Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al.
S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64
It is only when a suspect says that he does not have a lawyer that one should be
provided him by the government. In this case, the police officers simply forced upon Joel
de Jesus the services of Atty. Confesor B. Sansano. Thus it was the police and not Joel de
Jesus who engaged the services of this counsel.
SPO2 Jose Garcia, Jr., the police investigator presented by the prosecution,
confirmed through his testimony that he did not ask Joel de Jesus whether he had any
lawyer of his own choice. (TSN, October 1, 1996, p. 89-90) Instead, the police officers
only had Atty. Confesor B. Sansano in mind. It was they who brought the suspect to the
IBP Office. And in fact, even at the IBP office, where there was a lady lawyer when they
arrived together with Atty. Florimond Rous, these police officers never bothered to check
the possibility of letting Joel de Jesus confer with the lady lawyer but instead waited for
Atty. Sansano to arrive. (TSN, Testimony of P/Insp. Rogelio Castillo, August 15, 1996,
pp. 132-139).
The testimony of P/Insp. Rogelio Castillo is also very revealing about the choice
of counsel. When asked whether he is aware of R.A. 7438, he answered that “As far as
the provision of the law is concerned, I did comply and I did my part because I secured
the services of counsel.” (TSN, August 15, 1996, p. 46). It is therefore clear that it was
the police officers who secured the counsel for the accused. Police officers are not
supposed to secure the services of counsel for the accused. This alone, is again an
indicator that the counsel who assisted the suspect when he purportedly executed his
extra-judicial confession was never the counsel of choice by the suspect. In People vs.
Deniega, the Court pronounced:
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
Page 68 of 127
68