Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 law enforcement authorities can be symbiotic. (People vs. Deniega, 251 SCRA 627, ___) If indeed Atty. Sansano conferred with Joel de Jesus before taking the statement, he did so for only about 5 minutes (TSN, September 25, 1996, p. 126-128). In People vs. Suela, this Court, in holding that the extra-judicial confession therein of Edgardo Batocan was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, pronounced, “This appellant did not finish first year high school. Yet, Atty. Rous, who is touted by the prosecution as a competent and independent counsel, interviewed Batocan – before the latter gave his confession – for only around “five minutes.”” (373 SCRA 163, 182-183). This is not enough time to apprise a suspect of his constitutional rights and afford him a meaningful understanding of the consequences of his waiver of those rights. As this Court has said: The right to be informed of one’s constitutional rights during custodial investigation refers to an effective communication between the investigating officer and the suspected individual, with the purpose of making the latter understand these rights. Understanding would mean that the information transmitted was effectively received and comprehended. Hence, the Constitution does not merely require the investigation officers to “inform” the person under investigation; rather, it requires that the latter be “informed.” (People vs. Muleta, 309 SCRA 148, 162). Aside from failing to effectively inform Joel de Jesus of his constitutional rights, Atty. Sansano, if indeed he was present during the alleged taking of the extra-judicial confession, failed to protect the rights of the accused, not only at the inception of the formal investigation but also during its progress and until the suspect was made to sign the document. That a person under custodial investigation must be properly and effectively assisted by a competent and independent counsel was explained fully by this Court when it wrote: “Conditions vary at every stage of the process of custodial investigation. What may satisfy constitutional requirements of voluntariness at the investigation’s onset may not be sufficient as the investigation goes on. There would be denial of the right to the assistance of competent and independent counsel if the investigation or […] during the process of signing. The competent and independent lawyer so engaged should be present from the beginning to end, i.e., at all stages of the interview, counseling or advising caution Page 69 of 127 69
Page 1 and 2:
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 67: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127:
show all

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?