Case Digest: People vs. Januario, G.R. No. 98252, February 7, 1997

                             Rule 115: Rights of the Accused  | Criminal Procedure

                           Extra-judicial Confession

Facts (Recit Version):

Rene Januario and Efren Canape were found guilty of violating the Anti-Carnapping Law and sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua.

The case involved the theft and carnapping of an Isuzu passenger jeepney with plate number DFB-550 owned by Doris and Victor Wolf. The incident occurred on September 4, 1987, in Barangay Bulihan, Silang, Cavite, resulting in the death of the driver, Geronimo Malibago, and the conductor, Andrew Patriarca Jr.

Myrna Temporas and Vicente Dilanco Pons were involved in the sale and collateralization of the stolen jeepney. Santiago Cid had approached Pons to find a buyer for the jeepney. Pons offered the jeepney for sale to Myrna Temporas, who paid P48,500. Temporas later discovered that the jeepney was stolen and filed a complaint with the NBI.

The NBI investigation revealed that the carnapping and killings were carried out by a group consisting of Rene Januario, Efren Canape, Eliseo Sarita alias Toto, and Eduardo Sarinos alias Digo. The NBI arrested Januario, Canape, and Cid, while Sarita and Sarinos remained at large.

Statements and testimonies from witnesses, including Myrna Temporas, NBI agents, and others, provided evidence linking the accused to the crime. Januario provided a statement detailing his involvement in the crime, including the abduction and killing of the victims.

Atty. Carlos Saunar was asked to assist the appellants during the investigation. Atty. Saunar joined the NBI in May or June 1988. On March 1988, while still in private practice, he was at the NBI head office handling a client case when Atty. Vela, an NBI agent, approached him, to assist the appellants.

Saunar identified his signature on appellant Januario's sworn statement but couldn't recall if he signed Canape's statement. The purpose of Saunar's testimony was clarified as rebuttal evidence against Cid and additional evidence/rebuttal against the appellants.

Issue:

WoN the extra-judicial confessions of the appellants are inadmissible in evidence for having been extracted in violation of their constitutional right to counsel.

Contention:

Januario contends that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence his sworn statement before the NBI and the testimony of Atty. Saunar as rebuttal or additional witness after the prosecution had rested its case, he had filed his memorandum, and the decision had been scheduled for promulgation.

Held: YES. Rene Januario and Efren Canape acquitted.

Proof of Saunar's presence during the custodial investigation of appellants is, however, not a guarantee that appellants' respective confessions had been taken in accordance with Article III, Section 12 (1) of the Constitution. This constitutional provision requires that a person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have no less than "competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice."

We find that Saunar was not the choice of appellant Januario as his custodial investigation counsel.

Let us for the moment grant arguendo that Saunar's competence as a lawyer is beyond question. Under the circumstances described by the prosecution however, he could not have been the independent counsel solemnly spoken of by our Constitution. He was an applicant for a position in the NBI and therefore it can never be said that his loyalty was to the confessants. In fact, he was actually employed by the NBI a few months after. As regards appellant Januario, Saunar might have really been around to properly apprise appellant of his constitutional right as reflected in the written sworn statement itself.

However, the same cannot be said about appellant Canape. Clearly, he was not properly informed of his constitutional rights. Perfunctorily informing a confessant of his constitutional rights, asking him if he wants to avail of the services of counsel and telling him that he could ask for counsel if he so desires or that one could be provided him at his request, are simply not in compliance with the constitutional mandate. In this case, appellant Canape was merely told of his constitutional rights and posthaste, asked whether he was willing to confess. His affirmative answer may not, by any means, be interpreted as a waiver of his right to counsel of his own choice.

Appellant Canape's sworn statement, which reads and sounds so lifeless on paper, fails to reflect compliance with this requirement. Neither does the aforequoted testimony of NBI Agent Toribio. Bearing in mind that appellant Canape reached only the fifth grade, the NBI agents should have exerted more effort in explaining to him his constitutional rights.

Moreover, there is enough reason to doubt whether appellant Canape was in fact and in truth assisted by counsel .Atty. Saunar affirmed on the witness stand that he assisted appellants on March 28, 1988. However, the sworn statement itself reveals that it was taken on March 27, 1988.No satisfactory explanation was made by the prosecution on this discrepancy. All that Agent Vela stated was that they conducted an oral investigation in Naga City on March 27, 1988 and that investigation at the NBI Manila head office was made in the afternoon of March 28, 1988.

It is therefore clear that prior to the execution of the sworn statements at the NBI head office, appellants had already made verbal admissions of complicity in the crime. Verbal admissions, however, should also be made with the assistance of counsel.

That appellants indeed admitted participation in the commission of the crime in Naga City is shown by the fact that the NBI agents brought them to Manila to facilitate apprehension of the other culprits who could be either in Cavite or Manila. Because their uncounselled oral admissions in Naga City resulted in the execution of their written confessions in Manila, the latter had become as constitutionally infirm as the former.