such confession, respondent pleaded not guilty during the arraignment and contented during trial that it is Melanio Cambel, their family driver, and Edito Pateno who robbed their house and that Cambel is the one who stabbed her husband.

She also claimed that she was misled in signing the extrajudicial confession and it is made without assistance of counsel. 

ISSUE:

Whether the extrajudicial confession made by the accused is valid and admissible. 

RULING:

No. The extrajudicial confession executed by the accused is not admissible. Art. III, Sec. 12(1) of the Constitution requires the presence of competent and independent counsel during custodial investigation of the accused. It requires one who will effectively undertake his client's defense without any intervening conflict of interest. As an Assistant fiscal, Mendoza cannot exercise the function of defense counsel even during custodial investigation. To allow such a happening would render illusory the protection given to the accused during custodial investigation.

Moreover, the answer of the accused when she was given a Miranda warning, that the presence of Assistant Fiscal Mendoza is enough so that she didn't need a lawyer indicated that she did not fully understand her rights in custodial investigation. Thus, it cannot be said that she knowingly and intelligently waived those rights.