Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 402 views

    PP v. Obrero

    Uploaded by

    Ces Camello
    The accused-appellant challenged the admissibility of his extrajudicial confession, which was used to convict him of robbery with homicide. The Supreme Court ruled the confession inadmissible because the accused was not provided with independent counsel during his custodial investigation, as required by the Constitution. Specifically, the attorney who assisted him was the station commander of the police force investigating the case, and therefore could not be considered sufficiently independent. Furthermore, the Miranda warnings given to the accused were deemed inadequate as they failed to properly inform him of his right to counsel. As such, the accused's conviction was reversed and he was acquitted.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PP v. Obrero

    Uploaded by

    Ces Camello
    402 views3 pages
    The accused-appellant challenged the admissibility of his extrajudicial confession, which was used to convict him of robbery with homicide. The Supreme Court ruled the confession inadmissible because the accused was not provided with independent counsel during his custodial investigation, as required by the Constitution. Specifically, the attorney who assisted him was the station commander of the police force investigating the case, and therefore could not be considered sufficiently independent. Furthermore, the Miranda warnings given to the accused were deemed inadequate as they failed to properly inform him of his right to counsel. As such, the accused's conviction was reversed and he was acquitted.

    Original Title

    Pp v. Obrero

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The accused-appellant challenged the admissibility of his extrajudicial confession, which was used to convict him of robbery with homicide. The Supreme Court ruled the confession inadmissible because the accused was not provided with independent counsel during his custodial investigation, as required by the Constitution. Specifically, the attorney who assisted him was the station commander of the police force investigating the case, and therefore could not be considered sufficiently independent. Furthermore, the Miranda warnings given to the accused were deemed inadequate as they failed to properly inform him of his right to counsel. As such, the accused's conviction was reversed and he was acquitted.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    402 views3 pages

    PP v. Obrero

    Uploaded by

    Ces Camello
    The accused-appellant challenged the admissibility of his extrajudicial confession, which was used to convict him of robbery with homicide. The Supreme Court ruled the confession inadmissible because the accused was not provided with independent counsel during his custodial investigation, as required by the Constitution. Specifically, the attorney who assisted him was the station commander of the police force investigating the case, and therefore could not be considered sufficiently independent. Furthermore, the Miranda warnings given to the accused were deemed inadequate as they failed to properly inform him of his right to counsel. As such, the accused's conviction was reversed and he was acquitted.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    333. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

    JIMMY OBRERO y CORLA - RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION - Independent Counsel - Ces Camello May 17, 2000

    FACTS: Accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession was presented in evidence for a Robbery with Homicide case against him. In it, accused-appellant said his work was to deliver dressed chicken. Emma Cabrera was a regular customer to whom he made deliveries in the morning. One day, his fellow employee (Ronie), proposed that they rob Emma in order to be able to go to La Union to visit his family. After learning that only two helpers were then at the residence of Emma Cabrera, accused-appellant and Ronie decided to pull the heist. Ronnie covered the mouth of one of the maids to prevent her from shouting but, as she tried to run away, Ronnie stabbed and killed her. Ronnie then gave the knife to accused-appellant who stabbed the younger maid from which she died. Thereafter, the two proceeded to Blumentritt Street and divided the money Ronnie had taken from the house of Emma Cabrera. From Blumentritt Street, Ronnie went to La Union, while accused-appellant proceeded to Pangasinan. The extrajudicial confession is in Tagalog and signed by accused-appellant in the presence of Atty. De los Reyes, a PC Captain of the WPD Headquarters, U.N. Avenue, Manila. He said that while he was at Station 7 of the WPD, representing a client accused of illegal recruitment, he was asked by Lt. Javier of the WPD Homicide Section to assist accusedexecuting an extrajudicial confession. According to Atty. De los Reyes, he apprised accused-appellant of his constitutional rights, explaining to him that any statement made by him could be used against him in court, but accused-appellant said he was willing to give a statement as in fact he did, confessing to the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide. RTC convicted accused-appelant for Robbery with Homicide. Accused-appellant assails the validity of this extrajudicial confession which forms the basis of his conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide. He claims that Atty. De los Reyes, who assisted him in executing his confession, was not the counsel of his own choice. That was the reason, he said, he refused to sign the booking and information sheet. He said he signed the extrajudicial confession five times as a sign that it was involuntarily executed by him.

    ISSUE: WON the accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence.

    HELD: No. The accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence because of absence of independent

    counsel.

    Art. III, 12 of the Constitution provides in pertinent parts: (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

    Art. III, 12(1) requires that counsel assisting suspects in custodial interrogations be competent and independent. Here, accused-appellant was assisted by Atty. De los Reyes, who, though presumably competent, cannot be considered an "independent counsel" as contemplated by the law for the reason that he was station commander of the WPD at the time he assisted accused-appellant. The independent counsel required by Art. III, 12(1) 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 the WPD, was part of the police force who could not be expected to have effectively and scrupulously assisted accused-appellant in the investigation, his claim to the contrary notwithstanding. To allow such a happenstance would render illusory the protection given to the suspect during custodial investigation. ***** Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing the declarant's consent in executing the same has been vitiated, such confession will be sustained. The confession contains details that only the perpetrator of the crime could have given. The details are consistent with the medico-legal findings that the wounds sustained by the two victims were possibly caused by one and the same bladed weapon. It has been held that voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its being replete with details which could possibly be supplied only by the accused, reflecting spontaneity and coherence which cannot be said of a mind on which violence and torture have been applied. When the details narrated in an extrajudicial confession are such that they could not have been concocted by one who did not take part in the acts narrated, where the claim of maltreatment in

    the extraction of the confession is unsubstantiated and where abundant evidence exists showing that the statement was voluntarily executed, the confession is admissible against the declarant. There is greater reason for finding a confession to be voluntary where it is corroborated by evidence aliunde which dovetails with the essential facts contained in such confession. But what renders the confession of accused-appellant inadmissible is the fact that accused-appellant was not given the Miranda warnings effectively. Under the Constitution, an uncounseled statement, such as it is called in the United States from which Art. III, 12(1) was derived, is presumed to be psychologically coerced. Swept into an unfamiliar environment and surrounded by intimidating figures typical of the atmosphere of police interrogation, the suspect really needs the guiding hand of counsel. Now, under the first paragraph of this provision, it is required that the suspect in custodial interrogation 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. There was thus only a perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights to accused-appellant without any effort to find out from him whether he wanted to have counsel and, if so, whether he had his own counsel or he wanted the police to appoint one for him. This kind of giving of warnings, in several decisions of this Court, has been found to be merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect. Especially in this case, care should have been scrupulously observed by the police investigator that accused-appellant was specifically asked these questions considering that he only finished the fourth grade of the elementary school. Indeed, as stated in People v. Januario: Ideally, therefore, a lawyer engaged for an individual facing custodial investigation (if the latter could not afford one) should be engaged by the accused (himself), or by the latter's relative or person authorized by him to engage an attorney or by the court, upon proper petition of the accused or person authorized by the accused to file such petition. Lawyers engaged by the police, whatever testimonials are given as proof of their probity and supposed independence, are generally suspect, as in many areas, the relationship between lawyers and law enforcement authorities can be symbiotic. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, convicting accusedappellant Jimmy Obrero y Corla of the crime of robbery with homicide is REVERSED and accused-appellant is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.

    You might also like