Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al.
S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64
this case when the latter allegedly executed their extra-judicial
confessions.
We are duty bound to raise to this Court’s attention, and it might also interest the
Court to note, that in the cases of People vs. Deniega and People vs. Suela where the
extra-judicial confessions of the accused were not admitted in evidence, all the accused
complained of torture and violence by the police investigators who extracted said
confessions from them. But more interestingly, in both cases, Atty. Confesor B. Sansano
and Atty Florimond Rous were the counsels who assisted the confessants.
In fact, the incompetence of both Atty. Sansano and Atty. Rous to serve as
assisting counsels for the suspects brought to their office was already noted by this Court
in these cases. In People vs. Deniega, the Court wrote:
A thorough reading of the transcripts of the testimonies
of the two lawyers, Atty. Sansano and Atty. Rous, indicates that
they appeared less as agents of the accused during the alleged
investigation than they were agents of the police authorities. In
the case before us, it was the police authorities who brought the
accused, handcuffed, to the IBP headquarters where the services
of the lawyers were supposedly “engaged.” No details of the
actual assistance rendered during the interrogation process were
furnished or alleged during the entire testimony of the lawyers in
open court. The bulk of the lawyers’ oral testimonies merely
gave the trial court assurance that they supposedly explained to
the appellants their constitutional rights, that the signatures
present were their signatures and those of the accused, and that
the accused agreed to having the lawyers assist them during the
process of custodial investigation. (People vs. Deniega, 251
SCRA 627, 635)
In People vs. Suela, the Court again had the opportunity to comment on Atty.
Sansano’s lack of proper understanding of his role as counsel for a suspect during a
custodial investigation.
“Evidently, Atty. Sansano did not understand the exact
nature of appellants’ rights to counsel and to remain silent during
their custodial investigations. He viewed a refusal to answer as
an obstruction in the investigation. This shows that he was
incapable or unwilling to advise appellants that remaining silent
was a right they could freely exercise without fear of any
untoward consequence. As counsel, he could have stopped his
clients from answering the propounded questions and advised
them of their right to remain silent, if they preferred to do so.
That the process of investigation could have been “obstructed”
Page 75 of 127
75