CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JIMMY OBRERO. G.R. No. 122142. MAY 17, 2000

FACTS:

Respondent Obrero in this case was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. Obrero was a delivery boy employed by one Angie Cabosas whose business was selling chickens to customers. In August 11, 1989, Obrero was asked by Cabosas to deliver dressed chicken to Emma Cabrera, one of their regular costumers.  Later that day  2 maids of Cabrera were found dead at her unit and the cash amounting to P4,000 were taken away by the robbers. Witness Anita de los Reyes testified to the police that she saw respondents running down the stairs of the building where Cabrera's unit is located and their hands were covered with blood.

Police arrested Obrero in Pangasinan where he was hiding and brought to Manila for identification by witness. He was positively identified by the witness. On that same day, Obrero made extrajudicial confession of his participation with the crime. He was assisted by Atty. Bienvenido De Los Reyes, who happened to be in the station 7 of the WPD, representing a client for illegal recruitment case. Atty. de los Reyes is the PC Captain and Station Commander of the WPD. Atty.

On trial, however, the accused denied the commission of the crime  and claimed that the extrajudicial confession was obtained involuntary, as he was beaten up and detained for weeks. He also denied having known Atty. de los Reyes. He claimed that he did not know the contents of the extrajudicial confession because he did not know how to read.

ISSUE:

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

RULING:

No. The court explained that there are two kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions treated under Art. III, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

1. Those which are the product of third degree methods such as torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, which are dealt with in paragraph 2 of Section 12; and

2. Those which are given without the benefit of Miranda warnings, which are the subject of paragraph 1 of Section 12.

In this case, having no proof of involuntary confessions through force and violence, the claim of respondent using that ground cannot be given merit. However, the court found the second kind of involuntary confessions as the one having application in this case. The court held that extrajudicial confession made by the accused was obtained without the benefit of Miranda Doctrine. 

Under paragraph 1 of Sec. 12, the law required that the suspect in custodial investigation must be given the following warnings:

1. He must be informed of his right to remain silent;

2. He must be warned that anything he says can and will be used against him; and 

3. He must be told that he has a right to counsel, and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.

These warnings were inadequately transmitted to the accused. What the authorities did were just the reading of these warning to the accused. Although in some cases decided by the court, the Miranda warnings have been found to be merely ceremonial, a care should have been scrupulously observed by the police in this case considering that the accused only finished 4th grade.

Aside from these, the counsel who assisted the accused is not actually an independent counsel. The law required that an independent counsel cannot be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, municipal attorney, or counsel of the police whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused. In this case, Atty. de los Reyes, as PC Captain and Station Commander of WPD, was part of the police force who could not be expected to have effectively assisted the accused in the investigation.