PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELBERTO BASE, G.R. No. 109773, March 30, 2000, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J .
Nature of the case: This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Facts: Accused-appellant was among those indicted for urder with !irect Assault "pon a #erson #erson in Authority Authority.. $e% along with others% was charged for the death of &ulianito &ulianito Luna Tagle% a 'arangay Captain. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. After trial% the RTC found accused guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua based on his alleged e(tra-)udicial confession of the crime. $ence% the present appeal. Accused contends that his alleged *worn *tatement +e(tra-)udicial confession,% which was taen during the custodial inestigation% was inadmissible in eidence because it was e(ecuted in iolation of his constitutional rights% firstly his right to counsel of his own choice% and that he was not ade/uately assisted assisted by counsel during during his custodial inestigation. 0ssue: YES. !c"#"o$ !c"#"o$ A%%!a&! A%%!a&!' ' (ro) (ro) "# 1hethe 1hetherr the *worn *worn *tatem *tatement ent was admiss admissibl ible. e. +YES. A(("r)!'. , Ratio: *ection 23% Article 000 of the Constitution embodies the mandatory safeguards afforded a person under inestigation for the commission of a crime and the concomitant duty of the *tate and its agencies to enforce such mandate. *+#o *+#o'" '"a& a& I$!# I$!#" "a" a"o$/ o$/ Era Era+' +'"c "c"a& "a& *o$(! *o$(!##" ##"o$ o$#/ #/ R!+" R!+"#" #"!# !# - Numerous +34, decisions of this Court rule that for an e(tra)udicial confession to be admissible% it must be: 2., oluntary5 3., made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel5 6., e(press5 and 7., in writing. writing.+68, Sa)!2/ Ec&+#"o$ar R+&!/ Th! !c&+#"o$ar r+&! "# %r!)"#!' o$ h! %r!#+)%"o$ ha ha h! '!(!$ '!(!$'a$ 'a$ "# hr+ hr+# # "$o "$o a$ +$ +$(a (a)" )"&"a &"arr a)o# a)o#%h %h!r !r!! r+$$ r+$$"$ "$ hro hro+h +h )!$ac"$ %o&"c! "$!rroa"o$ %roc!'+r!# 4h!r! h! %o!$"a&" (or co)%+&#"o$, %h#"ca& or %#cho&o"ca& "# (orc!(+&& a%%ar!$. - The mantle of protection afforded by the aboe /uoted constitutional proision coers the period from the time a person is taen into custody for the inestigation of his possible participation in the commission of a crime or from the time he is singled out as a suspect in the commission of the offense although not yet in custody. custody.+62, The e(clusionary rule is premised on the presumption that the defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere running through menacing police interrogation procedures where the potentiality for compulsion% physical or psychological is forcefully apparent. apparent.+63,
Sa)!2/ R"h o co+$#!&/ 5h"&! h! r"h o co+$#!& "# "))+a6&!, h! o%"o$ o #!c+r! h! #!r"c!# o( co+$#!& de parte "# $o a6#o&+! - The rule is not intended as a deterrent to the accused from confessing guilt if he oluntarily and intelligently so desires but to protect the accused from admitting what he is coerced to admit although untrue. +66, 0t must be remembered in this regard that while the right to counsel is immutable% the option to secure the serices of counsel de parte is not absolute.+67, 0ndeed ( ( the word 9preferably9 under *ection 23 +2,% Article 6 of the 24; Constitution does not coney the message that the choice of a lawyer by a person under inestigation is e(clusie as to preclude other e/ually competent and independen t attorneys from handling his defense. 0f the rule were otherwise% then% the tempo of a custodial inestigation will be solely in the hands of the accused who can impede% nay% obstruct the progress of the interrogation by simply selecting a lawyer who for one reason or another% is not aailable to protect his interest. This absurd scenario could not hae been contemplated by the framers of the charter .
I$'"ca"o$ o( o&+$ar"$!# "$ h! ""$ o( #a!)!$# - 9bare assertions of maltreatment by the police authorities in e(tracting confessions from the accused are not sufficient in iew of the standing rule enunciated in the cases of People v. Mada-I Santalani;[52] People v. Balane;[53] and People v. Villanueva,[54] that where the deendant! did not pre!ent eviden"e o "o#pul!ion, or dure!! nor violen"e on their per!on; where the$ ailed to "o#plain to the oi"er who ad#ini!tered their oath!; where the$ did not in!titute an$ "ri#inal or ad#ini!trative a"tion a%ain!t their alle%ed inti#idator! or #altreat#ent; where there appeared to &e no #ar'! o violen"e on their &odie!; and where the$ did not have the#!elve! e(a#ined &$ a reputa&le ph$!i"ian to &uttre!! their "lai#, all these were considered by this Court as factors indicating oluntariness.9+??, + Sa)!3/ A &a4!r %ro"'!' 6 h! "$!#"aor# "# '!!)!' !$a!' 6 h! acc+#!' 4h!r! h! $!!r ra"#!' a$ o6!c"o$ aa"$# h! (or)!r# a%%o"$)!$ '+r"$ h! co+r#! o( h! "$!#"a"o$ a$' h! acc+#!' h!r!a(!r #+6#cr"6!# o h! !rac" o( h"# #a!)!$ 6!(or! h! #4!ar"$ o(("c!r . - 1hile the initial choice in cases where a person under custodial inestigation cannot afford the serices of a lawyer is naturally
lodged in the police inestigators% the accused really has the inal choice as he may re)ect the counsel chosen for him and as for another one. A lawyer proided by the inestigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he neer raised any ob)ection against the formers appointment during the course of the inestigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the eracity of his statement before the swearing officer.+6@, Sa)!3/ Th! co+$#!&, ho4!!r, should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. erily% to be an effectie counsel 9+a, lawyer need not challenge all the /uestions being propounded to his client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him but% rather% it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false.+6;, The counsel% howeer% !hould never prevent an a""u!ed ro# reel$ and voluntaril$ tellin% the truth.9+6, *r")"$a& &a4/ E"'!$c!/ Era8+'"c"a& *o$(!##"o$#/ *or%+# !&"c"/ E&!)!$# *ection 6% Rule 266 of the Rules of Court proides that 9+a,n e(tra)udicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for coniction% unless corroborated by eidence of "orpu! deli"ti.) 0n this case the prosecution presented other eidence to proe the two elements of "orpu! deli"ti, to wit: a., a certain result has been proen% i.e. a man has died5 and 3., some person is criminally responsible.+@@,
0n this case% it is indubitable that a crime has been committed and that the other pieces of prosecution eidence clearly show that accused-appellant had conspired with the other accused to commit the crime.+@;, 0n fact% he was seen by the prosecution witnesses in the company of his other coaccused. Furthermore% Atty. Romeo T. Reyes and the interrogator% *gt. Romulo ercado% testified to the oluntariness of his confession. 0n this regard% it must be stressed that the aforementioned rule merely re/uires that there should be some other eidence 9tendin% to show the commission of the crime apart from the confession.9+@, Sa)!/ 5or'# a$' Phra#!#/ *o$#%"rac !"## 4h!$ 4o or )or! %!r#o$# co)! o a$ ar!!)!$ co$!r$"$ h! co))"##"o$ o( a (!&o$ a$' '!c"'! o co))" ". Conspiracy is alleged in the information charging the accused-appellant of the crime. Conspiracy 9e(ists when two or more persons come to an agreement conerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. *ire"t proo i! not e!!ential, or "on!pira"$ #a$ &e inerred ro# the a"t! o the a""u!ed prior to, durin% or !u&!e+uent to the in"ident. *uch acts must point to a )oint purpose% concert of action or community of interest. en"e, the vi"ti# need not &e a"tuall$ hit &$ ea"h o the "on!pirator! or the a"t o one o the# i! dee#ed the a"t o all.) [] Sa)!/ M+r'!r/ Araa"$ *"rc+)#a$c!#/ E"'!$ Pr!)!'"a"o$/ E&!)!$#/ Th! o$!-4!! "$!ra& 4h!$ acc+#!'-a%%!&&a$ a$' h"# co-co$#%"raor# ("r# ca#!' h! "c")# ho+#! +% o h! ac+a& 'a! o( h! "&&"$ +$'!r#cor!# h! %r!#!$c! o( !"'!$ %r!)!'"a"o$. - The one-wee interal when accused-appellant and his co-conspirators
first cased the ictims house up to the actual date of the illing underscores the presence of eident premeditation. For this aggraating circumstance to be considered% there must be proof of the following elements thereof% i.e., 2., the time the offenders determined to commit the crime5 3., an act manifestly indicating that they clung to their determination5 and 6., a sufficient lapse of time between determination and e(ecution to allow reflection upon the conse/uences of the act.+;;,*d)ad Sa)!3/ Tr!ach!r/ Th! !##!$c! o( alevosia "# h! #4"( a$' +$!!c!' aac o$ h! +$ar)!' "c") 4"ho+ h! #&"h!# %rooca"o$ o$ h! "c")# %ar. :79;Th! (ac ha r!ach!r )a 6! #ho4$ "( h! "c") "# aac!' (ro) 6!h"$' 'o!# $o )!a$ " ca$ $o a&#o 6! a%%r!c"a!' "( h! aac "# (ro$a&& &a+$ch!'. - Treachery is also alleged in the information indicting the accused. There is treachery 9+w,hen the offender commits any of the crimes against persons% employing means% methods or forms in the e(ecution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its e(ecution without ris to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might mae.9+;,The essence of alevo!ia is the swift and une(ected attac on the unarmed ictim without the slightest proocation on the ictims part.+;4,The fact that treachery may be shown if the ictim is attaced from behind does not mean it can not also be appreciated if the attac is frontally launched.+8, Ben a frontal attac can be treacherous when it is sudden and the ictim is unarmed.+2, 0n this case% the suddenness of the shooting without the slightest proocation from the ictim who was unarmed and had no opportunity to defend himself% clearly /ualified the crime with treachery.+3,
- !igested +36 Noember 382;% 36:2,
