Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al.
S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64
reasonably at every turn of the investigation, and stopping the
interrogation once in a while either to give advice to the accused
that he may either continue, choose to remain silent or terminate
the interview.” (People vs. Deniega, 251 SCRA 627, 638)
The prosecution tried to show the court that the assisting counsel was present all
throughout the investigation until the confessant signed the document transcribing the
latter’s alleged confession. Yet a very glaring proof tells the court that this was not so.
The investigation ended at 5:55 p.m. as appearing in the document itself (Exhibit E-6)
and as confirmed by SPO2 Garcia twice on cross-examination (TSN, September 25,
1996, p. 76, October 1, 1996, pp. 33-34) but the signature of Joel de Jesus was affixed at
5:00 p.m., (Exh. E-6-5 and E-6-6) a physical impossibility since the document could not
have been signed before the taking of the statement was even finished.
That the document was signed even before it was finished does not only point to
an impossibility, but indicates a serious irregularity in the taking of the statement. It
means that the affiant was not given any chance to read the statement before he signed it.
It also means that the affiant was not given proper advice by counsel before he was made
to sign the document.
The length of time that Joel and Atty. Sansano conferred prior to the alleged
taking of the confession and the discrepancy between the time that the investigation
allegedly ended and the time it was signed point out that the assisting counsel, if indeed
he assisted the suspect at the time the confession was purportedly taken, rendered a
meaningless assistance in the light of what this Court has ruled in People vs. Deniega as
follows:
The desired role of counsel in the process of custodial
investigation is rendered meaningless if the lawyer merely gives
perfunctory advice as opposed to a meaningful advocacy of the
rights of the person undergoing questioning. If the advice given
is so cursory as to be useless, voluntariness is impaired. If the
lawyer’s role is reduced to being that of a mere witness to the
signing of a pre-prepared document albeit indicating therein
compliance with the accused’s constitutional rights, the
constitutional standard guaranteed by Article III, Section 12(1) is
not met. The process above-described fulfills the prophylactic
purpose of the constitutional provision by avoiding “the
Page 70 of 127
70