Case Digest: People vs. Bandula, G.R. No. 89223, May 27, 1994

                             Rule 115: Rights of the Accused  | Criminal Procedure

                           Extra-judicial Confession

Facts (Recit Version):

Juanito Garay, a lawyer, and his wife were hog-tied and their house was ransacked. Garay was found dead with three gunshot wounds.

Aurelio Bandula, Pantaleon Sedigo, Teofilo Dionanao, and Victoriano Ejan were charged with robbery with homicide. Aurelio Bandula was found guilty for the crime of  robbery with homicide. However, his three co-accused were acquitted "for insufficiency of evidence."

Six armed men, including the accused, entered the Polo Coconut Plantation and committed the crimes. Security Guard Antonio Salva identified the accused as part of the armed group.

The accused ransacked the house of Juanito Garay and took money and valuables. Pastrano and Salva, who were tied up, heard gunshots and later found Juanito Garay's lifeless body.

The trial court ruled that the alleged extrajudicial confessions of accused Bandula and Dionanao, stating they were forced to participate in the crime by "Boy Tall" and "Boy Short," were admissible as evidence. The confessions were obtained during custodial investigation and were deemed to have met all the requirements for admissibility. The accused were informed of their rights during the investigation and were represented by counsel.

Issue:

WoN the extrajudicial confessions are inadmissible in evidence considering that they were extracted under duress and intimidation, and were merely countersigned later by the municipal attorney who, by the nature of his position, was not entirely an independent counsel nor counsel of their choice.

Held: YES. Aurelio Bandula acquitted.

Admissions obtained during custodial interrogations without the benefit of counsel although later reduced to writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the Constitution.

The Constitution also requires that counsel be independent. Obviously, he cannot be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused. 

Granting that Atty. Zerna assisted accused Dionanao and Bandula when they executed their respective extrajudicial confessions, still their confessions are inadmissible in evidence considering that Atty. Zerna does not qualify as an independent counsel. As a legal officer of the municipality, he provides legal assistance and support to the mayor and the municipality in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people, including the maintenance of peace and order. It is thus seriously doubted whether he can effectively undertake the defense of the accused without running into conflict of interests. He is no better than a fiscal or prosecutor who cannot represent the accused during custodial investigations. 

What is most upsetting however is the allegation of the four (4) accused that they were mauled into owning the crime. Based on the records, we are strongly drawn to the belief that violence indeed attended the extraction of statements from the accused.

This Court is greatly disturbed with the way the accused were treated or maltreated. In fine, we cannot accept the extrajudicial confessions of the accused and use the same against them or any of them. Where there is doubt as to their voluntariness, the same must be rejected in toto.